Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 12:10 UTC

Re: The Asgardian CJS on Necrophilia  

Desires are urges.

Urges come in many shapes and colors and not all urges should be acted upon.

Giving in to every urge that pops into our mind (or heart) is a surefire way toward chaos and anarchy. As individuals, we need to have rules for ourselves in order to control our urges to participate in society as a whole. If your urges are uncontrollable, or you choose not to control them, then you have no right or claim to discrimination because your behavior is more akin to a beast than a human being.

If you believe society should change, then you act to make society more tolerant, as the homosexuals have been doing since the 1950s (as you put it). If you can get popular opinion in your favor, then you would no longer be marginalized for your desires.


Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 12:13 UTC

And until society becomes more tolerant, I shall not quell my urges, for that would mean denying what I feel

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 12:15 UTC

Then I fear that it is your lack of self-control that causes you to be marginalized, not just the deed itself. I do not expect that will change in Asgardia.


Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 12:21 UTC

I would not commit such acts on Asgardia, as I would not be able to get away with it, which is my main factor in deciding whether to commit a crime. If it is a suitability low level of being detected, I would commit a crime, but as Asgardia would be so guarded, I could not commit such a thing.

May 3, 17 / Gem 11, 01 18:29 UTC

I respect your opinion, but I desagree, human bodies of the decease are not a toys . Must be treat with respect.

Jun 24, 17 / Leo 07, 01 05:50 UTC

Technically, if it's a cyborg with previously living tissue grown from a human host who is legally declared deceased, this might actually be a legitimate legal question someday.

Dec 6, 17 / Cap 04, 01 08:20 UTC

It's apparent that the opinions being posted in this thread aren't in line with the petitions being supported. Either those are being done by different sets of people or (what in my opinion is more likely) people haven't given a good minute of thought to the positions they support.

One of the highest supported petitions ever in Asgardian history is the one about development of cyborgs and androids. Apparently Asgardians support that one. Suppose the technology were ready today, suppose I were to leave my mortal body behind and take just my brain with me to a body that is faster, stronger, imune to biological viruses, made of a light but resistant alloy. Suppose such an operation was so simple that I could perform it at home, with the use of a 3d printer, all by myself. What could possibly stop me from doing whatever I want with my mortal remains? Laws alone. And what would be the use of such laws when the only reason not to commit the act itself are said laws?

This is at best circular reasoning. I won't do it because the laws are against it but the laws are against it because...? The body's previous "host" (ie, me) won't mind it, nobody would know I'm transitioning into a robotic body. If we start controlling urges just to "avoid chaos and anarchy" then we can stop any urge we want, but some want to be arbitrary and hand-pick what urges lead to anarchy and what urges are completely alright. We don't have urges that leadt to chaos and urges that are ok. We might have urges that are harmful and urges that are not. The situation I described would be harmless and yet some will insist on making excuses to forbid it. I'm of the opinion that dictatorship of the majority should be avoided in Asgardia. If 51% of our people think we should forbid others from hugging their mothers because it's unseemly according to religion x, I'll continue to defend the minority's right to do so, even I myself have no mother, even if I'm of religion x and think it's unseemly.

  Updated  on Dec 6, 17 / Cap 04, 01 11:11 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Jan 30, 18 / Pis 02, 02 12:31 UTC

lol necrophilia! what's then? pedophilia?  and then what? tacophilia? Its insane. Anybody can do anything with there own body. ONLY

Jan 31, 18 / Pis 03, 02 00:15 UTC

I suspect that for any space colony to be viable, there will need to be a major emphasis on recycling all organic materials. I suspect that any dead bodies would need to be recycled/composted very soon after death - keeping human remains (even if they are your own) is likely to be looked on as a  theft of community resources. 

May 2, 18 / Gem 10, 02 01:44 UTC


I think the point of why necrophilia is not liked generally has not been stated. Most people don't care if it's sanitary, or strange, or even whether or not it should be classifies as a mental illness (some psychologist still argue this).

The issue is an ethical conundrum. Many people believe that sexual intercorse with a corpse is considered desecration of the body and/or grave. Many have spiritual or religious reasons for why desecration is wrong, which is why it has been added as an issue in criminal laws around the world. It is generally thought of as appalling to many people to think about the possibility of their dead friend's/family member's body being used for sexual purposes. That is why necrophilia is made a crime in some countries. It is a protection of the once-person, the person they used to be and their reputations and relations in their life.

I, for one, feel that the dead should be cared for in respect for their spiritual or religious beliefs. Aside from that, I don't know exactly what to think. There will always be someone who says, "That used to be somebody's daughter/dad/boyfriend/aunt/bestfriend/etc!" It doesn't matter if they knew the person, or if they are being empathetic. There will always be someone who makes an attachment or relation to a body and thinks about who they were. Alas, there isn't anything we can do about that. If we take all the feelings out of the issue, make it unbiased, then it's just a body. Mother Earth or an animal would eat it without care for who they were. So, I guess I would like to keep an unbiased ruling on such a law, but with the option of spiritual or religious rights to override it.

Jun 9, 18 / Can 20, 02 03:55 UTC

Honestly, I am surprised to see this post here, even though I shouldn't be. 

The basis behind it comes from both an ethical standpoint and a religious standpoint. Let us take religion out of the picture for the moment due to the fact that we are providing equal opportunity for everyone, regardless of religion, sex, race, etc. 

Logically speaking: if robotics do not advance to where you can use your own body, what then? Obviously we are not going to try and be prejudice against someones needs; everyone's synapses fire at different speeds and everyone is different regardless. But in order to fulfill your needs as a person, this would involve desecrating someone else's body. 

There is, and I can say this with almost upmost certainty, no one that would actually be willing to part with a corpse for such a thing, as it falls in that dark grey area of the moral scaling. While the soul may not be there, the body is still something that is not yours, dead or alive. That would involve owning someone as a possession, which if you haven't noticed, is a no go. 

Thus the only way to fulfill said needs would be the following:

-Purposely desecrating corpses after the fact, most likely contradicting the families requests. Be it via a morgue or some other storage place, the overall logic is to say no because that is completely wrong. The idea behind why is not to infringe on your basic rights as a human, but to RESPECT those who have passed and those still living in relation to the deceased. If you can figure out how to get it from them? Sure, whatever. Unlikely but sure.

-Creating your own. Which at this point... you should know the rest of this spiel.