Talk:Necrophilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Snow White?

some version(s) of Snow White (and other Fairy tales) may feature (some degrees of) necrophilia. One or more variant suggests the Prince believes she is dead and falls in love with her... Does that count?

K61824 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Necrophilia in Fiction

This section was getting clogged up with all sorts of examples. I made new categories: Necrophilia in Art, Film, Music, and cleaned up the existing Fiction category. It would make sense to clean up the popular culture category next and move some of its items to the other, more precise categories (film etc).

Supervert 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you all understood "A Rose For Emily." FYI www.anus.com 12:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Necrophilia in the arts

I added most of this section a while ago:

Romantic connections between love and death are a frequent theme in Western artistic expression. The Shakespeare tragedy Romeo and Juliet ends with the young lovers united in death. Edgar Allen Poe once described the death of a beautiful young woman to be one of the most beautiful images. (By this, he was not saying that it is a good thing for young women to die; to him melancholy and pain were sources of beauty.) Many alternative rock artists also focus on the connection between romantic love and death, despair, and the occult; in Europe, the most notable example is Him, and more generally the artists of the love metal movement. A comparable American analogue might be Stabbing Westward, a gothic rock band whose songs dealt with despair, drug abuse, sexual abuse, death, and romantic love, often in conjunction.

None of this is necrophilia; the Western connection between love and death described here has nothing to do with the paraphilia itself. Most of this "Necrophilia in the arts" material is therefore, technically, inappropriate. What are your thoughts on moving this material to a page Love and death in the arts, or something of the sort? EventHorizon talk 22:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, none of this is really relevant to necrophilia as such. I think it should be moved to another page (although I'm not sure where exactly). --Batneil 20:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Not sure. All I know is that no such genre as "love metal" exists, despite the recurring efforts of HIM fans to make wikipedia articles claiming it is. So, I guess that would make the statement double-inaccurate (not only is what the people do not singing about necrophilia, but the people in question don't really exist)? The Literate Engineer 17:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Necrophilia: technical point

Necrophilia is a sexual attraction to nonresponsive or incapactitated persons, not just dead people. Most chemical date rapists are necrophiliacs. However, some necrophiliacs do have sex with corpses; that's an unignorable (and sensationalizable) subset of the larger group. EventHorizon talk 22:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then why not just put it into the article yourself rather than just telling the discussion page? --Eboluuuh 04:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Burke

Does this paragraph have any efficacy at all? I mean, as it stood it sounded like some juvenile prank. I formalised the language a little, but I honestly think that it's bogus. Anyone? Brother Dysk 03:29, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, it's been deleted as vandalism. I'm happy with that. Brother Dysk 10:22, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mouse Photograph

The photograph of the mouse mounting a dead mouse looks like it has been faked. First of all, there is no lettering on the trap indicating the manufacturer. All of the mousetraps that I have purchased in the past have manufacturing identification (name, trademark, patent number, nation of origin, etc.) Secondly, there is no attribution regarding the photographer, nor copyright information regarding the photograph. This photograph does nothing to enhance the credibiity of the article and is in my humble opinion, in poor taste.

I vote we just get rid of it. If there are any objections, post them here, otherwise expect it to disappear. Brother Dysk 02:47, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
1) the photograph was taken by my friend who wishes to keep his name off of it, since it would ruin his name as a "professional" journalist (for the record he works for a news station in Boston). 2) He has released it to GFDL so copyright information IS ON THE IMAGE. 3) it is most definately not fake. The lettering is UNDERNEATH the bottom mouse. 4) the "credibility" of the article is not in question. Hell in 2005 a scientist recieved an Ig Nobel prize for his research of "homosexual necrophiliac ducks".  ALKIVAR™ 07:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

be real. the image is a fake, and the aforementioned Ig Nobel Prize is a comedy parody of the Nobel Prize.

Regardless, the image is in poor taste (in my opinion, and that of the above poster, at any rate) and does not contribute significantly to the article. In addition, the captioning of the picture merely tosses an unexplained fact, which is not in the article body. I fail to see any reason to keep this image. Brother Dysk 14:26, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I like the image, keep. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:50, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
Keep the image.

On what evidence is the claim that the photo is faked based on? Tiberius47 08:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the image is totally inappropriate for this article. It clarifies nothing, appears faked, and in very poor taste. Joyous 22:39, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

the image and adjoining article are both extremely obscene and not wikipedia material, this sort of thing is more suited to the encyclopedia dramatica. NeoVampTrunks 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; the photo's nature is superbly unique and it's great that Wikipedia has a free image of such rare and interesting activity. Wikipedia is not censored, per WP:NPOV. JayW 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a decent picture. Skinnyweed 20:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I vote to keep it. --Nargrakhan 01:37, 27 July

2006 (UTC) be real. the image is a fake, and the aforementioned Ig Nobel Prize is a comedy parody of the Nobel Prize.

[edit] Appropriate Connection Between Human & Animal Necrophilia.

The article as currently presented suggests that necrophilia is a common occurrence in animals, while also being performed by humans. It fails however to make any suggestion that this behavior in animals might be essentially different from that found in humans. In other words, is there any evidence that an animal is aware that their dead or unresponsive mate is dead. Have instances of animals copulating with dead corpses been observed where the animal has been dead for some time? Might not the animal be deceived by the fact that the animals vitals are still significantly warm? In both instances mentioned in the article it was very possible, if not probable, that the animals were only recently dead. It would seem dangerous to suggest that the copulation of a creature with inferior mental capacities as being in essential ways similar to the copulation of humans. All this to say, should some note that there may be differences between animal and human necrophilia be made or is their further evidence which could strengthen this connection between human and animal necrophilia and if so, why don't we cite it?


- That is an excellent point, and you *should* cite it. Themindset 21:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cannibalism

Several times in this article, necrophilia seems to get confused for cannibalism. The German dude that 'consented to having his body used after he died' ... on his article, it only mentions him being eaten. Similarly with Dahmer, I think, but he might have done both. In either case they shouldn't get confused unless a lot of people get turned on from food.

[edit] Amy Lee?

What does Amy Lee have to do with necrophilia?

Nothing as far I can see, though someone keeps adding her name without explanation. I've removed her name...again 207.6.31.119 07:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Necrophilia in neo-psychoanalysis

Sorry but, i can't understand a thing that this topic says. It looks more like a random phylosophical stuff than a Psychologic analisis. I think this part should be taken out or heavly edited.

"This is the first recorded case of homosexual necrophilia in the Mallard duck." is the greatest sentence I've ever read in my life.

[edit] Sexual excitement while killing

Sexual excitement from the act of killing the same thing? --Gbleem 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Sexual excitment derived from killing is not necrophilia.

[edit] Necrophilia = sexual atraction to corpses

I dont believe this article is going to right direction. I believe in the group of 'necrophiles' should be only people who feel like having a sexual intercourse with a dead body. Tanzler loved that women, and continued to love her after her death (he related her body with the idea of her self), but he didnt necesarily feel sexually aroused by a 'corpse'.

There is a lot missing from this article - inadequately covered are necrophilia as a mental impairment (too pathologically shy to cope with a live partner); necrophilia as a form of degradation of the victim; vs necrophilia as an actual attraction to corpses ... or just a perverse kink. --BeZ (211.30.13.201 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Cannibal Corpse

"Almost every song written by the death metal band, cannibal corpse involves necrophilia."

There is no need for this. This idea is covered in the note that says "...necrophilia emerged in the heavy metal sub-genres of death metal, black metal and goregrind." It is also factually incorrect. I can only think of 4 songs that deal with necrophilia, out of nearly a hundred that they have written. Also, the link is broken. Both Cs should be capitalized. --Salpsu


Removed wording "it amounts to the rape of a dead person". This seems personal opinion. Bodies of dead people no longer have human occupants, accordingly whether they can be said to be "raped" seems editorial opinion only. Rape is not usually or socially defined to include the bodies of the dead any more than suitcases or stuffed toys.

I've left the rest of the text intact to read "A sexual act with a corpse is generally considered socially unacceptable; the presumption being that the person would not have consented to the act while alive. Virtually all human societies condemn abuse of the dead as a form of symbolic disrespect." which seems more accurate, ecyclopedic, and more to the point.

FT2 (Talk) 02:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Cruft

This article has a huge amount of trivia from music and films that really isn't relevant and doesn't aid in understanding of the concept. I'm going to remove it. Anybody who strongly feels like reverting me should go ahead, but with all this trivia, the article looks terrible. Brian G. Crawford 00:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Tanzler

I've just checked the article on him, and it says that the "vaginal tube" was a story that surfaced during the 70's, and one that was never reported when the events happened. Should he even be mentioned here?

[edit] numb3rs

"68% were motivated by a desire for an unresisting and unrejecting partner; 21% by a want for reunion with a lost partner; 15% by sexual attraction to corpses; 15% by a desire for comfort or to overcome feelings of isolation; and 12% by a desire to remedy"

All those numbers added up equals 131 percent. JayKeaton 22:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If it was a multiple choice poll then you don't add them all up. Each selection has a maximum of 100%. Sean K 11:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/c/Talk%7ENecrophilia_45a2.html"