As culturally abnormal as necrophilia may be, is it really immoral and wrong? As a corpse is unable to either give or deny consent, does that essentially equate to having sex with an inanimate object? If so, can necrophilia be any more perverse than masturbating with a blow-up doll or a food object? Necrophilia may be one of the few true “victimless crimes”. This paper shall explore the morality of necrophilia as it relates to sexual consent.
Necrophilia is considered by many societies as being amongst the most taboo of sexual deviances. According to the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV-TR), the criteria for necrophilia are the presence, over a period of at least six months, of recurrent and intense urges and sexually arousing fantasies involving corpses which are either acted upon or have been markedly distressing (2000). In layman terms, necrophilia is sexual arousal towards the dead.
Necrophilia is not a uniquely human quality. Between 5%-31% of praying mantis females kill their mates prior to or during copulation to maintain nutrients (Feldman, 2007). Additional anecdotal accounts include an eight hour episode of a cane toad having sex with another cane toad that has been run over by a car (Lewis, 1989).
The most common explanation for necrophilia is that offenders need to have an unresisting and unrejecting partner (Rosman & Resnick, 1989). Krafft-Ebing (1886) first commented on this motivational dynamic: ‘‘the lifeless condition itself…a human form absolutely without will…is seen to be capable of absolute subjugation, without the possibility of resistance’’ (p. 102).
To explore the morality of this topic, we must first ignore that most nations have laws against necrophilia (Aggrawal, 2009) so that we are looking solely at the act of necrophilia without including the act of breaking the law. Whether or not it is immoral to break the law is a separate topic that might only cloud the issue of the morality of necrophilia.
Still, for an act that is considered by some as monstrous, the United States Nevada has perhaps the harshest penalties for necrophilia, while Minnesota
We must next consider the meaning of the terms involved in necrophilia. Because the person is dead, we can recognize that consent has not been granted. Therefore, sexual activity with a corpse would likely be classified as sexual assault or rape. According to the Dictionary of Law, sexual assault is “the offence of forcing sexual contact on someone without their consent”. Rape is “the notifiable offence of forcing a person to have sexual intercourse without their consent”. Consent is “agreement or permission that something should happen” (2007).
While it can be acknowledged that consent is not provided, the same reasoning dictates that refusal is also not given. Because the person is dead, there would be no struggle or other indication of refusal. A similar argument could be made for having sex with an unconscious person, but the primary difference is that an unconscious person could be negatively affected by learning of the sexual act when consciousness is regained. The dead person will never have knowledge, and thus never be affected by the act. Obviously, since there is no life in a dead person, quality of life will not suffer. For this logic to hold, however, it must also be assumed that no one living will ever find out about the transgression, as their quality of life may be negatively affected from the emotional distress that could arise from the situation.
Further complicating the argument for necrophilia is its close connection to murder. Rosman and Resnick (1989) found that 42% of their study sample of necrophiles had murdered in order to obtain a body. DeRiver found a strong connection between the acts of murder and necrophilia: ‘‘They hang together, as if one psychologically. [Such offenders] seek pleasure not only in bringing about the deaths of the victims…but also in finding an indescribable gratification and satisfaction of their passion in postmortem mating with the victim they had tortured to death’’ (p. 41).
The murderous connection may serve to negate the explanation of needing an unresisting partner, as many cases of necrophilia have been shown to include rape prior to death as well as post-mortem. In cases where murder precludes necrophilia (with or without rape), a large number had erectile dysfunction and preoccupation with feelings of sexual inadequacy (Stein, Schlensinger & Pinizzotto, 2010). Hirschfield (1944) relayed the case of a thirty year old male who was preoccupied by his failure to achieve erection. When a prostitute tried to seduce him, he choked her, removed her clothing, and attempted intercourse with a partial erection.
According to investigations studying necrophilia in which the offenders’ primary intention was homicide, they viewed the necrophilia as possibly engaged in because the murder itself was not sufficiently satisfying to the offender. Indeed, all of the offenders denied committing the homicide specifically to obtain a corpse, and none would explain their motivation for having sexual involvement with the corpse. Two of the offenders rationalized the homicide and necrophilia as a consequence of being in an intoxicated state (Stein, et al, p.52). DeRiver (1958) believes that these offenders have a desire to further destroy and degrade their already lifeless victims. Masters (1963) agrees with this position, finding that necrophilic acts associated with sexual murder are ‘‘an extension of [the offender’s] violation of the victim’’ (p. 116).
In terms of morality, the addition of murder as an element makes the case for necrophilia moot, assuming no one has consented to being murdered. However, there are cases of necrophilia which do not involve murder. Often, corpses are retrieved from graves for the purpose of sex with a perhaps mummified body. Others work in professions and locations that enable frequent contact with dead bodies, including morgues, funeral homes, and cemeteries (Aggrawal, p. 267).
It is presumed that necrophilia may happen much more often than discovered. People who work with corpses are unlikely to be discovered. One exception is the odd case of Karen Range Douglas had worked at the morgue where Range’s body was being examined, and he had sex with her murdered corpse. Investigations continue to determine if there were other victims (WLWT, 2008).
On rare occasion, necrophilia may be a strange display of love. In 1931, Count von Cosel lost the love of his life, Elena, to tuberculosis. Though she was initially buried, the count acquired Elena’s family’s permission to have her body exhumed to place it in a mausoleum because he was concerned about her body being rotted under ground. The count visited his love’s body in the mausoleum. After two years, he decided to take her body. Von Cosel, a scientist, attempted to reconstruct Elena body using piano wire to reconnect her bones, creating a wig made from Elena’s own hair, and reconstructing her face using silk, wax and glass eyes. He attempted electroshock to bring her back to life, with no success. He continued to live with and have sexual relations with Elena for seven years before he was discovered. At that time, the medical examiner was too shocked to reveal his findings about the sexual relations, so the count was only charged with grave robbing, but the statute of limitations had passed for that crime so he was released. Elena’s body was buried in a secret location so that he would not have access to it, but he made a recreation of her anyway and lived out the remainder of his years with it. The necrophilia findings were not released until years after his death. Interestingly, many of the people of Key West, where the crime happened, were sympathetic to Count von Cosel because his was viewed as such a true love (History Channel, 2007).
For acts of necrophilia which do not involve harm prior to death, the question returns to simple lack of consent coupled with lack of denial. Typically, a dead body is considered to be “property” of the state and/or nearest relatives. As cadavers are not public property, consent would need to be obtained from the custodial party. It could be argued that von Cosel received consent from Elena’s family to be the caretaker of her body when they granted permission for him to move Elena’s body into a mausoleum which he owned.
Dr. Stuart Bassman, a therapist who has treated necrophiliacs, says that most people having sex with corpses believe it is “innocent” and is “not hurting someone”. Dr Bassman states that people with these tendencies often have “feelings of abandonment” and that their cravings are often “activated by one major event”. Dr. Bassman compares necrophilia to pornography addiction, in that they both involve “imaginary fantasy relationships” (WLWT, 2008). While Dr. Bassman does not seem to endorse necrophilia, he does point out that the condition is a mental disorder and not a question of immorality.
Other scientists argue that “corpses do not have rights-only the living do. This is because rights function to protect persons' interests (such as freedom and possessions) and corpses have no interests to protect” (Taylor & Spital, 2008). This could summarize the most basic argument for the moral inclusion of necrophilia: corpses have no rights because they have no interests to protect; thus, they are treated as any other inanimate object would be. A living woman has the right to have sex with a dildo; the dildo does not have the right to refuse to be used for sexual purposes.
When we review the morality of necrophilia strictly in terms of consent, the following options present themselves:
1. Consent of the deceased person is the only consent necessary. Lack of refusal is viewed as permission, and the act can be seen as moral.
2. Consent of the deceased person is the only consent necessary. Lack of consent is viewed as non-consent, and the act can be seen as immoral.
3. Consent of the family or caretakers of the deceased is necessary. If consent is obtained, the act can be seen as moral. If consent is not obtained, the act is immoral.
4. No consent is necessary. The body is as inanimate as any sex toy. Working in a morgue and having sex with a body is essentially equivalent to working in a grocery store and having sex with a squash. Inappropriate, but not illegal so long as it is private. Thus, the act is moral.
5. In the same sense that advance directives can provide consent for using a body for medical research, advance directives could be allowed to include consent for using a body for sexual purposes. Thus, the act would be seen as moral.
Many of the things done to a dead body would be considered horrific if they were performed on a live person. Bodies may be buried, burned or entombed. Bodies may be dissected time and again by medical students, or organs contributed to save other lives. In centuries past, bodies were displayed outside kingdoms as a sign of dominance and victory. In recent years, bodies have been plasticized and placed on exhibit at traveling museum displays. Any of those options sound much more traumatic than sex. Are we really suggesting that corpses can be burned or buried like trash or placed on display for children to gawk at, but cannot be loved by someone with a physical need?
Most of society finds necrophilia to be repulsive. If necrophilia were made more accessible, it is unlikely that there would be a large bank of corpses available for sex. However, it is generally perceived as respectful to honor the wishes of the dead. Perhaps this “noble” act of donating one’s body for sexual purposes would result in a decline in murder, as necrophiles would not have to create their own victims. In areas where prostitution is legal, perhaps the bodies could be used as an income source for surviving family members of the deceased. Funeral expenses are often a heavy burden for families to bear, and this could be a method to alleviate the financial strain.
Regardless of the justification, necrophilia is unlikely to be seen as a morally accepted choice in society. Reverence for the dead, coupled with the general “ick” factor, will allow purveyance of the taboo of necrophilia for the foreseeable future. However, media seems capable of glamorizing anything, and corpses are no exception. Between 2004-2005, depictions of dead bodies on prime time doubled. Violent death has surpassed illness as the leading cause of television death. In the journal Mortality, author and National University professor Jacque Foltyn describes our conflicting views of the dead body: “using and discarding it, displaying and secreting it, exposing and disguising it, revering and defiling it, viewing it as a site of amusement and solemnity and as sacred and profane” (2008). Perhaps comfort with the image of death will lead to a transition to viewing corpses as the inanimate objects they are, rather than mystical or sacred beings.
Sexual ethics have evolved through the ages. Homosexuality was once viewed as perverse, and is now accepted by much of society. Incestuous relationships between cousins were once commonplace and acceptable, and now are offensive to most. Topics like pornography, sadism, masochism, and anal and oral sex were once considered shameful but are now openly discussed in many arenas. Perhaps necrophilia will eventually be accepted, but today’s climate and values will not support its inclusion into moral acceptability. While our country still is divided by other moral issues such as gay marriage and abortion, necrophilia is unlikely to become socially accepted. That doesn’t mean, though, that it won’t continue to grow in popularity and acceptance.
References
Aggrawal, A. A new classification of necrophilia. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 2009; 6:316-20.
Aggrawal, A. (2009). Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices. New York , NY
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.). Washington , DC
consent. (2007). In Dictionary of Law. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/acblaw/consent
DeRiver, J. (1958). Crime and the sexual psychopath. Springfield , IL
Feldman, D. (2007). The praying mantis. Retrieved December 12, 2010 from http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/courses/en507/papers_1999/feldman.htm.
Foltyn, J. (2008). Dead famous and dead sexy: popular culture, forensics and the rise of the corpse. Mortality. 13(2).
Hirschfeld, M. (1944). Sexual anomalies: the origins, nature, and treatment of sexual disorders. New York , NY
History Channel. (2007). Weird US investigates necrophilia in Key West
Krafft-Ebing, R. (1886). Psychopathia sexualis. CG Chaddock, trans. Philadelphia , PA : Davis
Lewis, S. (1989). Cane toads: an unnatural history. New York , NY
Masters, R. (1963). Perverse crimes in history: evolving concepts of sadism, lust-murder, and necrophilia—from ancient to modern times. New York , NY
rape. (2007). In Dictionary of Law. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/acblaw/rape
Rosman, J. & Resnick, P. (1989). Necrophilia: An analysis of 122 cases involving necrophilic acts and fantasies. Bulletin of the American Academy
sexual assault. (2007). In Dictionary of Law. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/acblaw/sexual assault
Stein, M., Schlesinger, L. & Pinizzotto, A. (2010). Necrophilia and sexual homicide. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 55(2).
Taylor, J. & Spital, A. (2008). Corpses do not have rights: a response to Baglow. Mortality. 13(3).
Troyer, J. (2008). Abuse of a corpse: a brief history and retheorization of necrophilia laws in the US
WLWT. (2008). Ex-morgue employee accused of sex with a corpse. Retrieved December 13, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIapfC-4Sh4&feature=related.
