Talk:Necrophilia/Archive 1

NecroErotic Quote

I just noticed it was unsourced so I dug it up. It comes from this page: http://www.necroerotic.com/Articles1.html It is in the section necrophilic principles.Samineru 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Snow White? xchfgsdjlgf

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)

Religious taboos are not countered by fantasy presentations 69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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)jhjghjghjghjhj

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)

-I agree, romantic love & necrophilia should NOT be connected or even remotely related in any way. I can understand why guys would slip PCP into a girl's drink and want to have sex w/ her because she's hot.. but I will NEVER EVER understand necrophilia. Necrophilia has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ romantic love or even the dead person being hot... once they're dead, they're NOT HOT. ew.

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)

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)

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.

I'm uninterested in the picture debate, but it's worth pointing out that whilst the Ig Nobels are humorous, the work on necrophiliac ducks is in fact legitimate. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious dreadfully noisy low res image, impossible to tell if it actually depicts what is claimed. If we need to illustrate animal necrophelia, if it is not a rare phenomenon surely someone somewhere has taken a photo that doesn't totally suck like this one. -- Infrogmation 23:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no issues regarding obscenity (Wikipedia is not censored) or copyvio (the image has copyright information). Also note that for a while, the image was vandalised to show a very poor quality version. Having said that, I do have concerns that there is no way to verify whether the image shows what it claims, and this could fall under original research too. Mdwh 13:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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.

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.

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))

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

also, Cannibal Corpse suck. A better example would have been Mayhem. --User:Ragnarokmephy

No it wouldn't, the only song where they even refer to a sexual act with anything, let alone a corpse, is Chainsaw Gutsfuck - which wouldn't be a good example as 1) it's from an early demo so not representative of their overall style, especially how they changed afterwards & 2) it's debatable if it's even about a dead body. 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You're completely wrong, I could name so many songs by Cannibal Corpse that don't include necrophilia, and Cannibal Corpse does not suck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.93.196 (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rape

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)

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)

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?

aka Carl Von Cossel. His story was featured on HBO's Autopsy: Secrets of the Dead.

Numbers

"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)

Uh??? 88.105.84.251 (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed this as it was undocumented and...

I removed this addition:

"Since Herodotus there are many variants of his tale, commonly one in which a lecherous monk has intercourse with the body of a young woman to whom it has been entrusted for a prayer vigil. Such tales often end with the deceased coming to life (or not being actually dead) and a marriage is then arranged. This still exists in modern times in the form of urban legends."

I'm not a Catholic, but this is nothing more than an offensive attack on decent Catholics, and in general Christians, by imputing guilt over the group through exceptionally weak hearsay involving a mythical individual that would be nothing more than a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, an abuser of the religion claimed. Replace "lecherous monk" with lecherous "imam" or "buddhist" or "caucasian", "latino", "negro", "semite" etc. and I doubt this would have survived this long on Wikipedia, nor should it.

I've never heard this urban myth of the necrophiliac monk, nor the historical myths, but, should they exist, then find a "credible and legitimate" source that cites them, a source with legitimate recognition, and cite it with the above statement so that people can go to the source and determine how truly credible and legitimate they think the source is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.114.231.223 (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Praying Mantis

I deleted the following section because a somewhat rigorous search failed to turn up anything approximating what it says. However, I'd be quite pleased if someone could find citations for it; It SOUNDS right. "However, since praying mantids have two or more brains within the whole of their bodies, with only one of these being in the head, the male could still be said to be alive even after decapitation, and so necrophilia may not be an entirely appropriate term in this case" Chris Croy 19:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not good enough, the section is still unreferenced, therefore you do not have the right to delete fact tags or other sections that question it's validity. Bleh999 21:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Eva Peron corpse

I've seen some articles where it's claimed that the Argentinian Juan Peron kept the corpse of his wife, Eva, in his home for several years. Wouldn't that count as a form of necrophilia?

Among Animals

Necrophilia is a sexual fetish. Animals are incapable of engaging in fetishism, so I don't really think the section on animals belongs in this article. Perhaps a new article on sexuality among animals should be written. The Parsnip! 02:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that it isn't a fetish (which is an attraction towards an object or body part). It is a sexual attraction. It's probably fair to say that animals don't have sexual attractions in the same way that humans do (e.g., animals committing the act may not have an awareness of what they are doing, or be intending to have sex with a dead animal). On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable for articles on sexuality to cover animal sexual acts too (e.g., homosexuality covers behaviour in animals). Maybe it's better placed in animal sexuality, but I don't think it's wrong to include it here. In general, I think it's reasonable for sexuality articles to cover acts as well as the attraction. Mdwh 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that does make sense, thanks. The Parsnip! 18:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Mouse photo

The extraordinary image of the dead mouse, should have an extraordinary provenance, and an extraordinary vetting procedure. The image should not be used unless vetted by multiple third parties. We don't want to promulgate an internet meme. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionally, the image is non-encyclopedic. It is not sharp enough to determine exactly what these mice are doing and stating that they're engaging in the claimed behavior is an interpretation, not a verifiable fact. I can't even tell by looking at it that the mice are real and not some kind of novelty someone created on their own. Finally, the image licensing is somewhat dubious over at Commons, as it was uploaded by someone who does not have ownership rights and, therefore, doesn't have the ability to release the image as GFDL. I'm not accusing anyone of fraud, in spite of certain convenient misinterpretations to the contrary by other people, I'm only stating the realities of this particular image. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a good reason to keep a bad photo that adds nothing to the article and it should be deleted. The Parsnip! 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. You said, "sorry, but I don't see that. What I see are two cheesy fake mice placed by a trap to make it look like the claimed behavior is taking place." You specifically the picture a fake. Since it is said to be real, you are calling the creator a liar. Try to remember what you accuse others of.

2. You have very clearly stated you want that entire section gone. When someone's NEXT act is to delete something from that section, it's very safe to assume they're going to cut it down piece by piece until it's a stub and thus 'deserves' to be deleted.

3. You did NOT check the commons page because if you did, you would have read this: "I did not take the photo, my friend did, he authorized its release via GFDL but stated he did not want his name associated with it".

4. It would be suspicious if it wasn't taken with a cell phone camera. Who checks mouse traps with a good camera at hand? Articles are almost always improved by the addition of visual adds, if for no other reason than to help with retention. There are very, very few possible visual aids for this article.

5. The mounting mouses' legs are splayed exactly as they would be if he was mounting the other. Chris Croy 09:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I think you should either work on your reading comprehension or get better at twisting the words of others to suit your own ends. Again, I haven't accused anyone of fraud, those are your words. The uploader didn't even take the picture in question.

2. I didn't say I "wanted the section gone". I said I didn't think it belonged in this article and maybe needed to be in a new article, then some other very helpful person explained why it did belong. Lay off the protectionism rhetoric.

3. I did indeed check the Commons page, and the image summary is PART of what concerns me. The image was put up for deletion twice and kept because someone who voted in the deletion discussion vandalized it.

4. If it were verifiable that the "living" mouse was actually doing what you say he's doing, then we wouldn't have a problem here. Just because one mouse is standing behind another one that was crushed in a trap doesn't mean he's shagging it. Maybe he's in the middle of jumping over the dead mouse to get to the bait? Maybe he's doing something else? Maybe the mice are both fake? MAYBE. The point is, there's no way to verify any of this. Maybe the behavior actually IS taking place, but that's just original research and POV.

5. See 4.

This image is problematic and two other editors seem to be expressing the same concerns below. The Parsnip! 14:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is where AGF comes in. Unless you have some specific reason to call bullshit on what the taker of the picture says he saw (Two mice having sex, one of which is dead), you should assume that's what it actually is of. I imagine it was much less deniable what was happening when it was seen in motion. Chris Croy 03:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We should err on the side of cautiousness, and remove the image. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'd rather we be bold. Chris Croy 03:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree this image is problematic (though the licencing seems to be fine). It could count as original research - do we have a reliable source that this behaviour has occurred among mice? Mdwh 11:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That little subsection is about just that. There are several verifiable examples, notably of the mallard duck, that animals do sometimes have sex with dead ones. You could also look to experiments where animals are tricked into having sex with something that isn't a real animal, ie is dead and stuffed. Chris Croy 03:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious where we have a reference for it among mice, not mallard ducks? Mdwh 10:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would rather have a fairuse image from a vetted third party than to be caught with our pants down being involved with a photoshop hoax. If it is a rare real image, it would have been picked up by reliable third parties. The lack of them make me suspicious. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is Chris, it's not even about assuming good faith. It's about the fact that anyone can interpret this photo however they'd like to. It's too ambiguous to me regarding what's going on. Additionally, the uploader didn't take the photo, so if it was an issue of AGF, whose good faith am I assuming? The good faith of the uploading party, or the other person (who is secret) who actually took the picture? All we really have to verify that this photo is the real deal is what appears to be second-hand licensing (basically, the person uploading and saying "my friend took this and said it was okay to upload under GFDL"). I don't know the uploader and he could be a swell guy, but I don't know that. This is at least part of the purpose of having clear licensing information: so that these kinds of issues don't crop up. Three people here have concerns about the image and as time goes by, more may come along and have concerns as well. The Parsnip! 23:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike many disputes, we can't exactly 'compromise' - Either it stays or goes. So here's my proposal: We open an RFC, each create our own option regarding the dead mouse pic, and just put it to a straight-up vote. I'm willing to abide by whatever the majority says. Just doing a vote here would be a waste of time; not enough people watch any given page for it to be a worthwhile sample unless we're talking about George Bush or Jesus. Whaddya say? Chris Croy 10:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. The Parsnip! 15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

funerals watchers

is there an expression for (elderly) people who attend many funerals a week without knowing the dead person, and try to have a look at the laid out deceased just for sensationalism, corpse-gapers? Is this (unsexual) behavior a kind of paraphilia? -- 172.178.97.144 19:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Health Issues?

Why isn't there anything in the article about health issues stemming from necrophillia? Is there any kind of disease or disorder one can get from it, whether or not the corpse had an STD in life? What about necrophilia with corpses who have started, or are well into, the decaying process? What are the health issues with that?

Also, can a male corpse get an erection (which would probably have to only be from genital stimulation)? If a male dies with an erection, does it stay erect? This must be addressed concerning female necrophiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.142.218 (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I can translate a bit from this Dutch article, in which a 48 y/o male nurse and necrophile called "Marc" says: "Some bacteria are released after death. Between 5 and 8 hours after death, the body stiffness slowly disappears and it begins to dissolve. At that point, the body fluids are poisonous: use a condom or 'be there' before that happens." --82.171.70.54 (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"use a condom or 'be there' before that happens"

What does exactly "be there" means? 88.105.84.251 (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Greater International Anti-Necrophilia Law Listing

Can we have some extended coverage of other jurisdictions than India, the United Kingdom and United States insofar as such legislation is concerned? Calibanu (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Calibanu

Evidence from the Moche Civilization because there are Skeletal Figures??

The intro says the Moche artifacts back up necrophilia except that Necrophilia is "sex with dead people" or "sexual thinking about dead bodies" but the Moche civilization had depictions of skeletons so how does that show the MOche were thinking about sex with dead people? 218.160.176.184 (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

asking for comments plz give them citiation needed on article page as above. 218.160.176.184 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Karen Greenlee

If anyone cares, this article is completely missing any information on Karen Greenlee. She was in the media a lot and she later participated in an interview. More information can be found via Google. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference Note

I've mentioned a reference to my article (#1 in the Reference section) and I'd like to suggest an improvement. Now it is in Russian (for some reason in capital letters) and with no author name. I think it would be better to give the author name and the title in English (with an optional Russian title). It will look like this then: "Eugene Gorny. Necrophilia as a structure of consciousness (Некрофилия как структура сознания). 2002."

Best regards, Eugene Gorny (eugene.gorny /at/ gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.3.93 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Michigan's Necrophilia Law

The line for Michigan's law reads: Michigan - Felony for "sexual insertion of penis into dead body" This does not seem to be standard legal language, and the wording is nothing like Michigan's other criminal sexual conduct laws. Searching for that phrase in Michigan's compile laws[1] turns up nothing. I searched for many other phrases and I was not able to find a law against necrophilia in Michigan. Here's a log of the introduction and changes to this line:

06:15, 22 November 2007 68.42.252.205 Changed Michigan: "federal offense" to "Felony for 'sexual insertion of penis into dead body'"
06:14, 22 November 2007 68.42.252.205 Changed Michigan: "Death by Hanging" to "Federal Offense"
23:53, 10 November 2007 72.131.114.249 Changed Michigan: "Class A felony; life in prison" to "Death by Hanging"
19:09, 12 July 2007 64.231.88.171 Changed Michigan: "Class A felony; life in prision" to "Class A felony; life in prison"
16:15, 7 June 2007 Lord Pedicabo changed Michigan: "Class A misdemeanour; life in prision" to "Class A felony; life in prision"
00:58, 7 June 2007 Blackthunder326 Added line: "Michigan - Class A misdemeanour; life in prision"

The numerous inconsistencies and obvious defacement of this line (Michigan banned the death penalty the year after it became a state, hence Death by Hanging could not be correct), along with over an hour of searching Michigan's compiled laws with no results leads me to believe that there is no law against necrophilia in Michigan. I recommend it be deleted from the list of states with laws against necrophilia if no citation is found soon.

I second this, it's not as if it can't be readded if a valid citation is found later. --Muna (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed Michigan from the list of states with laws concerning necrophilia. If a citation can be found, it should be readded to the list. --Muna (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Rumour

Right I'm sure many people have heard of the rumour that comes in various forms of some kind of infection or fungus, that only develops on a corpse, which one person has contracted from having relations with another person who has been having sex with a corpse, usually billed as a funeral home worker or another one is someone who's keeping a corpse in their house. It usually manifests as black lesions or the last one I heard was swollen lips and a slight rash. Now I highly doubt that these stories are ever true (I'm not doubting the possibility that such a bacteria exists or that one of the many famous ), so does anyone know more about this urban legend? Diabolical (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

definitions section?

hello.. sorry i am new here. but would it be appropriate to put in a definitions section maybe near the top of the article, especially since there seems to be some conflicting opinions in the discussion about what it is. there is a dsm definition/dianostic criteria that can incorporate necrophilia as it relates to paraphilia, im sure some dictionary definition, and i know there are some categorizations by eric fromm (anatomy of human destructiveness). I can put these up myself but i didn't know if it was ok. don't worry, my grammar and punctuation for the edit would be better than this. maybe it would also be good to put a section for related terms to distinguish it from the other words. Chexie (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Armed Forces accusation

I have removed the part that says "Sri Lankan Armed Forces were sexually interacting with dead corpses of that of Tamil Tiger Females." I am not Sri Lankan, but I follow the news and I see that the rebels are almost crushed, so probably their sympathisers are using those kind of accusations to dishonor their enemy in a kind of psychological warfare. There was no link of evidence given with that accusation as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.211.114 (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I didnt write the statement (nor am I Sri Lankan) but I did find a source. see: The Exhibitionism of Necrophilia: The Subhuman in the Sinhala-Buddhist Psyche. By: Giuseppe. C. Luciani:

Henry123Ifa

Necropedophilia

The term necropedophilia has been used to describe those deplorable situations that involve both necrophilia and pedophilia. It could perhaps be added to the article if more relevant sources can be found. [2] ADM (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)