Originally printed in “The Gentleman’s Alphabet Book”
Necrophilia:
My darling is pallid and cold.
My darling will never grow old.
And when she is rotten,
I will have forgotten–
Another young belle will have tolled.
[/quote]
[sub]Copyright 1972 by Harvey Kornberg and Donald Hall[/sub]
That is, for the record, a dead quote tag.
[QUOTE=SmartAleq]
Well, maybe it would be worse if one found out one’s parent was a **polyamorous **necrophiliac–but I doubt it…
[/QUOTE]
But then yould would have to dig up more than one grave, and then you would be too tired to …
[QUOTE=tdn]
One of us got whoosed. I suspect it was you.
[/QUOTE]
Check out some of athelas’ right-wing christard posting history for a glimpse into what I’m getting at.
and
4
5
and this one:
6
[QUOTE=athelas]
In case anyone still has any doubts to what the party really stands for…
What, no persecution of a perfectly reasonable political view?
[/QUOTE]
where Hamish retorted for clarification:
[QUOTE=Hamish]
Your wording is a little vague (and I apologize if I’m misinterpreting you), but are you really saying that fears that the term “sexual orientation” will open to the protection of paedophilia are reasonable?
I’ve been looking for the full text of Egan and Nesbitt v. Canada (Google can’t find one, and Wikipedia is down) to be certain, but I’m pretty sure that the law already has a definition of sexual orientation, and that it’s predicated on sex, not age.
The whole “‘sexual orientation’ opens the door to paedophiles” is a red herring concocted by the right. I doubt any judge would take it seriously, but it’s sure useful for scaring parents into protesting necessary laws.
[/QUOTE]
Athelas’s MO is to troll and run with his bigotry. Keep it vague enough so he doesn’t get pinned down of course. But I’m aware, and frankly sick of it.
[QUOTE=Billdo]
Just reading that provison sqicks me out.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because it means it has probably come up in the past.
Sorry, one more.
[QUOTE=athelas]
True. But then why can’t pedopheliacs say “We want what adult-adult folks have”? The gay rights groups are trying to change the traditional “one man, one woman” definition of marriage. Once that becomes fluid, there’s nothing, really, to stop pedophiles from claiming more “rights”.
[QUOTE=marky33]
For legal reasons, you have to draw the line somewhere. If a few mature teenagers find themselves below the line, that’s erring on the side of caution in an issue that, unless we degenerate rapidly as a species, will always be immoral. That has nothing to do with homosexual adults.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yes, a line has to be drawn. But from today’s “we want rights, you give rights” culture, it is not unlikely that it will be drawn for the benefit of the few children who want “rights”.
And morals change, especially in today’s accepting society. The same “it will always be immoral” arguments you use were once used when applied to gay marriage.
[/QUOTE]
One good thing about this - you get to make your own holes.
[QUOTE=tdn]
What if the victim is undead?
No, seriously.
What if a space probe cames back from exploring Venus, and suddenly the dead rise from the grave – and they’re really horny?
Where are your precious laws for that, hmm?
[/QUOTE]
Horny zombies? This thread is taking a very random turn.
[QUOTE=Dijon Warlock]
That is, for the record, a dead quote tag.
[/QUOTE]
Meh. Fuck it.
[QUOTE=stpauler]
Check out some of athelas’ right-wing christard posting history for a glimpse into what I’m getting at.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, OK. But I tend to judge posts on the context of the thread they’re in. To me it sounded just plain tongue-in-cheek.
If athelas wants to assert that his post was serious, I’m right up there with you on shouting him down.
Leave it to Boyo Jim to dig up something like this! 
Okay, how many of y’all think these guys’ favorite movie is Corpse Bride?
A retired cop friend of mine told me they could indeed be charged with the attempted sexual assault of a corpse, and sure enough at my link in my earlier post, you can find it on Page 9.
Good thing, as I was considering having all my holes filled in with concrete, or maybe with hot asphalt, upon my death, and making a note to that effect my gravestone epitaph
But since the law will protect me, I can go with my original epitaph,
[QUOTE=AngryIrishLass]
Do not tell weirdos at bar that I’d have to be dead before I fucked them as I might one day have to fulfil that promise.
[/QUOTE]
A propos of nothing…
There was a case here a decade ago where a local newspaper published a young woman’s obituary. As it happened the lady in question was not only very much alive, but healthy. After some investigation two things came out:
a) The newspapers had been relying on trust for publishing obituaries. After that newspapers required a death certificate and proof that the person sending the publication was related to the deceased.
b) The one who paid for the obituary was a an ex, to whom the young woman had angrily told “I am dead to you*”. It followed.
*Something is lost in the translation from Spanish.
And so, all the night-tide, I lie down by the side
Of my darling, my darling, my life and my bride,
In the sepulcher there by the sea,
In her tomb by the sounding sea.
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
I love the SDMB. 
In a way I kind of envy the sense of close-knit community that this story implies. You might figure that twins would have a pretty good idea of what goes on in the other’s mind, but to be able to freely share these sorts of aspirations with a third party-- that’s some kind of intimate friendship. Offhand I can’t think of anyone in my own circle of acquaintances that I’d feel comfortable enough with to even broach such a subject.
On the other hand, the story does nothing to dispel my long-held contention that all people whose surnames end in “-ke” are total deviants.
[/QUOTE]
Really, you don’t have to be intimate friends to make observations like that. You just have to train the people around you to expect unusual responses from you. We all think some very odd thoughts, and if YOU say a few, some other people will have also THOUGHT it but not SAID it, and you will FIND new friends.
And the way to keep out of trouble is to maintain some level of situational awareness so you don’t go over the top with VIPs or lots of strangers around. And even more importantly, don’t attempt real hard to defend whatever nonsense you just spouted. Explain it, yes, but don’t be dogmatic about it. “Eh, I’m probably wrong.”, is gonna cool most people right off if they get a little hot. And some them will start kind of an “Explain yourself” game with you, where you have to try and twist logic to explain why you said something, you end up in some really amusing conversations, for both parties. The point is that you find some friends, you avoid making enemies, and you have a lot more fun along the way.
I feel lucky that these kind of comments are expected from me IRL. I’ve got people around me, including my boss and co-workers and relatives to expect VERY ODD (to them, anyway) responses from me. My sister often introduces me to her friends with, “This is my brother Boyo Jim. You’ll have to excuse him. He was born without a filter.”
Really, so long as you’re obviously not mean spirited, people will accept a lot more divergence of opinion than you would think. I wish more people were willing to try it.
[QUOTE=Billdo]
If you look at the section you linked, subsection (7) provides:
Just reading that provison sqicks me out.
[/QUOTE]
Oops, sorry, didn’t see you had already posted this quote when I found it a re-posted the same info.
[QUOTE=flickster]
This was right one the Wisconsin / Iowa border, so I’m going to blame it on Iowan influence 
[/QUOTE]
Doubt it. There’s a reason why we keep away from you people.
We keep our fetishes to normal things. Like sheep in nightgowns.
These guys performed a public service. Now regular necrophilics who like to have sex with freshly dead corpses, have someone to look down on.
Seriously, like 99%+ of other humans, the concept of having sex with a corpse is totally gross. The thought of digging someone up buried a week is so beyond the pale that it’s just incomprehensible.