Implicating necrophilia → death
Link to implication

Reason:

This is part suggestion and part-discussion.

I'm not a fan of the tag, but I figured that most people who would want to blacklist death would definitely want to blacklist necrophilia.

The only thing that I'm not sure about is whether necrophilia should apply to the undead or not. If it did this would be nulled unless we also considered the undead dead, which isn't really a solution IMO.

>>DISREGARD THIS REPLY<<
There appears to be both a death tag and dead tag.
I would suggest implicating necrophilia → dead and death → dead instead, because from the way it sounds, death would mean death is taking place in the picture, and dead would be death had taken place before the picture.
However I am unsure how implications work, or if dead is a invalid tag, or even if death is aliased to dead, so I could be wrong.

--Edit--
Links for some reason collapsed spacing between a and tag resulting in adeathtag adeadtag.

Chaser said:
There appears to be both a death tag and dead tag.
I would suggest implicating necrophilia → dead and death → dead instead, because from the way it sounds, death would mean death is taking place in the picture, and dead would be death had taken place before the picture.
However I am unsure how implications work, or if dead is a invalid tag, or even if death is aliased to dead, so I could be wrong.

OP just made this thread, so...

Durandal said:
OP just made this thread, so...

Yeah I didn't see that when I was reading the forums, so oops.

Chaser said:
Links for some reason collapsed spacing between a and tag resulting in adeathtag adeadtag.

The comments do that every now and then for some reason (that I haven't been able to identify). You can basically ignore it because you refresh the page it will come up correctly without you having to do anything.

parasprite said:
The only thing that I'm not sure about is whether necrophilia should apply to the undead or not.

I've seen that question from time to time on various RPG and science forums, and the general consensus seems to be that it doesn't count as necrophilia.

parasprite said:

The only thing that I'm not sure about is whether necrophilia should apply to the undead or not.

Nah. There are a lot of "sexy zombies" out there, and I don't think that people searching for or blacklisting necrophilia are thinking of that kinda thing.
That would make these two posts necrophilia, which I'm pretty sure isn't the point.
post #268716 post #240052

Genjar said:
I've seen that question from time to time on various RPG and science forums, and the general consensus seems to be that it doesn't count as necrophilia.

Yeah, I didn't think so. I guess I'll take up the unfortunate task of pulling the undead out of necrophilia; I'll start later tonight.

Tokaido said:
Nah. There are a lot of "sexy zombies" out there, and I don't think that people searching for or blacklisting necrophilia are thinking of that kinda thing.
That would make these two posts necrophilia, which I'm pretty sure isn't the point.

I didn't even think about that. Undead porn would absolutely swamp this tag.

Genjar said:
I've seen that question from time to time on various RPG and science forums, and the general consensus seems to be that it doesn't count as necrophilia.

Is that really relevant? We'd never consider using the general consensus for bestiality. Whether a dead guy can talk or an animal can talk seems like roughly the same thing.

Tokaido said:
Nah. There are a lot of "sexy zombies" out there, and I don't think that people searching for or blacklisting necrophilia are thinking of that kinda thing.
That would make these two posts necrophilia, which I'm pretty sure isn't the point.

Maybe we shouldn't tag those two and others like them as necrophilia? I don't think the problem is the necrophilia tag so much as the zombie tag. What makes those undead aside from the first being a Resident Evil monster and the second having blue skin?

Beanjam said:
Is that really relevant? We'd never consider using the general consensus for bestiality. Whether a dead guy can talk or an animal can talk seems like roughly the same thing.

Whether they can talk is actually irrelevant for bestiality. For instance human_on_feral my_little_pony are all legitimately tagged (assuming they are correctly tagged) even though the characters can talk.

Off-topic: Come to think of it, human_on_feral and anthro_on_feral should probably implicate bestiality (just a thought). Nevermind

Beanjam said:
Maybe we shouldn't tag those two and others like them as necrophilia? I don't think the problem is the necrophilia tag so much as the zombie tag. What makes those undead aside from the first being a Resident Evil monster and the second having blue skin?

I don't think that really has anything to do with the zombie tag though since it isn't particularly zombie-like anyways. I'd be okay with undead if there was a little bit of backstory in the comic (even if that isn't technically how it should be done), but nothing I could see made me think "zombie" other than it being tagged that way and labeled in the pool.

Then again, I don't know anything about the character, so there could be more going on.

parasprite said:
Off-topic: Come to think of it, human_on_feral and anthro_on_feral should probably implicate bestiality (just a thought).

Both tags are implicated to bestiality.

Mienshao said:
Both tags are implicated to bestiality.

I feel silly then for mentioning it.

I have no idea how I managed to miss that.

parasprite said:
Whether they can talk is actually irrelevant for bestiality. For instance human_on_feral my_little_pony are all legitimately tagged (assuming they are correctly tagged) even though the characters can talk.

Yes, that's my point. If a human is fucking a horse and the horse suddenly starts talking, that should necessarily disqualify the bestiality tag. Similarly, if a human is fucking a cadaver and the cadaver suddenly starts fucking back, then that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the necrophilia tag.

parasprite said:
I don't think that really has anything to do with the zombie tag though since it isn't particularly zombie-like anyways. I'd be okay with undead if there was a little bit of backstory in the comic (even if that isn't technically how it should be done), but nothing I could see made me think "zombie" other than it being tagged that way and labeled in the pool.

That was also what I was trying to get at. Those images missing the point of necrophilia has nothing to do with necrophilia not including undead. The fact that you can say "well, those aren't properly undead, therefore they clearly miss the point of necrophilia" would tend to imply that the undead are part of the point of necrophilia.

Beanjam said:
Yes, that's my point. If a human is fucking a horse and the horse suddenly starts talking, that should necessarily disqualify the bestiality tag. Similarly, if a human is fucking a cadaver and the cadaver suddenly starts fucking back, then that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the necrophilia tag.

How bestiality is defined here has no bearing on how necrophilia is defined.

Beanjam said:
That was also what I was trying to get at. Those images missing the point of necrophilia has nothing to do with necrophilia not including undead. The fact that you can say "well, those aren't properly undead, therefore they clearly miss the point of necrophilia" would tend to imply that the undead are part of the point of necrophilia.

I didn't say they weren't properly undead, I said they didn't look like a zombie. I was referring to TWYS, not necrophilia.

Either way, I'd like to get an admin ruling on whether fucking the undead should count as necrophilia.

Beanjam said:
Maybe we shouldn't tag those two and others like them as necrophilia?..

Yes, that is all I was saying, that those posts shouldn't be tagged as necrophilia.

Also, you're kind of correct about the zombie tag, but at the same time I think it should stay on those images. Sometimes best judgement and a little bit of outside knowledge has to be used for tagging species, it's simply unavoidable from time to time. Those characters are generally referred to as "zombies" or at the very least "undead" in their respective worlds, and most people know them as such and would call them that even if they didn't really know much about the character otherwise. That's a discussion for a different place and time however.

The questions is "should creatures having sex with zombies/undead be tagged as necrophilia?" I certainly think so, but I suppose it's debatable. I believe that people searching for (or blacklisting) necrophilia want to find images of things having sex with dead, deceased, unmoving, lifeless corpses which would not react to having their holes boned in the slightest. If said creature is having sex with a "living corpse" that reacts in some way to the sexual stimulation (even if it's just in confusion or what have you) I don't think that's what those people are hoping to find when they use that tag.

If there's a picture of a person having sex with an inanimate, completely lifeless corpse it's definitely necrophilia. If there's a picture of a guy having sex with an animated, moving creature that looks like a zombie, no, I don't think that's necrophilia.

Tokaido said:
...

I'd say that's a pretty big assumption to make. If they want dead, deceased, unmoving, lifeless corpses, then they should probably search for dead sex or dead necrophilia. As you point out, ~undead ~dead sex won't get them what they want if they don't care about reaction or lack of such.

Tokaido said:
If there's a picture of a person having sex with an inanimate, completely lifeless corpse it's definitely necrophilia. If there's a picture of a guy having sex with an animated, moving creature that looks like a zombie, no, I don't think that's necrophilia.

I concur.
It shouldn't count as necrophilia if they're boning something that's still moving.

Genjar said:
I concur.
It shouldn't count as necrophilia if they're boning something that's still moving.

I agree as well.

And after a small undead cleanup the implication is now approved