Talk:Necrophilia in popular culture

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 December 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular CultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular CultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular CulturePopular Culture articles

Death List‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
List	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

TES 4: Oblivion[edit]

The article says, in the RPG "The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion" Falanu would ask about the fine for necrophilia. Are you sure about that? I've only played the German version lately, and there she asks about necromancy, not necrophilia. That would make more sense to me, as she's a magician and a lot of NPCs talk about the fact that necromancy had lately been forbidden by arch mage Traven. Is that a translation mistake in the German version of Oblivion, or is this Wikipedia article wrong? Korvinen (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

not a single reference to twilight? didn't think that was possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.69.62 (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

i'm no pro in writing this but in the movie jarhead, there was a sort of necrophilia in the movie.

[edit]

a the same note would buffy the vampire slayer count? as a few of buffy’s lovers are the undead. Joeyjojo 14:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vampires have their own romantic appeal and are often grouped together in their own sub-genre of romance. Their actual status of being dead could also be called into question. They're obviously still sentient and able to move around. The only exceptions are in some films where they are depicted as mindless crazed bloodsuckers. I'm removing Buffy from the list for the time being. 72.226.249.89 (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Necrophilia in Dead Rising?[edit]

Is this worth mentioning:

In the video game Dead Rising, you can take a photo of a female zombie and get some Prestige points for erotica. Flashn00b 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dead Redemption[edit]

In the videogame-western RDR are several appearences of necrophilia. For example, you are being offered to lay with a dead prostitute, an old man is treating his dead wife as she was still alive and a character named seth has a very special relation to dead bodys. Maybe that should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.58.24 (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necrophilia in music[edit]

missing Suicide Commando - Necrophilia, clearer reference, impossible, add it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.124.23.212 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless[edit]

I suggest: delete this. The sheer multitude of references clearly shows how commons this abeeration is in the phantasy of writers, film makers and musicians. It says virtually nothing about either necrophilia or the numerous bands named. A short remark in the necrophilia article, about the ubiquity of this topos in popular culture, will do. Steinbach (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For improvement[edit]

I suggest the lists be put in either chronological or alphabetical order, though the former seems liek it would be more informative. As it is, the lists appear completely random, and many of the listings have no dates. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sections should be changed from fiction, film and television, and music to literature, film, television, music, and videogames or something like that. Nearly all these examples are factious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.99.43 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

accidental necrophilia?[edit]

I noticed the list is missing "Clerks" wherein the one character comes out of the back having assumed she was having sex with Dante only to learn is was the dead body of someone who went to use the bathroom hours earlier. I was wondering if it's omission was because it was not intentional necrophilia. But then the movie "Weekend at Bernie's" is listed which has a similar situation. So should WAB be removed or should Clerks be added? Medleystudios72 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Titan & vandalism (late manga spoilers)[edit]

There has been a recent influx of vandalism concerning the Necrophilia page, and it's all been coming from the Attack on Titan fandom. The controversy started when the latest chapter revealed a panel of Mikasa kissing Eren's severed head on the lips, and thus added to this wiki. Despite her blatant act of necrophilia, there has been much in-fandom discussion on whether or not Mikasa is sexually attracted to corpses. This caused a back and forth between passionate fans vandalizing the page in defense of the character in question.

My suggestion is to add these events to the wiki, followed up with a WP:PC protection. Given similar events in Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III added to the page, Mikasa's actions fit alongside it, her "intentions" being completely irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArachnidAttack (talk • contribs) 02:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like original research. We'll need a reliable source that says the Attack on Titan instance is necrophilia. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 18:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original source material depicting the act of necrophilia has been cited. Given similar events in Texas Chainsaw Massacre III referenced in the article without issue, it is redundant to attribute more demanding requirements for Attack on Titan. It is unclear as to why this instance in particular requires meticulous verification with outside research rather than making the effort to invalidate the instance as a necrophilic act to begin with.

To reiterate, evidence has already been provided to back the positive claim that Attack on Titan depicted an act of necrophilia. It is now on the opposition to disprove the act in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArachnidAttack (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of necrophilia is "sexual intercourse with or attraction towards corpses". Did Mikasa engage in sexual intercourse with the head? No. Did Mikasa have an attraction towards it? Also no. It was goodbye kiss, and in the context of the actual chapter, she was kissing the Eren in the vision she was seeing, not the actual severed head. Continual re-adding of this entry is false and blatant misinformation.SilverShadowBlade (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have listed one definition of necrophilia, completely ignoring all other classifications that don't require sexual intercourse/intent with a corpse. At the bare minimum, the act depicted could be listed under Anil Aggrawal's necrophile class II, aka "romantic necrophiles," someone who remains attached to the corpse but doesn't perform intercourse. Incorporating story context only further proves the point being made, as Eren and Mikasa are lovers, and Mikasa waited until she killed Eren to kiss him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArachnidAttack (talk • contribs) 22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the notion that it's just a "goodbye kiss" and not romantic in any way, despite them established as having romantic feelings for each other is WP:FRNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArachnidAttack (talk • contribs) 00:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is no sourcing to justify adding Attack on Titan to this article. Using the manga itself as a source, where necrophilia is not mentioned, is original research. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 21:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to clarify why AoT's addition is under more scrutiny regarding sources than every other entry in the article. Nevertheless, another source has been added to help explain what type of necrophilia it falls under.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArachnidAttack (talk • contribs) 22:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, arguments made thus far against AoT depicting necrophilia has been directly fallacious by the omission of facts and remain unsourced. The positive argument for the addition of AoT has yet to be disproven by a reputable and reliable source and is arguably one of the most credible entries in the entire article. Please clarify why you object to AoT's amount of sources despite having more so than others. Should it remain uncited like the other entries to be left alone?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArachnidAttack (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

To add context to the situation, the specific event addressed here happens in the last pages of Chapter #138 of the Attack on Titan manga, where the character Mikasa Ackerman gives a goodbye kiss to the character Eren Yeager's corpse, who had just died at that moment. The OP argues that this action classifies as necrophilia as per Anil Aggrawal's new classification of necrophilia; specifically Class II, "romantic necrophiles."

However, if we consult the original paper on Aggrawal's official website that is being cited as source, we find that the description of Class II disproves the claims by the OP. Quoting:

Class II necrophiliacs: romantic necrophiles

These people show only very mild necrophilic tendencies. These are the normal bereaved people, who cannot bear separation from their loved ones. They do not seem to agree that their loved ones have died. They mummify their loved ones’ dead body (or parts of them) and continue relate sexually to them much as they did in life. Their psychopathology is only transient in nature, and they would normally recover as time passes.

This definition clearly goes well beyond the actions depicted in AoT, as Mikasa doesn't display the described behavior and psychopathology. Moreover, the next chapter, #139, which begins immediately after the events of the previous one, shows Mikasa on her way to bury the corpse, demonstrating that she has accepted the death of her loved one and that she didn't incur in any more interactions with the corpse besides the goodbye kiss. Therefore, the act is reduced to a simple farewell to a lost loved one with no evidence of anything else, and the pretense that it can be classified as necrophilia is baseless.

If this action were to be compared with a similar one from another piece of popular media, it'd be closer to Pepper Potts' goodbye kiss to Tony Stark's corpse immediately after his death towards the end of Avengers: Endgame. No argument has been raised to consider Pepper's actions as necrophilia, and for the same reason pretending to label Mikasa's actions differently is unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, I should point out that the attempts to have Mikasa labeled as a necrophiliac are serving an agenda, as they originate from members of the "EreHisu" / "EH" shipping group within the AoT fandom, which has been leading a hate campaign against the Mikasa character on social media since the publication of Chapter #112, and which seeks to slander her name in various ways; including the persistent vandalization to this page which has already required to protect it twice in the past month.

I've also discovered that the OP, ArachnidAttack, is part of this group, and they're editing this page in order to take screenshots of it and share them on Twitter to support the group's claims that Mikasa is a necrophiliac; all the while falsely pretending that the information comes from the Wikipedia staff and/or that they're a Wikipedia staff member themselves.

I now present evidence of this by linking tweets posted by the OP themselves on their Twitter account @Arachnidarchy where they're seen partaking in the described activities, including archived versions of them via archive.org (when available) and archive.today in case they're deleted:

In conclusion, the addition of the Attack on Titan events to "Necrophilia in popular culture" is not only erroneous, but it's deliberate vandalism; for which I request that the administrators keep a close watch on the article, and preferably keep it protected for a while to prevent more vandalism and attempts to manipulate Wikipedia to serve misinformation purposes.--Didelphi (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]