User blog comment:Necrosanity/The Ultimate Conundrum Cracker/@comment-4883034-20130512025346/@comment-5239282-20130512030446

Ah, but I use dust in reference to the absence of life (despite there still being a vague, human shape left in the beginning of decomposition); not literal dust.

Therefore a corpse can maintain its sexual organs (at least, a model of) late into death until it finally rots away as a disgusting, malignant smear. ._.

The way I saw it beforehand, it really mattered on the person's morale (something lacking in necrophiliacs), meaning whether or not he sees the individual cadaver as "still alive" in a sense -- that is to denote the presence of aberrant sexuality (and really, that is necrophilia) within the corpse solely for the fact s/he was once human (even with the inexorable, incessant absence of natural bodily elements found in humans that explain our immoral behaviors). But that's more philosophical in nature. ._.

Perhaps I needed to clarify that a bit more? ._.