I believe in the concept of consensual necrophilia. I'm pro-contact for necrophilia because I believe there is nothing inherently wrong with it, other than the emotional harm it can (but will not always) cause to the loved ones of the deceased.
If a dead body is still a person (such as it's treated in the case of "dead bodies can't consent," which no one would say about an object), then a dead body has the same rights as a person. People have the right to bodily autonomy. So, it's in violation of a person's bodily autonomy to outlaw consensual necrophilia.
If you can consent to donate your organs after death, then you can consent to necrophilia.
An anti-contact stance assumes that non-consent is the default action (which I believe is true for zoophilia and pedophilia), but that's not true for necrophilia, even if non-consent is more statistically prevalent in contact cases. There are circumstances in which absolutely nothing is wrong with physical acts of necrophilia. It's not inherently wrong, even if you choose to believe that a body retains personhood after death.
If you don't subscribe to the belief that people retain personhood after death, then it's even less complicated: inanimate objects don't need to consent. (This is the less socially acceptable version of my argument).
But despite there being a realistic way for necrophilia to be "consensual" it's also worth considering that distortions of consent, absence of consent, etc. are key elements in a lot of sexual fantasies. I am anti-contact for anything non-consensual in the real world.