Sweden makes it illegal to have sex with animals

[TheButterZone]

Is that where the slippery slope bullshit came from?

I don't understand what you mean by slippery slope BS come from.

That "if you allow gays to marry, what next, animals and humans" et cetera BS.

[sickhouse]

Then again why would it be legal, it's disgusting, sickening, and plain wrong.

So disgusting, sickening and plain wrong should be illegal ? By who's definition ? Someone might find two guys fucking each other just as disgusting, sickening and plain wrong as a woman fucking with a dog.
Also, I suspect not every animal sex act is animal abuse, probably a world of difference between using a hamster as a fleshlight and having a dog mount some girl.
Basically a bullshit law by bullshit "politicians" who got nothing else to do.

Wait what, why are you defending sex with animals even if it wouldn't count as abuse?
Sickening, disgusting and plain wrong are my own words that represent my own view of the matter.
So what you're basically saying is "If you ban sex with animals you might as well ban sex between 2 men"?
How about the abuse of children? Should that also be legal, because after all, hey, it's just "someone who
thought it was wrong" that had made a law against it.

Hope mods delete your post, it's fucking distasteful to be honest.

I read his post as it should be fine as long as the animal doesn't take damage, considering he uses the words "mount a woman". Every coin has 2 sides you know. And you are putting word in his mouth like nothing I've ever seen before. What does children has to do with anything?

[sickhouse]

Is that where the slippery slope bullshit came from?

I don't understand what you mean by slippery slope BS come from.

That "if you allow gays to marry, what next, animals and humans" et cetera BS.

Haha, no idea actually I think our batshit retarded politicians just made braindead decisions as per usual.

[jarhed]

Sweden and neighboring states should be monitored closely for any species hopping viruses.

As much as we care for animals, most really don't like us at all and the 1348–50 European black-plague was a biological statement from the animal kingdom.

[apsvinet]

Then again why would it be legal, it's disgusting, sickening, and plain wrong.

So disgusting, sickening and plain wrong should be illegal ? By who's definition ? Someone might find two guys fucking each other just as disgusting, sickening and plain wrong as a woman fucking with a dog.
Also, I suspect not every animal sex act is animal abuse, probably a world of difference between using a hamster as a fleshlight and having a dog mount some girl.
Basically a bullshit law by bullshit "politicians" who got nothing else to do.

Wait what, why are you defending sex with animals even if it wouldn't count as abuse?
Sickening, disgusting and plain wrong are my own words that represent my own view of the matter.
So what you're basically saying is "If you ban sex with animals you might as well ban sex between 2 men"?
How about the abuse of children? Should that also be legal, because after all, hey, it's just "someone who
thought it was wrong" that had made a law against it.

Hope mods delete your post, it's fucking distasteful to be honest.

I read his post as it should be fine as long as the animal doesn't take damage, considering he uses the words "mount a woman". Every coin has 2 sides you know. And you are putting word in his mouth like nothing I've ever seen before. What does children has to do with anything?

The law against pedophilia was an example to prove my
point against his logic sounding something like this "durr
there shouldn't be laws against something just because
people think it's wrong".
Every coin has 2 sides? Sure, I'm sure there are people
enjoying sexual relations with animals that take no harm
from it, and if you think that should be legal, feel free to
petition it.
You might get support from some of society's other outcasts.

Also, who is to judge if the animal took damage? You can't 'measure' psychological damage per say ( yes, this also applies to animals ), and even if there is no visible impact or wounds, would you just assume the animal took no damage?

But once again, please do make a public petition about it, and see for yourself if anyone is willing to support you.



Freak.

[sickhouse]

The law against pedophilia was an example to prove my
point against his logic sounding something like this "durr
there shouldn't be laws against something just because
people think it's wrong".
Every coin has 2 sides? Sure, I'm sure there are people
enjoying sexual relations with animals that take no harm
from it, and if you think that should be legal, feel free to
petition it.
You might get support from some of society's other outcasts.

Also, who is to judge if the animal took damage? You can't 'measure' psychological damage per say ( yes, this also applies to animals ), and even if there is no visible impact or wounds, would you just assume the animal took no damage?

But once again, please do make a public petition about it, and see for yourself if anyone is willing to support you.



Freak.

You are the one with flawed logic. "durr there shouldn't be laws just because people think it's wrong???" - when did either of us say that?. Also you are mixing me up with the guy you originally quoted but guess your pig eyes are too lazy to read who's posting what. Sure we don't know about wether the dog take psychological damage from having an awesome time, but the odds are against it.

I am the OP btw who said it was about time and explained that it was removed at the same time homolaws were removed. I dont really give a shit if it's legal or not, as me and some other guy stated earlier this will be like torrenting... It's not like you take your dog out on the town square and let it bang you for all to see? The risk you run of getting caught is if you make a movie of it and show your face, which is a bit darwin-ish.
Also calling someone freak for having a fetish is wrong, people are born drawn to animals just as people are drawn to same sex or to kids - sure it's not the most tasteful things around but the people who have them can rarely help it. I am sure you have no fetish mr perfect

I'd like to see you come back from this, look at the letters piggy.

EDIT: And since you wanted the mod to delete his post you are also against free speach. Shame on you. Crawl back into your mothers basement and watch your loliporn (C WUT I DID THAR)?

[Lethn]

Is that where the slippery slope bullshit came from?

I don't understand what you mean by slippery slope BS come from.

That "if you allow gays to marry, what next, animals and humans" et cetera BS.

People who say that kind of bullshit are just revealing what kind of homophobic, ignorant and hateful morons they are so they're not worth even paying attention to.

[apsvinet]

The law against pedophilia was an example to prove my
point against his logic sounding something like this "durr
there shouldn't be laws against something just because
people think it's wrong".
Every coin has 2 sides? Sure, I'm sure there are people
enjoying sexual relations with animals that take no harm
from it, and if you think that should be legal, feel free to
petition it.
You might get support from some of society's other outcasts.

Also, who is to judge if the animal took damage? You can't 'measure' psychological damage per say ( yes, this also applies to animals ), and even if there is no visible impact or wounds, would you just assume the animal took no damage?

But once again, please do make a public petition about it, and see for yourself if anyone is willing to support you.



Freak.

You are the one with flawed logic. "durr there shouldn't be laws just because people think it's wrong???" - when did either of us say that?. Also you are mixing me up with the guy you originally quoted but guess your pig eyes are too lazy to read who's posting what. Sure we don't know about wether the dog take psychological damage from having an awesome time, but the odds are against it.

I am the OP btw who said it was about time and explained that it was removed at the same time homolaws were removed. I dont really give a shit if it's legal or not, as me and some other guy stated earlier this will be like torrenting... It's not like you take your dog out on the town square and let it bang you for all to see? The risk you run of getting caught is if you make a movie of it and show your face, which is a bit darwin-ish.
Also calling someone freak for having a fetish is wrong, people are born drawn to animals just as people are drawn to same sex or to kids - sure it's not the most tasteful things around but the people who have them can rarely help it. I am sure you have no fetish mr perfect

I'd like to see you come back from this, look at the letters piggy.

You are in fact right, it is hard to come back responding to a bunch of letters mashed together that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The quote about his flawed logic was in fact not an actual quote which you may have guessed, but if you look up his original response you'll find that reasoning after quoting me saying "then again why would it be legal".
It's one thing to have a fetish for something, abusing children and animals is another.
I don't mind that people are sexually attracted to either babies or animals, but if they abuse them sexually that is a problem.
'They can rarely help it' is a really bad excuse and wouldn't hold up in court if caught abusing someone.
"As me and some other guy" - The 'other guy' responded to one of -my- posts agreeing with -me-, somehow you're implying he is right and I am wrong?
My ground statement was that the law won't in fact change anything, but that being said I think it's right to actually make that law.
Even if the animal itself doesn't take any harm, it has no possibility to show consent to the act. Isn't that classified as rape? You pretty much got your back against the wall here.
And I did not call anyone a freak based on their 'fetish', but rather on the fact that he/she/they happens to think animal abuse should be legal.

You might have confused yourself a little too much fantasizing about dogs humping women.

[Luno]

Depiction of sex with animals (as children pornography) would have to be outlawed too. No more national Geographic Channel for Sweden then.

How about your cat or dog walking in on you and GF, is that also a sexual violation of your pets rights?

We had this debate in my country some years back about if sex with animals should be outlawed. What came out of it was a lot of  right wing politicians stating that government should not interfere with peoples sexual preferences, and then becoming immensely embarrassed, when the journalist as the next question asked if they could come up with any examples...

[apsvinet]

Depiction of sex with animals (as children pornography) would have to be outlawed too. No more national Geographic Channel for Sweden then.

How about your cat or dog walking in on you and GF, is that also a sexual violation of your pets rights?

We had this debate in my country some years back about if sex with animals should be outlawed. What came out of it was a lot of  right wing politicians stating that government should not interfere with peoples sexual preferences, and then becoming immensely embarrassed, when the journalist as the next question asked if they could come up with any examples...

Depiction of animal-human sex should be illegal, as part of the law against animal abuse.
However showing animals having sex in context of a nature show or whatever has always been ok and should be.

[sickhouse]

The law against pedophilia was an example to prove my
point against his logic sounding something like this "durr
there shouldn't be laws against something just because
people think it's wrong".
Every coin has 2 sides? Sure, I'm sure there are people
enjoying sexual relations with animals that take no harm
from it, and if you think that should be legal, feel free to
petition it.
You might get support from some of society's other outcasts.

Also, who is to judge if the animal took damage? You can't 'measure' psychological damage per say ( yes, this also applies to animals ), and even if there is no visible impact or wounds, would you just assume the animal took no damage?

But once again, please do make a public petition about it, and see for yourself if anyone is willing to support you.



Freak.

You are the one with flawed logic. "durr there shouldn't be laws just because people think it's wrong???" - when did either of us say that?. Also you are mixing me up with the guy you originally quoted but guess your pig eyes are too lazy to read who's posting what. Sure we don't know about wether the dog take psychological damage from having an awesome time, but the odds are against it.

I am the OP btw who said it was about time and explained that it was removed at the same time homolaws were removed. I dont really give a shit if it's legal or not, as me and some other guy stated earlier this will be like torrenting... It's not like you take your dog out on the town square and let it bang you for all to see? The risk you run of getting caught is if you make a movie of it and show your face, which is a bit darwin-ish.
Also calling someone freak for having a fetish is wrong, people are born drawn to animals just as people are drawn to same sex or to kids - sure it's not the most tasteful things around but the people who have them can rarely help it. I am sure you have no fetish mr perfect

I'd like to see you come back from this, look at the letters piggy.

You are in fact right, it is hard to come back responding to a bunch of letters mashed together that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The quote about his flawed logic was in fact not an actual quote which you may have guessed, but if you look up his original response you'll find that reasoning after quoting me saying "then again why would it be legal".
It's one thing to have a fetish for something, abusing children and animals is another.
I don't mind that people are sexually attracted to either babies or animals, but if they abuse them sexually that is a problem.
'They can rarely help it' is a really bad excuse and wouldn't hold up in court if caught abusing someone.
"As me and some other guy" - The 'other guy' responded to one of -my- posts agreeing with -me-, somehow you're implying he is right and I am wrong?
My ground statement was that the law won't in fact change anything, but that being said I think it's right to actually make that law.
Even if the animal itself doesn't take any harm, it has no possibility to show consent to the act. Isn't that classified as rape? You pretty much got your back against the wall here.
And I did not call anyone a freak based on their 'fetish', but rather on the fact that he/she/they happens to think animal abuse should be legal.

You might have confused yourself a little too much fantasizing about dogs humping women.

Raping children is wrong yes. If the child "raped" you and you wanted it (lets pretend you were a woman) would it be wrong then? Maybe the word fetish was wrong but you know what I mean. What do you think about pedos watching 5 year olds getting banged in Thailand? Are they just as bad? Are the worse if they pay for it (sponsor them)? There will always be a demand for it since it has been around for thousands of years and as long as there is a demand there will be a supply wether we like it or not. Same goes for doggy porn, or BSDM pain olympics (google it, I dare you to watch the whole thing).
As for you and the other guy, that's very relative and depends on what the outcome is. If the outcome is that a father of 2 gets sued for $200k for downloading ONE movie (example, but the numbers were extremly high in one case) while the rest 99.9% goes unpunished WITH the exception that the tax money gets wasted on nothing (so you could make the argument that everybody who works gets punished for the stupid downloading law (yeah it's stupid now that years has passed and we've seen the outcome of this - millions of tax payers money wasted on Pontén and his... gang? Guess they have it pretty good. That law would be better off gone, people would be richer and do the same things we do anyway, didn't some guy once say if a law would make XX % of the inhabitants into criminals it shouldn't be passed? Well there you have a great example of that (I know it has nothing to do with doggysex being forbidden, but it proves that some laws are stupid even if they in theory should be there).

No consent? If it jumps the woman and start banging her isn't that the dogs way of giving consent? It's your back that's turned against the wall, not mine. Nobody has said that animal abuse should be legal? There is a different between abuse and use (NOTE that I still dont think it should be legal as it is very backwards but it's a law that will have absolutley no effect whatsoever, except the pervs who go out and sex other peoples horses, but that's illegal today as well I think..).

Even tho I haven't slept for 48 hours you seem more confused than me.

[Kiki112]

why?

if homosexuality is legal so should bestiality be..

[DanielVG]

Aaah shit, now i can scrap my annual trip to Sweden

[sickhouse]

Aaah shit, now i can scrap my annual trip to Sweden

Remember reading a while ago about something that you could call a dog bordello - it could however just be made up as much of our news stories has shown to be pure lies by our big medias.. And they wonder why they lose readers.

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/expressen-avslojar/har-erbjuds-expressens-reporter-att-ha-sex-med-en-hund/ to your scandinavians who wants to see the scoop or pretend scoop - fun stuff anyway.

[OrnateRock]

Aaah shit, now i can scrap my annual trip to Sweden

+1, was looking forward to this

[apsvinet]

The law against pedophilia was an example to prove my
point against his logic sounding something like this "durr
there shouldn't be laws against something just because
people think it's wrong".
Every coin has 2 sides? Sure, I'm sure there are people
enjoying sexual relations with animals that take no harm
from it, and if you think that should be legal, feel free to
petition it.
You might get support from some of society's other outcasts.

Also, who is to judge if the animal took damage? You can't 'measure' psychological damage per say ( yes, this also applies to animals ), and even if there is no visible impact or wounds, would you just assume the animal took no damage?

But once again, please do make a public petition about it, and see for yourself if anyone is willing to support you.



Freak.

You are the one with flawed logic. "durr there shouldn't be laws just because people think it's wrong???" - when did either of us say that?. Also you are mixing me up with the guy you originally quoted but guess your pig eyes are too lazy to read who's posting what. Sure we don't know about wether the dog take psychological damage from having an awesome time, but the odds are against it.

I am the OP btw who said it was about time and explained that it was removed at the same time homolaws were removed. I dont really give a shit if it's legal or not, as me and some other guy stated earlier this will be like torrenting... It's not like you take your dog out on the town square and let it bang you for all to see? The risk you run of getting caught is if you make a movie of it and show your face, which is a bit darwin-ish.
Also calling someone freak for having a fetish is wrong, people are born drawn to animals just as people are drawn to same sex or to kids - sure it's not the most tasteful things around but the people who have them can rarely help it. I am sure you have no fetish mr perfect

I'd like to see you come back from this, look at the letters piggy.

You are in fact right, it is hard to come back responding to a bunch of letters mashed together that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The quote about his flawed logic was in fact not an actual quote which you may have guessed, but if you look up his original response you'll find that reasoning after quoting me saying "then again why would it be legal".
It's one thing to have a fetish for something, abusing children and animals is another.
I don't mind that people are sexually attracted to either babies or animals, but if they abuse them sexually that is a problem.
'They can rarely help it' is a really bad excuse and wouldn't hold up in court if caught abusing someone.
"As me and some other guy" - The 'other guy' responded to one of -my- posts agreeing with -me-, somehow you're implying he is right and I am wrong?
My ground statement was that the law won't in fact change anything, but that being said I think it's right to actually make that law.
Even if the animal itself doesn't take any harm, it has no possibility to show consent to the act. Isn't that classified as rape? You pretty much got your back against the wall here.
And I did not call anyone a freak based on their 'fetish', but rather on the fact that he/she/they happens to think animal abuse should be legal.

You might have confused yourself a little too much fantasizing about dogs humping women.

Raping children is wrong yes. If the child "raped" you and you wanted it (lets pretend you were a woman) would it be wrong then? Maybe the word fetish was wrong but you know what I mean. What do you think about pedos watching 5 year olds getting banged in Thailand? Are they just as bad? Are the worse if they pay for it (sponsor them)? There will always be a demand for it since it has been around for thousands of years and as long as there is a demand there will be a supply wether we like it or not. Same goes for doggy porn, or BSDM pain olympics (google it, I dare you to watch the whole thing).
As for you and the other guy, that's very relative and depends on what the outcome is. If the outcome is that a father of 2 gets sued for $200k for downloading ONE movie (example, but the numbers were extremly high in one case) while the rest 99.9% goes unpunished WITH the exception that the tax money gets wasted on nothing (so you could make the argument that everybody who works gets punished for the stupid downloading law (yeah it's stupid now that years has passed and we've seen the outcome of this - millions of tax payers money wasted on Pontén and his... gang? Guess they have it pretty good. That law would be better off gone, people would be richer and do the same things we do anyway, didn't some guy once say if a law would make XX % of the inhabitants into criminals it shouldn't be passed? Well there you have a great example of that (I know it has nothing to do with doggysex being forbidden, but it proves that some laws are stupid even if they in theory should be there).

No consent? If it jumps the woman and start banging her isn't that the dogs way of giving consent? It's your back that's turned against the wall, not mine. Nobody has said that animal abuse should be legal? There is a different between abuse and use (NOTE that I still dont think it should be legal as it is very backwards but it's a law that will have absolutley no effect whatsoever, except the pervs who go out and sex other peoples horses, but that's illegal today as well I think..).

Even tho I haven't slept for 48 hours you seem more confused than me.

I'm not gonna bother, I wasn't referring to your sick example of a dog initiating the act while talking about consent.
Also, you fail to understand that a rape isn't a rape if both parts want it to happen, which means if I "wanted it" there is no rape involved and I should if caught be convicted for pedophilia.
Also, there sure is a difference between abuse and use, but in that case I'll just change my ground point and say that I'm against 'use' of animals as well. In reality there's no difference of the 2 in this case to me, but I see what you're getting at.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

"Say it ain't so, Gustav."

[backtrackit]

Damn that's this years holiday spoiled then 

[BakaBum]

Oh no! I will can´t make sex with Merkel?

[MakeBelieve]

It was legal to have sex with animals? thats disgusting.