Sweden makes it illegal to have sex with animals

[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.

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.

@bold part translates to: I can't argue against you anymore, you beat me!
I dont fail to understand that, I was making a point - you fail to see the comparison. By societies rules it's wrong yes, but if both wants it why is it wrong? I know you would be convicted for pedophilia, jesus do you look at the world so black and white you can't even discuss stuff in theory?
By saying that there is no difference in the 2 "for you" means that you have already made up your mind. People need to be more objective...

[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.

@bold part translates to: I can't argue against you anymore, you beat me!
I dont fail to understand that, I was making a point - you fail to see the comparison. By societies rules it's wrong yes, but if both wants it why is it wrong? I know you would be convicted for pedophilia, jesus do you look at the world so black and white you can't even discuss stuff in theory?
By saying that there is no difference in the 2 "for you" means that you have already made up your mind. People need to be more objective...

Oh yeah? I think the bold part translates more to something like this;

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

But whatever makes you sleep at night

[sickhouse]

You post short non constructive posts that repeats the same stuff you've already said. We know you think it's disgusting and that people who think rape is ok should die. I call troll..

[apsvinet]

You post short non constructive posts that repeats the same stuff you've already said. We know you think it's disgusting and that people who think rape is ok should die. I call troll..

*Gets roflstomped by arguments*
*Puts words and false statements in someone elses mouth*
*Calls them troll*

)))))))))))))))))))

[KonstantinosM]

While I find that disgusting, I don't see why I should be concerned in how other people conduct themselves. It's not something that hurts me and most likely it's not something that in most cases hurts the animal.

Not anymore than eating meat does, anyway. '


Just think of all the sick cows, all together, with huge cysts full of pus and on the other end of a spectrum a girl who just likes getting banged by dogs.

I am compelled to interfere only on the first case because I don't want to eat low quality meat. The second part doesn't bother me in the least. To be perfectly honest I don't even like the idea of pets that much in the first place.

[apsvinet]

While I find that disgusting, I don't see why I should be concerned in how other people conduct themselves. It's not something that hurts me and most likely it's not something that in most cases hurts the animal.

Not anymore than eating meat does, anyway. '


Just think of all the sick cows, all together, with huge cysts full of pus and on the other end of a spectrum a girl who just likes getting banged by dogs.

I am compelled to interfere only on the first case because I don't want to eat low quality meat. The second part doesn't bother me in the least. To be perfectly honest I don't even like the idea of pets that much in the first place.

Not eating meat won't stop the meat production.
Not using animals for sex will stop the use of animals for sex.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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

Note to self: MakeBelieve is a critterphobe. It wouldn't surprise me to later learnt that he doesn't own a coffee table either. Open your damn mind, or at least Make Believe that Mt Gox is operating on the up-and-up, speaking of fat, furry, lovable critters (with blue balls).

[sickhouse]

While I find that disgusting, I don't see why I should be concerned in how other people conduct themselves. It's not something that hurts me and most likely it's not something that in most cases hurts the animal.

Not anymore than eating meat does, anyway. '


Just think of all the sick cows, all together, with huge cysts full of pus and on the other end of a spectrum a girl who just likes getting banged by dogs.

I am compelled to interfere only on the first case because I don't want to eat low quality meat. The second part doesn't bother me in the least. To be perfectly honest I don't even like the idea of pets that much in the first place.

You make an interesting argument. However the animals going to slaughter wouldn't even have been born if it wasn't for meat consumption - that being said it's sad that those animals raised for food are very badly misstreated in a lot of countries, it's only because we are used to eating meat that raising animals to be killed (sometimes they aren't even allowed to move at all to keep their meat tender). In a case like that I'd say that animal sex is less cruel, but because we as a society has grown so used to this way of eating we don't think about it. If the debate was turned around and animal sex somewhat accepted in our world, in comparison to breeding calves without allowing them to move I think most people would argue that's way worse. And who knows how much psychological damage a cow takes from having a machine suck it's milk out of it every day?

[sickhouse]

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

Not really digusting but very retarded by our dear politicians. A law is just a rule, the act however is disgusting.
And! Keep in mind that we are also animals, and that we have different races with different intelligence (this was proven during the 60's and 70's and a lot of research was done about it, but lately it's been wiped out everyone's memories it seems. That's also something one can think about

[sickhouse]

While I find that disgusting, I don't see why I should be concerned in how other people conduct themselves. It's not something that hurts me and most likely it's not something that in most cases hurts the animal.

Not anymore than eating meat does, anyway. '


Just think of all the sick cows, all together, with huge cysts full of pus and on the other end of a spectrum a girl who just likes getting banged by dogs.

I am compelled to interfere only on the first case because I don't want to eat low quality meat. The second part doesn't bother me in the least. To be perfectly honest I don't even like the idea of pets that much in the first place.

Not eating meat won't stop the meat production.
Not using animals for sex will stop the use of animals for sex.

That argument is about as retarded as you. IF everyone were to stop the meat production the demand would seize to exist and the misstreatment of animals this way would as well. No demand, no supply! I learned that when I was 7 or 8.
EDIT: I am ashamed we're from the same country. You are a disgrace to our country and indeed to humanity alltogether with your retarded arguments. I stand by my previous statement, troll and I am now going to put you on ignore... Waste of time arguing with people who's sole purpose here is to; you guessed it waste time.

[Mike Christ]

Just as with pedophilia, bestiality isn't going to go away, it's just going to stay on the hush-hush.  Only thing the Swedes accomplished is the luxury of paying tens of thousands (in USD anyhow) yearly to care for those prisoners.  Illegal, legal, it makes no difference; if people want to do it, they will, as we've seen with every single law passed since the birth of the republic, and nobody who wants to have sex with animals takes their interests so lightly that a fine or a couple years in jail is going to stop them; they're simply not going to let you know about it.

A child can someday speak of what happened; there's some chance of discovery even if the pedophile takes every precaution.  An animal cannot, making the act simple to hide, assuming Sweden doesn't plan on going full-retard Orwellian state to ensure nobody's doing unapproved acts within their homes.

Furthermore, this is entirely between the man who owns the animal property, and the man who makes love to them (without consent, I presume, or we otherwise will have to argue whether animals are people and, if they aren't, whether it should also be illegal to have sex with computers or dildos that someone has permission to have sex with); not only does the man who owns the animals does not get compensation for this act, but the cost of the individual's actions who violated the animals is now being paid for not by he who committed the crime, but by everyone else who pays for his visit to jail.  Under this system, you are paying for the crime someone else committed.

Silly bluepillers and their emotion-fueled politics; their logo should be a foot with a bullet hole in it.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Seeing that a law was passed because animals don't have a voice, I, too, want to now give another sexual device a voice to protect them from the perils of (insert, no pun intended, list of perils here).



Please support me by donating to B.U.D.A.P. (Blow Up Dolls Against Perils) and S.T.A.P. (Sexual Toys Against Perils).

[BotwinBG]

lol @ apsvinet
what I meant was..oh well, does not matter, you seem to be willing to argue this particular issue to an interesting degree.
Basically, while I do not find this fetish particularly arousing , I see it less black and white than the retards behind the law seem to do. The same kind of people who have criminalised paying for sex and who want to criminalise paying for sex outside of Sweden.
People in power who are fucking clueless. A majority of politicians in this wonderful country we seem to share.
 
And I do know people who are into it. Being , for me, a kinda weird thing to do, I was intrigued by it all and had several conversations with those people. Can't claim anything but a vague understanding of underlying desires and an understanding that is, as many other things in life, a rather complex subject. Something this law pays no heed to. Again, to make sure you get it - I don't defend them or their lifestyle, they can all die a horrible death tomorrow for all I care , really.
But I sure don't want my tax money pay the cops investigating them, pay for the court costs, pay for the their prison meals. And I guess I don't want to support a law that criminalises what I have seen - a strange but rather harmless fetish.

[huarei]

About time one might think, the law against it was removed during the 80's IIRC, at the same time homosexuality became legal.

Having sex with animals will become illegal in Sweden the first of April. Today it's only illegal if the animal takes damage from it in any way. The penatly will be fine or prison up to 2 years (which in Sweden usually is 1 year with good behaviour).

[apsvinet]

While I find that disgusting, I don't see why I should be concerned in how other people conduct themselves. It's not something that hurts me and most likely it's not something that in most cases hurts the animal.

Not anymore than eating meat does, anyway. '


Just think of all the sick cows, all together, with huge cysts full of pus and on the other end of a spectrum a girl who just likes getting banged by dogs.

I am compelled to interfere only on the first case because I don't want to eat low quality meat. The second part doesn't bother me in the least. To be perfectly honest I don't even like the idea of pets that much in the first place.

Not eating meat won't stop the meat production.
Not using animals for sex will stop the use of animals for sex.

That argument is about as retarded as you. IF everyone were to stop the meat production the demand would seize to exist and the misstreatment of animals this way would as well. No demand, no supply! I learned that when I was 7 or 8.
EDIT: I am ashamed we're from the same country. You are a disgrace to our country and indeed to humanity alltogether with your retarded arguments. I stand by my previous statement, troll and I am now going to put you on ignore... Waste of time arguing with people who's sole purpose here is to; you guessed it waste time.

Who mentioned if -everyone- were to stop eat meat?
Last time I checked there were a few more people eating meat than those raping animals

Bold part translates into: I don't have any more arguments, I'm beaten but I won't admit it.

[bitcoin44me]

Guess I'll have to divorce my wife then 

If you have to divorce whenever you stop having sex with your wife, the courts would be overloaded....

[ponchoman]

It was legal previously ?
That explains with Swedish people are so happy.

[sickhouse]

It was legal previously ?
That explains with Swedish people are so happy.

Lol, we are like the top 10 most depressed people on the earth.

[sickhouse]

Guess I'll have to divorce my wife then 

If you have to divorce whenever you stop having sex with your wife, the courts would be overloaded....

Well that would mean it would have to become illegal to have sex with your wife, having a sexless marriage requires no laws or lawyers ya know. And I think you didn't get the joke!

[sawani]

Guess I'll have to divorce my wife then 

If you have to divorce whenever you stop having sex with your wife, the courts would be overloaded....

Well that would mean it would have to become illegal to have sex with your wife, having a sexless marriage requires no laws or lawyers ya know. And I think you didn't get the joke!

haha