A new law put into effect on Tuesday completely outlaws sexual intercourse with animals in Sweden.
For the last 70 years, the penal code has avoided mention of bestiality, as the laws on animal cruelty were seen as adequate to cover such assault. Previous rules only prohibited sex with animals if it could be proved that the animal suffered mental or physical harm.
The move was backed by Rural Affairs Minister Eskil Erlandsson who has long been behind a push to make bestiality illegal in Sweden.
"There should be no doubt whatsoever that bestiality is unacceptable," he said in June.
Cattle farmer Gudmun Stenström told The Local he did not think the law would have any effect.
"I don't care either way, I don't see any bigger point to it, apart from someone trying to win some kind of political point," he said. "It doesn't help to punish someone like that."
About six years ago, Stenström thought his cows were being murdered at his farm in Slöinge, southern Sweden. From his house, he heard his cows stamping their feet and protesting in the barn. Worried, he made his way over to find a middle-aged man having intercourse with a calf.
"I had to joke with him, telling him the calves weren't sexually mature yet," Stenström told The Local.
While the man tried to flee, Stenström was hot on his heels, and managed to pin him down. Dragging him back to the barn, Stenström said he spent three hours teaching him about animal insemination and the difference between calves and heifers.
"Ninety percent of these people are sick, you need to get the psychologists in to have a proper chat with them," said Stenström, who pointed out that if the cows had been in heat, the attacker wouldn't have provoked such nervous frenzy among the animals. "They would have stood still."
He said that a colleague in Stockholm had encountered a much worse scenario, when he intercepted a man who had slashed the cows' genitals .
"That person is cruel," Stenström said, adding that the case on his own farm was "not so bad" by comparison.
"Some of us like girls, others boys, some like cows."
Rural Affairs Minster Eskil Erlandsson came under fire in 2008 for his use of a graphic example to demonstrate that "what counts as sexual abuse of animals" isn't always easy to define, much to the surprise of fellow MPs.
[deleted] 3 points on 2014-04-01 11:17:04
[deleted]
zoozooz 2 points on 2014-04-01 13:25:41
we'll see more sickos doing sadistic things like mutilating animals or raping immature or unwilling animals.
And it will always already be forbidden by generic animal abuse/cruelty laws. I don't see the problem here.
people like this will always grab the spotlight and end up representing zoophilia as a whole to the wider public.
That's not the problem. The problem is lawmakers and journalists not doing the most minimal research on it. This is right on wikipedia:
Additionally, zoophiles in categories 2, 3, and 8 (romantic zoophiles, zoophilic fantisizers, and regular zoophiles) are the most common, while zoophiles found in categories 6 and 7 (sadistic bestials and opportunistic zoophiles) are the least common.[31]
The problem is that these people are not told "Sorry, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about, so please shut up until you educated yourself."
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-04-01 15:38:17
[deleted]
zoozooz 2 points on 2014-04-01 13:19:34
I don't get articles like these.
Let's keep this sentence in mind:
For the last 70 years, the penal code has avoided mention of bestiality, as the laws on animal cruelty were seen as adequate to cover such assault
and then there is this farmer:
he heard his cows stamping their feet and protesting in the barn.
Bam, animal abuse/cruelty. No "bestiality" ban needed.
when he intercepted a man who had slashed the cows' genitals .
Bam, animal cruelty. No "bestiality" ban needed.
to demonstrate that "what counts as sexual abuse of animals" isn't always easy to define
So, then what is the solution? Just ban everything even if you can't argue that it is abuse?
How hard can it be:
You can argue that XYZ is animal abuse. Then you most likely don't need to ban XYZ, because you most likely already have laws against animal abuse.
You can't. Why are you banning it if you can't argue rationally against it?
"Ninety percent of these people are sick, you need to get the psychologists in to have a proper chat with them,"
"These people"? If he is talking about "zoo sadists", sure. But the context of the article is about a ban of all sexual intercourse with nonhuman animals. And if speaking about those this is just making shit up:
The DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) recommends that the individual does not receive treatment of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual.[30]
So, then what is the solution? Just ban everything even if you can't argue that it is abuse?
Of course. That's the way child and animal protection logic works in this age. If you can't establish clear court/police-enforceable criteria for the ethics of an act with them but you know a portion of it is harmful, you deny it to everyone until further notice. Otherwise you're seen as risking the well-being of uninformed innocents that can't defend themselves for the selfish needs of a few sick fucks.
zoozooz 1 point on 2014-04-14 08:53:05
but you know a portion of it is harmful, you deny it to everyone
Hm, rape between to adult humans is harmful. I wonder what we should do about it.
Oh, you mean if you can't establish clear court/police-enforceable criteria.
So... drunk adult humans?
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-04-14 20:19:18
It's the combination of that missing criteria to enforce with the fact the animal is considered a helpless dependent (always) (intellectually at least, this is true).
If a guy exploits a drunk girl, they try to figure out if she was able to legally-consent to it. In ~ other words try to determine her status: if she was or wasn't a helpless dependent at the time it was initiated (not always). Sure, that's hard.
Allowing some human-drunk sex means that every guessed non-guilty verdict a court makes in a case (guessing: that's what courts do) that turns out to be an error "condemns" an innocent 50% of the time (obviously some other number, who knows what).
Allowing some animal sex (assuming they find some criteria to work with) means that every erroneous guessed non-guilty verdict condemns an innocent 100% of the time. So, the process is riskier.
That's the only rationale I know of anyway, of course it's more about image.
Cromcorrag 4 points on 2014-04-01 18:21:38
I love the farmers commentary about bestiality : )
The way these laws get passed is simple. Some politician trying to gain points with conservatives. And honestly, when a bill like an anti-bestiality one goes up for a vote, who is going to vote against it? OFC everyone will vote for it because that will make them look MORAL. And there are so few zoophiles around, it's unlikely any would show up to speak out against the bill.
Other than that, nothing really changes. Just keep your own animals and don't fence hop and you'll be ok.
DerErzbaronGomezYou and me, baby ain't nothing but mammals 2 points on 2014-04-01 19:52:11
In Germany there is at least the organization ZETA which tries to defend zoophile rights.
Why isn't there anything like this in Sweden? Nearly every kind of sexuality has its own lobby. We must have one too, mister, otherwise there is no chance to stop this wave of banning zoosexual contacts.
Cromcorrag 2 points on 2014-04-01 20:15:45
It's a tough question. There are so few of us. Less even than say, homosexuality because only one partner is human. So only one can speak out for it. Religion is against bestiality, which also makes it tough.
Really though, the law can ban all it wants and it really wont' affect most of us. Because what we do is completely private, shared with no one. As long as we can communicate in forums like these, we're fine.
DerErzbaronGomezYou and me, baby ain't nothing but mammals 2 points on 2014-04-02 05:00:32
Good idea. Hide under your rock until they are hunting zoosexuals just as pedophiles. Very good.
Cromcorrag 2 points on 2014-04-02 20:58:19
Yup... I"m a coward. I'm old. (53) I still refuse to text, lol. It's up to you young people who are so connected today to form groups and fight for your rights. Just as the LGBT community fought for their rights.
But there is a difference in your comparisons. Pedo's go after humans. That creates a problem. Humans can't be held as pets. Humans can speak out and testify against you.
But animals can be kept as pets and can't tell on you, so the primary things these anti-bestiality laws stop is videos and pictures and public displays. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business and no one elses, and they cannot take that freedom away from anyone.
/r/zoophilia archive
##Article
#Bestiality now illegal in Sweden
Ann Törnkvist (ann.tornkvist@thelocal.com)
Published: 31 Mar 2014 07:17 GMT+02:00
Updated: 01 Apr 2014 07:17 GMT+02:00
A new law put into effect on Tuesday completely outlaws sexual intercourse with animals in Sweden.
For the last 70 years, the penal code has avoided mention of bestiality, as the laws on animal cruelty were seen as adequate to cover such assault. Previous rules only prohibited sex with animals if it could be proved that the animal suffered mental or physical harm.
The move was backed by Rural Affairs Minister Eskil Erlandsson who has long been behind a push to make bestiality illegal in Sweden.
"There should be no doubt whatsoever that bestiality is unacceptable," he said in June.
Cattle farmer Gudmun Stenström told The Local he did not think the law would have any effect.
"I don't care either way, I don't see any bigger point to it, apart from someone trying to win some kind of political point," he said. "It doesn't help to punish someone like that."
About six years ago, Stenström thought his cows were being murdered at his farm in Slöinge, southern Sweden. From his house, he heard his cows stamping their feet and protesting in the barn. Worried, he made his way over to find a middle-aged man having intercourse with a calf.
"I had to joke with him, telling him the calves weren't sexually mature yet," Stenström told The Local.
While the man tried to flee, Stenström was hot on his heels, and managed to pin him down. Dragging him back to the barn, Stenström said he spent three hours teaching him about animal insemination and the difference between calves and heifers.
"Ninety percent of these people are sick, you need to get the psychologists in to have a proper chat with them," said Stenström, who pointed out that if the cows had been in heat, the attacker wouldn't have provoked such nervous frenzy among the animals. "They would have stood still."
He said that a colleague in Stockholm had encountered a much worse scenario, when he intercepted a man who had slashed the cows' genitals .
"That person is cruel," Stenström said, adding that the case on his own farm was "not so bad" by comparison.
"Some of us like girls, others boys, some like cows."
Rural Affairs Minster Eskil Erlandsson came under fire in 2008 for his use of a graphic example to demonstrate that "what counts as sexual abuse of animals" isn't always easy to define, much to the surprise of fellow MPs.
[deleted]
And it will always already be forbidden by generic animal abuse/cruelty laws. I don't see the problem here.
That's not the problem. The problem is lawmakers and journalists not doing the most minimal research on it. This is right on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Psychological.2C_psychiatric.2C_and_research_perspectives
The problem is that these people are not told "Sorry, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about, so please shut up until you educated yourself."
[deleted]
I don't get articles like these.
Let's keep this sentence in mind:
and then there is this farmer:
Bam, animal abuse/cruelty. No "bestiality" ban needed.
Bam, animal cruelty. No "bestiality" ban needed.
So, then what is the solution? Just ban everything even if you can't argue that it is abuse?
How hard can it be:
"These people"? If he is talking about "zoo sadists", sure. But the context of the article is about a ban of all sexual intercourse with nonhuman animals. And if speaking about those this is just making shit up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Psychological.2C_psychiatric.2C_and_research_perspectives
Of course. That's the way child and animal protection logic works in this age. If you can't establish clear court/police-enforceable criteria for the ethics of an act with them but you know a portion of it is harmful, you deny it to everyone until further notice. Otherwise you're seen as risking the well-being of uninformed innocents that can't defend themselves for the selfish needs of a few sick fucks.
Hm, rape between to adult humans is harmful. I wonder what we should do about it.
Oh, you mean if you can't establish clear court/police-enforceable criteria.
So... drunk adult humans?
It's the combination of that missing criteria to enforce with the fact the animal is considered a helpless dependent (always) (intellectually at least, this is true).
If a guy exploits a drunk girl, they try to figure out if she was able to legally-consent to it. In ~ other words try to determine her status: if she was or wasn't a helpless dependent at the time it was initiated (not always). Sure, that's hard.
Allowing some human-drunk sex means that every guessed non-guilty verdict a court makes in a case (guessing: that's what courts do) that turns out to be an error "condemns" an innocent 50% of the time (obviously some other number, who knows what).
Allowing some animal sex (assuming they find some criteria to work with) means that every erroneous guessed non-guilty verdict condemns an innocent 100% of the time. So, the process is riskier.
That's the only rationale I know of anyway, of course it's more about image.
I love the farmers commentary about bestiality : )
The way these laws get passed is simple. Some politician trying to gain points with conservatives. And honestly, when a bill like an anti-bestiality one goes up for a vote, who is going to vote against it? OFC everyone will vote for it because that will make them look MORAL. And there are so few zoophiles around, it's unlikely any would show up to speak out against the bill.
Other than that, nothing really changes. Just keep your own animals and don't fence hop and you'll be ok.
In Germany there is at least the organization ZETA which tries to defend zoophile rights.
Why isn't there anything like this in Sweden? Nearly every kind of sexuality has its own lobby. We must have one too, mister, otherwise there is no chance to stop this wave of banning zoosexual contacts.
It's a tough question. There are so few of us. Less even than say, homosexuality because only one partner is human. So only one can speak out for it. Religion is against bestiality, which also makes it tough.
Really though, the law can ban all it wants and it really wont' affect most of us. Because what we do is completely private, shared with no one. As long as we can communicate in forums like these, we're fine.
Good idea. Hide under your rock until they are hunting zoosexuals just as pedophiles. Very good.
Yup... I"m a coward. I'm old. (53) I still refuse to text, lol. It's up to you young people who are so connected today to form groups and fight for your rights. Just as the LGBT community fought for their rights.
But there is a difference in your comparisons. Pedo's go after humans. That creates a problem. Humans can't be held as pets. Humans can speak out and testify against you. But animals can be kept as pets and can't tell on you, so the primary things these anti-bestiality laws stop is videos and pictures and public displays. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business and no one elses, and they cannot take that freedom away from anyone.
[deleted]