Sweden to ban bestiality

[The Brain]

http://www.thelocal.se/37614/20111128/

Sweden proposes ban on sex with animals
Published: 28 Nov 11 14:47 CET

After years of debate on the issue, a new proposed law on animal welfare suggests the outlawing of sexual encounters with animals in Sweden, a practice previously decriminalized in 1944.

"We know that there is a great risk of the animals being used this way are harmed by it," said Eva Eriksson, County Governor of Värmland, who has been working on the new animal welfare law since 2009, at a press conference.

According to Eriksson, the topic has been up for discussion over a longer period of time and she feels that "major societal changes" warrant a clear prohibition against sex with animals.

"Today it is very easy, on the internet and other places, to encounter animals for sexual intercourse and there are also many more reports of this happening," said Eriksson.

She also clarified that this should not be confused with cruelty to animals, where people mutilate the sexual organs of livestock and to counter which there is already legislation in place.

The new law, Eriksson underlined, would solely encompass the sexual abuse of animals for the perpetrator's own pleasure.

"This is about people who enter stables and perform sexual actions on horses or cows, which is not natural behaviour for the animal and isn't ethically justifiable," Eriksson said.

However, Eriksson added that the sexual stimulation of animals in the context of breeding or as part of veterinary medicine procedures is exempt from the law.

A new animal welfare law has long been on the cards in Sweden, with the old legislation dating back to 1988.

The ambition with the new proposal is to safeguard society's respect for animals and that the animal welfare law should counteract animal welfare problems, Eriksson said in her presentation.

Eriksson, County Governor since 2004, has been reviewing the existing laws for the past two years, on the behest of the government.

Other proposed changes in legislation will mean stricter rules on breeding and harsher punishment against those that break the law.

Eriksson also argued for the registration of all cats, stricter rules on which exotic animals can be kept as pets, and the banning of large animals like sea lions and elephants in circus performances.

Buying sex was banned a decade ago. Now bestiality is about to go too.

We had peak personal freedom in the late 20th century. That spirit is never going to return, since any and all reductions of personal freedom can be motivated with a "won't someone think of the <category>". I don't particularly care for this. I didn't expect growing up that the society I lived in would become more and more moralistic and constrictive.

My guess is that BDSM will be made illegal in Sweden in 20 years. Ah well, at least I lived through peak personal freedom. Future generations won't have that luxury.

[Ideologue]

BDSM won't be criminalized.  Relax.

[Valmy]

The Muslims are taking over 

[Grey Fox]

PETA has won

[Eddie Teach]

Eriksson also argued for the registration of all cats and the banning of large animals like sea lions and elephants in circus performances.

Lame.

[The Brain]

BDSM won't be criminalized.  Relax.

[Viking]

so... let me see if I understand it... up until recently paying the goat was illegal, right?

[jimmy olsen]

Eriksson also argued for the registration of all cats and the banning of large animals like sea lions and elephants in circus performances.

Lame.

What does he think will happen to those animals? Released into the utopian wilds of Scandinavia?

[Ideologue]

BDSM won't be criminalized.  Relax.

Explain the mechanism by which it would.  You can't make the same "think of the <sub>" argument because of its transactional nature.

I suppose you could assume duress or a lack of capacity, but I doubt this would fly very far in the face of obvious adult, functioning human beings opposing it.

And isn't the BDSM community becoming increasingly politicized and conscious?  I admit I'm putting this together from fragmentary information (i.e., I occasionally read a feminist sub's blog and some other various shit), but that was my impression...

As for the present issue, shouldn't they criminalize murder before rape?

Edit: is anyone else seeing the text resizing randomly and weirdly on the board lately?</sub>

[viper37]

that's silly. 

[The Brain]

BDSM won't be criminalized.  Relax.

Explain the mechanism by which it would.  You can't make the same "think of the <sub>" argument because of its transactional nature.

I suppose you could assume duress or a lack of capacity, but I doubt this would fly very far in the face of obvious adult, functioning human beings opposing it.

And isn't the BDSM community becoming increasingly politicized and conscious?  I admit I'm putting this together from fragmentary information (i.e., I occasionally read a feminist sub's blog and some other various shit), but that was my impression...

As for the present issue, shouldn't they criminalize murder before rape?

Edit: is anyone else seeing the text resizing randomly and weirdly on the board lately?</sub>

The mechanism? The same mechanism that made buying sex illegal. "So what it's consensual?? It's for their own good!".

[Viking]

Eriksson also argued for the registration of all cats and the banning of large animals like sea lions and elephants in circus performances.

Lame.

What does he think will happen to those animals? Released into the utopian wilds of Scandinavia?

I'm actually a bit curious of what would happen if we released penguins in the arctic and polar bears in the antarctic.

[Ideologue]

I think that's a different issue, though.  I mean, I see it the same way you do (a liberty issue), but I don't think most people would put the two together.  Prostitution has long been linked, rightly or wrongly, with criminal activity, including slavery and quasi-slavery and a deep opacity that makes it difficult to determine how free a prostitute is to contract with a customer.  BDSM has a (receding) social stigma, but none of those deeper and far more troubling problems.

So I suspect the average observer would be able to connect BDSM with "free sexual practice" and realize that criminalizing BDSM in general would be equivalent to criminalizing blowjobs.

Though if you want something to refuel your outrage tank read R. v. J.A., a recent Canadian Supreme Court decision that did in fact outlaw advance consent (and as some wags have observed, turned kissing your sleeping wife goodnight into sexual assault).  Exec summary: guy choked his wife into unconsciousness (with consent), fucked her in the ass; at some point their relationship soured, she claimed rape, he got arrested--as a side point she changed her mind when she realized she was being an insane bitch, but that didn't matter--case went to the SCC, majority refused to accept that someone could consent to sexual activity with their unconscious body because the SCC is clearly staffed by retards, and J.A. is, as far as I know, in jail.  Of course this is the same country that's holding an American citizen for having dirty pictures.

Now, forgetting that this is, as I understand it and as I have been told, really dangerous play, it's still pretty fucked up.

[The Brain]

I think that's a different issue, though.  I mean, I see it the same way you do (a liberty issue), but I don't think most people would put the two together.  Prostitution has long been linked, rightly or wrongly, with criminal activity, including slavery and quasi-slavery and a deep opacity that makes it difficult to determine how free a prostitute is to contract with a customer.  BDSM has a (receding) social stigma, but none of those deeper and far more troubling problems.

So I suspect the average observer would be able to connect BDSM with "free sexual practice" and realize that criminalizing BDSM in general would be equivalent to criminalizing blowjobs.

Really? I don't share your optimism. When a person of the kind that made buying sex illegal sees a video of a harsh BDSM session (provided the man is dominant and the woman is submissive) their thoughts won't wander into "oh this is like a blowjob" territory.

Recently a BDSM couple was dragged to court. The prosecutor certainly thought that what the guy did was illegal.

[Ideologue]

It wasn't the R. v. J.D. thing, was it?  (You may've missed my edit.)  If not, tell me more.

As for the assertion that Joe Blow wouldn't equate the two, I concede that a pornographically edited version might make them pretty uncomfortable, but a more complete document (negotation beforehand, processing afterward, although I guess this might depend on a lot of other factors) would probably be enough to convince a genuine skeptic that it's weird but harmless (or at least free and unworthy of government attention).

Of course, I'm assuming a genuine skeptic, and not someone who wants to outlaw everything they don't personally enjoy.  The only solution for those folks is camps.

On the other hand, I'm biased, as I really like the BDSM approach even if I'm rather agnostic to BDSM itself.