http://www.thelocal.se/37614/20111128/
QuoteSweden 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.
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
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.
BDSM won't be criminalized. Relax.
The Muslims are taking over :(
PETA has won :(
Quote from: The Brain on November 28, 2011, 12:59:14 PM
Eriksson also argued for the registration of all cats and the banning of large animals like sea lions and elephants in circus performances.
Lame.
so... let me see if I understand it... up until recently paying the goat was illegal, right?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 01:05:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 28, 2011, 12:59:14 PM
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?
Quote from: The Brain on November 28, 2011, 01:06:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 01:02:21 PM
BDSM won't be criminalized. Relax.
:huh:
Explain the mechanism by which it would. You can't make the same "think of the
" 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? :P
Edit: is anyone else seeing the text resizing randomly and weirdly on the board lately?
that's silly.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 01:15:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 28, 2011, 01:06:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 01:02:21 PM
BDSM won't be criminalized. Relax.
:huh:
Explain the mechanism by which it would. You can't make the same "think of the " 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? :P
Edit: is anyone else seeing the text resizing randomly and weirdly on the board lately?
The mechanism? The same mechanism that made buying sex illegal. "So what it's consensual?? It's for their own good!".
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 01:12:10 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 01:05:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 28, 2011, 12:59:14 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 01:30:59 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Viking on November 28, 2011, 01:26:30 PM
I'm actually a bit curious of what would happen if we released penguins in the arctic and polar bears in the antarctic.
Destruction of all life on earth, most likely.
Quote from: Viking on November 28, 2011, 01:26:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 01:12:10 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 01:05:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 28, 2011, 12:59:14 PM
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.
Well, these days you will no longer get penguin hookers in Sweden, evidently.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 02:03:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 28, 2011, 01:26:30 PM
I'm actually a bit curious of what would happen if we released penguins in the arctic and polar bears in the antarctic.
Destruction of penguin life on earth, most likely.
fyp
also, Polar Bears gaining better dress sense.
are there seals and other large sea life in the antarctic? if not then the polar bears would probably starve.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2011, 01:02:58 PM
The Muslims are taking over :(
How so? Isn't goat fucking part of their cultural heritage?
Quote from: Viking on November 28, 2011, 02:10:11 PM
Destruction of penguin life on earth, most likely.
Merely the first step.
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 02:13:42 PM
are there seals and other large sea life in the antarctic?
Yes, there are seals. There are also penguins.
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 02:13:42 PM
are there seals and other large sea life in the antarctic? if not then the polar bears would probably starve.
Yes, there are seals, but there are also no land predators.. which might be detrimental to penguins, should they be introduced.
But note, there are no leopard seals or any equivalent predator... but then again there are no penguins.
There are Auks aren't there? They seem to fill the same roll as Penguins.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2011, 09:10:45 PM
There are Auks aren't there? They seem to fill the same roll as Penguins.
There were Auks, we killed them all didn't we?
Still, you're right. I don't see why the bears couldn't survive on them.
Quote from: Neil on November 28, 2011, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 02:13:42 PM
are there seals and other large sea life in the antarctic?
Yes, there are seals. There are also penguins.
Penguins are a lot faster in the water and don't rely on air holes like seals (polar bears are ambush predators mainly). Penguins only spend a significant amoun inland while breeding and rearing young so unless the polar bears can eat enough over like a one-two month span to last until the next breeding season they're fucked if all they had were penguins.
Quote from: The Brain on November 28, 2011, 12:59:14 PM
We had peak personal freedom in the late 20th century.
Jag är nyfiken -- Languish.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 09:21:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2011, 09:10:45 PM
There are Auks aren't there? They seem to fill the same roll as Penguins.
There were Auks, we killed them all didn't we?
Still, you're right. I don't see why the bears couldn't survive on them.
I have never killed an Auk. I don't know what you've been doing.
But really, where is the state interest in keeping people from fucking animals at their discretion, provided it doesn't infringe on some other kind of animal rights. It seems like there is a consensus against torturing animals for sexual gratification (if not "bovine agriculture"), but I don't see how bestiality on the face it = torture or even the unnecessary infliction of pain.
I have never understood how the "consent" argument against bestiality is persuasive. Animals are incapable of giving consent to almost any human action. Did meine kleine kätzchen "consent" to an indefinite custodial agreement in which he spends 24 hours a day in a sordid three-decker apartment? Obviously not. My roommate just selected him and put him in a box. (Though of course he is pleasantly plump motherfucker, is showered thrice-over with the affection he demands, and lacks for nothing. ^_^)
And of course the cliched argument: does the chicken consent to being transformed into "gallic agriculture" by sub-minimum-wage Mexican workers in North Carolina or Delaware plants? [The question of whether the Mexicans really "consented" to that either is for another day...]
The idea of consent seems intimately linked to the idea of autonomy. Without autonomy, how can you consent? And conversely, without the ability to consent, how can you be autonomous?
Animals in "our" society are generally treated as living creatures lacking autonomy. If anybody wants to make the case for bovine autonomy, let him.
Why do we have laws against animal cruelty? I'm not sure there's one consistent rationale, or if there is any comprehensive reason for it. A lot of it is emotional, obviously, but I'd guess that the main reason for the prohibition is the deleterious impact that animal abusers probably have on human society.
I think the real question is whether having sex with animals is per se animal abuse. I'm not convinced that it is. Surely some kinds of animal-fucking are cruel and should be prohibited, but there may well be others that really aren't cruel when looked out without prudery.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 01:57:49 PM
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.
No it was a Swedish court. It was clear that there was consent, the chick didn't want the guy to be charged and never claimed rape.
While a normal person might reach the conclusion that BDSM is OK the shrill busybodies who make up the Swedish parliament are much less prone to sense. And they make the laws. Band camp or death camp btw?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 29, 2011, 01:33:12 AM
But really, where is the state interest in keeping people from fucking animals at their discretion, provided it doesn't infringe on some other kind of animal rights. It seems like there is a consensus against torturing animals for sexual gratification (if not "bovine agriculture"), but I don't see how bestiality on the face it = torture or even the unnecessary infliction of pain.
I have never understood how the "consent" argument against bestiality is persuasive. Animals are incapable of giving consent to almost any human action. Did meine kleine kätzchen "consent" to an indefinite custodial agreement in which he spends 24 hours a day in a sordid three-decker apartment? Obviously not. My roommate just selected him and put him in a box. (Though of course he is pleasantly plump motherfucker, is showered thrice-over with the affection he demands, and lacks for nothing. ^_^)
And of course the cliched argument: does the chicken consent to being transformed into "gallic agriculture" by sub-minimum-wage Mexican workers in North Carolina or Delaware plants? [The question of whether the Mexicans really "consented" to that either is for another day...]
The idea of consent seems intimately linked to the idea of autonomy. Without autonomy, how can you consent? And conversely, without the ability to consent, how can you be autonomous?
Animals in "our" society are generally treated as living creatures lacking autonomy. If anybody wants to make the case for bovine autonomy, let him.
Why do we have laws against animal cruelty? I'm not sure there's one consistent rationale, or if there is any comprehensive reason for it. A lot of it is emotional, obviously, but I'd guess that the main reason for the prohibition is the deleterious impact that animal abusers probably have on human society.
I think the real question is whether having sex with animals is per se animal abuse. I'm not convinced that it is. Surely some kinds of animal-fucking are cruel and should be prohibited, but there may well be others that really aren't cruel when looked out without prudery.
There is indeed a bunch of animal sex stuff that a serious person cannot claim is cruel.
I was living in Phila. when Michael Vick got done with his 18 months in Leavenworth and the amount of signage (usually in storefronts) decrying his reentry into his career in society (professional football player) was amazing. The gist of the (white, middle-class) consensus was that his crime was so horrendous that he should never be able to participate in civil life again.
Maybe we should just accept the obvious fact that household pets (or animals usually employed as pets) are fundamentally different than other animals in human life. Sure, it's not biologically sound, but it seems to be the clear view of the overwhelming majority of human beings.
Why not legislate with this explicitly in mind? E.g. prohibit fucking or killing domestic dogs and cats rather than animals as a whole. Just because of the historical/cultural/emotional importance of those animals. In a non-commercial/scientific context, of course, since we can't interfere with the triumphant march of the free market. Maybe include higher-level primates, since they are our whacked-out cousins. There's an argument for leaving the bald eagle unfucked as it is a symbol of our country. Americans love horses for sentimental reasons and because there hasn't been a serious food crisis in a long time. Maybe horses should be in the category of presumptively fuckable but only killable for cause.
Quote"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.
There are dating websites for animals? :huh:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 01:15:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 28, 2011, 01:06:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 01:02:21 PM
BDSM won't be criminalized. Relax.
:huh:
Explain the mechanism by which it would. You can't make the same "think of the " 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? :P
Edit: is anyone else seeing the text resizing randomly and weirdly on the board lately?
Paying for sex is also "transactional" and "between consenting adults", yet Swedes found a reason to ban it.
And yeah, I fully agree with you about the murder/rape thing. If we are concerned so much about an animal not liking a potentially pleasurable sexual intercourse with a human, then why don't we stop butchering them and turning them into steaks and handbags first.
Like banning of incest, this is a typical yuck factor in action. Who would have thought the feminist and other leftist types, who used to fight for sexual freedom, would turn into such allies of the puritanical religious types.
Quote from: The Brain on November 28, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
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.
That's another thing that annoys me about the moral panic surrounding "women protection" laws like this. Ok, fine, but keep it to your breeder types.
Afraid that your incestuous sex will breed retards? Fine, but don't ban my gay threesome with twins.
Afraid that women are objectivized or depicted as submissive in BDSM porn? Fine, but stay out of gay BDSM porn.
Same goes for paying for sex - unlike hetero prostitution, most male prostitutes are freelancers anyway.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 29, 2011, 01:33:12 AM
But really, where is the state interest in keeping people from fucking animals at their discretion, provided it doesn't infringe on some other kind of animal rights. It seems like there is a consensus against torturing animals for sexual gratification (if not "bovine agriculture"), but I don't see how bestiality on the face it = torture or even the unnecessary infliction of pain.
I have never understood how the "consent" argument against bestiality is persuasive. Animals are incapable of giving consent to almost any human action. Did meine kleine kätzchen "consent" to an indefinite custodial agreement in which he spends 24 hours a day in a sordid three-decker apartment? Obviously not. My roommate just selected him and put him in a box. (Though of course he is pleasantly plump motherfucker, is showered thrice-over with the affection he demands, and lacks for nothing. ^_^)
And of course the cliched argument: does the chicken consent to being transformed into "gallic agriculture" by sub-minimum-wage Mexican workers in North Carolina or Delaware plants? [The question of whether the Mexicans really "consented" to that either is for another day...]
The idea of consent seems intimately linked to the idea of autonomy. Without autonomy, how can you consent? And conversely, without the ability to consent, how can you be autonomous?
Animals in "our" society are generally treated as living creatures lacking autonomy. If anybody wants to make the case for bovine autonomy, let him.
Why do we have laws against animal cruelty? I'm not sure there's one consistent rationale, or if there is any comprehensive reason for it. A lot of it is emotional, obviously, but I'd guess that the main reason for the prohibition is the deleterious impact that animal abusers probably have on human society.
I think the real question is whether having sex with animals is per se animal abuse. I'm not convinced that it is. Surely some kinds of animal-fucking are cruel and should be prohibited, but there may well be others that really aren't cruel when looked out without prudery.
I completely agree with you. If an adult man fucks a hamster that's probably animal cruelty, as the hamster's anus will likely burst and cause pain to the animal. But when the animal is not being tortured (as in, causing the animal pain), I don't see a problem, as long as we continue butchering animals for food and leather.
So, does that mean that dairy farmers can't fondle the cow's tits anymore? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 02:39:44 AM
So, does that mean that dairy farmers can't fondle the cow's tits anymore? :huh:
It is fine as long as they hate their job. If they are careless and mention "job satisfaction" then they will be imprisoned.
Quote from: Viking on November 28, 2011, 08:47:38 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 02:13:42 PM
are there seals and other large sea life in the antarctic? if not then the polar bears would probably starve.
Yes, there are seals, but there are also no land predators.. which might be detrimental to penguins, should they be introduced.
But note, there are no leopard seals or any equivalent predator... but then again there are no penguins.
Most penguins don't live in the antarctic, and some of the larger penguin colonies are exposed to land predators such as pumas. Though a lot of those colonies are also on islands.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2011, 02:35:20 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 28, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
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.
That's another thing that annoys me about the moral panic surrounding "women protection" laws like this. Ok, fine, but keep it to your breeder types.
Afraid that your incestuous sex will breed retards? Fine, but don't ban my gay threesome with twins.
Afraid that women are objectivized or depicted as submissive in BDSM porn? Fine, but stay out of gay BDSM porn.
Same goes for paying for sex - unlike hetero prostitution, most male prostitutes are freelancers anyway.
The Ick Factor comes into it there, because gay sex is disgusting.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 29, 2011, 02:12:13 AM
I was living in Phila. when Michael Vick got done with his 18 months in Leavenworth and the amount of signage (usually in storefronts) decrying his reentry into his career in society (professional football player) was amazing. The gist of the (white, middle-class) consensus was that his crime was so horrendous that he should never be able to participate in civil life again.
Man why does everybody hate the middle class so much? I guess people should be happy it is dissappearing.
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2011, 08:50:26 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 29, 2011, 02:12:13 AM
I was living in Phila. when Michael Vick got done with his 18 months in Leavenworth and the amount of signage (usually in storefronts) decrying his reentry into his career in society (professional football player) was amazing. The gist of the (white, middle-class) consensus was that his crime was so horrendous that he should never be able to participate in civil life again.
Man why does everybody hate the middle class so much? I guess people should be happy it is dissappearing.
Dunno. I was a bit struck when Yi and Sheilbh gave completely different impressions of middle class society.
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2011, 08:50:26 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 29, 2011, 02:12:13 AM
I was living in Phila. when Michael Vick got done with his 18 months in Leavenworth and the amount of signage (usually in storefronts) decrying his reentry into his career in society (professional football player) was amazing. The gist of the (white, middle-class) consensus was that his crime was so horrendous that he should never be able to participate in civil life again.
Man why does everybody hate the middle class so much? I guess people should be happy it is dissappearing.
It's been the sneering straw-man target of choice for the vaguely leftish for decades. Everyone can see in it all the shallowness, all the blandness, all the oppressiveness and repression, that they wish to see. Add "White" in the bargain and you have a perfect mix - only bettered if you make it "male" as well as "White"! (Though you can mention "soccer moms" if you want to sneer at the breeders).
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 09:20:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2011, 08:50:26 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 29, 2011, 02:12:13 AM
I was living in Phila. when Michael Vick got done with his 18 months in Leavenworth and the amount of signage (usually in storefronts) decrying his reentry into his career in society (professional football player) was amazing. The gist of the (white, middle-class) consensus was that his crime was so horrendous that he should never be able to participate in civil life again.
Man why does everybody hate the middle class so much? I guess people should be happy it is dissappearing.
Dunno. I was a bit struck when Yi and Sheilbh gave completely different impressions of middle class society.
I don't understand your post. Are you saying that they define it differently, or they are both middle class but completely different people?
If the former, then it's hardly surprising, because it means something quite different in the UK and the US.
If the latter, then it's also hardly surprising since neither Yi nor Sheilbh is middle class (Yi is lower class, Sheilbh is upper class).
Please don't respond to me Martinus. I don't want want to insult you right now.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2011, 09:30:38 AM
If the latter, then it's also hardly surprising since neither Yi nor Sheilbh is middle class (Yi is lower class, Sheilbh is upper class).
:yeahright:
I'm pretty sure Sheilbh has discussed a fairly modest upbringing, while Yi certainly was exposed to upper class society working at the IMF.
The callousness with which our lawmakers hand out death sentences to people's sex lives is disturbing. A fellow human who is attracted to animals, maybe even mostly/exclusively to animals, should be verboten from having sex because somewhere some completely different animals were treated cruelly (which was already against the law anyway)? Their lack of empathy is astounding. And to add insult to injury they actually think that they care and are being nice. When you put animals so much higher than humans you have lost your way.
I guess you can still have your sex life, you just have to make sure that your partner doesn't squeal on you.
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 11:05:54 AM
I guess you can still have your sex life, you just have to make sure that your partner doesn't squeal on you.
:bash:
Quote from: The Brain on November 29, 2011, 01:55:01 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 01:57:49 PM
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.
No it was a Swedish court. It was clear that there was consent, the chick didn't want the guy to be charged and never claimed rape.
Bizarre. How did it even come up? They released a video?
QuoteBand camp or death camp btw?
I feel that labels get in the way of the work.
QuoteWhen you put animals so much higher than humans you have lost your way.
I dunno. Animals have never hurt me. Humans are clearly the enemy.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2011, 11:59:53 AM
Bizarre. How did it even come up? They released a video?
Chick's relatives saw her bruised and shit and called the cops. An incompetent chick prosecutor on a power trip did the rest.
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2011, 08:50:26 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 29, 2011, 02:12:13 AM
I was living in Phila. when Michael Vick got done with his 18 months in Leavenworth and the amount of signage (usually in storefronts) decrying his reentry into his career in society (professional football player) was amazing. The gist of the (white, middle-class) consensus was that his crime was so horrendous that he should never be able to participate in civil life again.
Man why does everybody hate the middle class so much? I guess people should be happy it is dissappearing.
Man why does everybody hate the use descriptive social class terms? :huh: I certainly don't hate the middle-class, and I don't think my impressions of Michael Vick's arrival in Philadelphia displays any hatred towards the middle-class or white people.
It seemed very clear at the time that the general attitudes split largely along racial and class lines. Black people in, say, North Philadelphia (where they had that celebratory mural of Vick choking a puppy on the side of an auto-body shop) or working-class white people from the city/inner suburbs seemed to have a very different reaction to his crime and his return than did the owners of Center City boutiques or white Main Line residents.
But if you an Malthus want to have a good old-fashioned strawman to do your own "sneering" at, by all means go ahead. :)
Quotewhere they had that celebratory mural of Vick choking a puppy on the side of an auto-body shop
And the list of people I would run over with a tank keeps growing.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2011, 12:32:10 PM
Quotewhere they had that celebratory mural of Vick choking a puppy on the side of an auto-body shop
And the list of people I would run over with a tank keeps growing.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 09:46:16 AM
I'm pretty sure Sheilbh has discussed a fairly modest upbringing,
Gap year in Brazil?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 29, 2011, 12:28:54 PM
Man why does everybody hate the use descriptive social class terms? :huh: I certainly don't hate the middle-class, and I don't think my impressions of Michael Vick's arrival in Philadelphia displays any hatred towards the middle-class or white people.
Sorry, the tone of your original post seemed to be pretty contemptouos. I was just wondering why the Middle Class seems to be hammered so much around here. Especially since everybody seems so worried about preserving it.
Quote from: The Brain on November 29, 2011, 10:56:48 AM
The callousness with which our lawmakers hand out death sentences to people's sex lives is disturbing. A fellow human who is attracted to animals, maybe even mostly/exclusively to animals, should be verboten from having sex because somewhere some completely different animals were treated cruelly (which was already against the law anyway)? Their lack of empathy is astounding. And to add insult to injury they actually think that they care and are being nice. When you put animals so much higher than humans you have lost your way.
wich is why it's silly to forbid bestiality. One might as well forbid homosexuality on the account there's homosexual rapes in prisons.
If people are happy with a horse, a mailbox, a plant, whatever, who am I to judge? From what I've read in the newspapers, a man having sex with a horse is endangering himself, not the horse. So what if he dies? Why should we care?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 29, 2011, 12:28:54 PM
But if you an Malthus want to have a good old-fashioned strawman to do your own "sneering" at, by all means go ahead. :)
I would never be so bourgeois as to sneer at a strawman. :)
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 09:46:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2011, 09:30:38 AM
If the latter, then it's also hardly surprising since neither Yi nor Sheilbh is middle class (Yi is lower class, Sheilbh is upper class).
:yeahright:
I'm pretty sure Sheilbh has discussed a fairly modest upbringing, while Yi certainly was exposed to upper class society working at the IMF.
I'm hardly upper class. No titles, no land, no public school tie. My family are middle class-ish, but they were lower down the scale when I was a kid, plus my parents are both from resolutely working class backgrounds which sort-of shapes outlook. Now I'm trying to claw my way into the professional upper-middle class.
QuoteGap year in Brazil?
Mainly Argentina :P
My brother gave me some money for that, but most of the money for that was what I saved from working in a shop.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2011, 02:49:24 PM
Now I'm trying to claw my way into the professional upper-middle class.
And maybe you can do this in England. Who knows?