Topic: Sweden makes it illegal to have sex with animals - page 3. (Read 4631 times)

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).

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

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.

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

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

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..

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

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

Damn that's this years holiday spoiled then 

"Say it ain't so, Gustav."

+1, was looking forward to this

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.

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

why?

if homosexuality is legal so should bestiality be..

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.

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.

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...

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.