[Basil Ransom]

The kingdom of Denmark has warmed to Roosh's advice: Don't Bang Denmark, albeit for animals. The Danish government is about to ban bestiality. After losing its status as a human love tourism destination after a definitive recommendation against the nation by pickup artist Roosh Vorek, Denmark's halcyon days of being an "animal sex tourism" destination are about to end.

Quote:

Denmark is planning to banish bestiality, following the recent examples of Germany and Norway, said the country’s food and agriculture minister. The bill was long-awaited both inside the country and abroad.

“I have decided that we should ban sex with animals. That is happening for numerous reasons. The most important is that in the vast majority of cases it is an attack against the animals,” the food and agriculture minister, Dan Jørgensen, told Ekstra Bladet, a Danish tabloid.

According to Jørgensen, one of the factors that prompted his decision was the damage done to his country’s reputation which laws still allow sex between humans and animals.

“And under all circumstances, any doubts about it should go to the animals’ benefit,” he said. “They naturally cannot say no to going along with it. Therefore, it should be banned.”

Seventy-six percent of the Danish population support banning sex with animals, according to a recent poll, carried out by Gallup.

The bill, which also requires changes in the country’s welfare animal laws, will be introduced by the Danish government in 2015.

The absence of a law on bestiality led to a growth in animal sex tourism industry in the country.

In the recent years the international community closely focused on the lack of bestiality law in the animal welfare system of the country.

"I don't think the Danish government is doing enough to protect the animals. They need to do something to protect zoophilia in Denmark," Karoline Lundstrom, a Danish animal rights activist says in a documentary shot by VICE in April.

Bestiality is illegal in many countries, including Belgium, Canada, Australia and India.

Sweden banned zoophilia in April 2014 in a move backed by the country’s Rural Affairs Minister, Eskil Erlandsson. "There should be no doubt whatsoever that bestiality is unacceptable," The Local cited him as saying.

In 2012 the same ban was passed in Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government introduced the new law against the practice, saying animals should not be used "for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species."

http://rt.com/news/195380-denmark-ban-be...y-animals/

[Enigma]

(10-13-2014 12:04 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

“I have decided that we should ban sex with animals. That is happening for numerous reasons. The most important is that in the vast majority of cases it is an attack against the animals,” the food and agriculture minister, Dan Jørgensen, told Ekstra Bladet, a Danish tabloid.

“And under all circumstances, any doubts about it should go to the animals’ benefit,” he said. “They naturally cannot say no to going along with it. Therefore, it should be banned.”

Did he really need to explain why having sex with an animal should be against the law?

[Pride male]

Well duh! Banging animals is a baaaaaad idea.

[Foolsgo1d]

And you wonder why Brits think Europeans are weird.

"sex with ze animals?" Why of course! Perfectly legal"

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Quote:

The absence of a law on bestiality led to a growth in animal sex tourism industry in the country.

[Phoenix]

Yep that's when you know it's gotten bad, when men start going after women from another species.

[alexdagr81]

so they ban having sex with fat women? Good for denmark

[vinman]

(10-13-2014 12:20 PM)Pride male Wrote:  

Well duh! Banging animals is a baaaaaad idea.

I felt bad about myself for chuckling at that.....

[perverted sage]

What got to me was that 76% of population is against bestiality that means 24% are for it......Nearly a quarter of the population WTF!!!!

[Marmite]

(10-13-2014 01:43 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Yep that's when you know it's gotten bad, when men start going after women from another species.

You're assuming they only have sex with female animals!

[Days of Broken Arrows]

OK, just for argument's sake:

“And under all circumstances, any doubts about it should go to the animals’ benefit,” he said. “They naturally cannot say no to going along with it. Therefore, it should be banned.”

What if it's a male animal that is actively consenting? What if they're initiating it?

I just heard a woman complain about walking into a house and the male dog trying to mount her repeatedly and getting in a state of, um, "excitement." He needed to be put in another room. This is not the first time this has happened.

If they make bestiality illegal, then aren't they not considering the feelings of these male animals who every once in a while will find a willing human female? (Who was the commenter on here who said he dated a woman who confessed to jerking-off her dog?!)

And if you're going to say animals did or didn't "consent" to sex, who is to say they can or can't consent to getting shots or having to take medicine? That's human interference in their lives. Why do we draw the line at sex? Why not also include certain types of food they wouldn't eat unless humans packaged it?

I'm just throwing this out there to poke holes in the consent arguments, which always seem to overreach.

[berserk]

As long as you are not paying for it?

[Wutang]

(10-13-2014 02:48 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

OK, just for argument's sake:

“And under all circumstances, any doubts about it should go to the animals’ benefit,” he said. “They naturally cannot say no to going along with it. Therefore, it should be banned.”

What if it's a male animal that is actively consenting? What if they're initiating it?

I just heard a woman complain about walking into a house and the male dog trying to mount her repeatedly and getting in a state of, um, "excitement." He needed to be put in another room. This is not the first time this has happened.

If they make bestiality illegal, then aren't they not considering the feelings of these male animals who every once in a while will find a willing human female? (Who was the commenter on here who said he dated a woman who confessed to jerking-off her dog?!)

And if you're going to say animals did or didn't "consent" to sex, who is to say they can or can't consent to getting shots or having to take medicine? That's human interference in their lives. Why do we draw the line at sex? Why not also include certain types of food they wouldn't eat unless humans packaged it?

I'm just throwing this out there to poke holes in the consent arguments, which always seem to overreach.

I've been making similar points for years now, mostly to troll and be a dick in gay marriage debates but there is still truth to them outside of the amusement gained from poking at SJWs. If the fundamental law for determining whether a particular sexual act is moral or not is the consent of all participating parties then it opens the field to all sorts of alternative sexual practices that I'm sure even the most depraved SJW would find objectionable. One of these practices is bestiality.

It's true an animal cannot consent, they lack the ability to either go along or to resist whatever is being inflicted on them. This does not apply just to sexual acts however, it applies to pretty much every single action we do to them. They cannot consent to being raised as livestock and then being butchered for food. They cannot consent to being used as test subjects in scientific experiments. They cannot consent to being kept as pets. Yet why is it that consent is of the utmost importance in sexual acts but not these acts?

[DJ-Matt]

Wonder if the orgasm sounds like this?

[Brian Shima]

Off topic but there is a recent video floating around of a guy ummm.....fucking a snakes hole.

[lskdfjldsf]

Get something like this passed in West Virginia and the U.S. will be on equal moral high ground.

[Oswaldo Guimaraens]

(10-13-2014 12:09 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

Did he really need to explain why having sex with an animal should be against the law?

I don't think it should. Just because one has no interest in bestiality (or "zoophilia" as the article hilariously refers to it), or even finds it morally abhorrent, doesn't mean we need a law against it.

Put me in the libertarian camp of thinking that we don't need a law to right every perceived wrong in the universe. Also put me in the camp that thinks that "animal rights" is an oxymoron; to me this counts as a victimless crime and hence should not be a crime at all.

[shameus_o'reaaly]

It's one of those things that disgusts the majority so much they never need to think about WHY it should be illegal.
This kind of law is a positive step because it sets a precedent and clearly defines what the law regards as morally repugnant and aesthetically repugnant. Disgust is an important feeling-and more people should heed it-but it's not a basis for legislation by itself.
Screwing animals or corpses is repellent aesthetically, and while it's not in the same league as screwing children, it's an area of behaviour that needs to be "fenced off" even if in a criminal sense it's a grey area.
And "victimless" it may be as an act, but the consequences may cause harm beyond the actual participants. HIV is believed (though not known) to have mutated from an immunodeficiency virus suffered by monkeys, who transmitted it to humans by biting them. Flu supposedly jumped to people from pigs, leprosy from buffaloes-how much easier would transmission and mutation of a disease be if someone was screwing livestock instead of milking them or pulling a plough?