Heartland

From the first of January next year sex with animals will be illegal in Holland. Apart from decimating the main revenue of the Dutch film industry ( ) what other consequences can we expect.

I kind of agree with this change in the law (even though it does conflict with me being a Welshman ), but as somebody wrote " If you take a horse from behind you'll get arrested but if you keep a million chickens in barbaric conditions you'll get a subsidie".

In the meantime I've got three months left to put those little back legs into me wellies..............

is the sheep-position (aka "dog-position") still allowed?

I still can't get my head round the fact that there would need to be a law.
WTF?

Pista wrote:I still can't get my head round the fact that there would need to be a law.
WTF?

That's hitting the nail DIRECTLY on the head..

Anti-bestiality laws are nothing new and have been around for centuries. I'm more surprised that it's taken them this long to get around to it.

i'm shocked why they did this ?




in how strange days we living that some basic facts, natural laws, something that ought to be in every humans brains have to become a written law ?

Let's not forget the some folks will bennefit from that legislation as well.. (The work safest version of the video I found. )

Bartek wrote:in how strange days we living that some basic facts, natural laws, something that ought to be in every humans brains have to become a written law ?

Now there you are gravely mistaken...it obviously is NOT a basic fact, a natural law. YOU would merely like it to be. i know people who have sex with trees, too (no, not my good self, relaly just a friend this time).

i don't know what my views are regarding bestiality - i guess it depends, i'd imagine it has many forms. It doesn't offend me what people do. Some degenerate country squire doing it with his horse obviously isn't a very attractive idea, but i suppose he would have his reasons, too, and in the end it's none of my business - the only relevant consideration is the animal. i'm sure some practices could be so disgusting that even if the animal doesn't exactly "suffer" it'd be offensive to it...and though i don't think there could be laws written against it, i think people should in general have enough sense and sensibility to not practice such things. Of course we know at our time more than ever it is definitely NOT so. But decency can't be preserved or restored by laws - such laws only serve to achieve the opposite which they try.

As the practitioners must continue their actions in increased secrecy, this will in the end result in the further degeneration of their actions - that's a fact.

But i'm very strongly opposed to the legislation. Of course in a few years all bicycle riders must use a helmet...and that's the day i stop riding a bicycle...and various other utterly disgusting and nonsensical forms of control will start taking place in which time i will probably stop living.

i'm against almost ALL laws that do not deal directly with a person's official public life. Actually i'm against all laws and think we should go back to a system of tribal elders or something of the kind. i like the way certain indian warriors dealt with those who had broken their code. Laws are always full of crap.

The offender of accepted ways of behaviour and conduct should be able to explain himself to those superior to him and they would arbitrarily decide on his fate. This would to me seem much better than any laws or court systems. It would take into consideration the nature of the alleged offense in a way that the western system never can. This would be ideal and anything less than that is pure garbage to me.

i would much rather put myself in case of having committed "an offense" to be judged in front of almost ANY of you than a court system functioning on a set pf laws and principles, no matter how much you might dislike me. There's a chance you'd rule against me in spite of fairness and understanding but there's much more chance that a court system won't even listen to my side of the story but looks into the books if it were a crime or not and only cares about that. i'm rather sent to hell by malevolent peers than by a blind court.

now a law against sex with animals is fine by me!
but the guy who had sex with his bicycle in private and got done for it - i'm still contemplating the gray areas on that one.

itnAklipse wrote:As the practitioners must continue their actions in increased secrecy, this will in the end result in the further degeneration of their actions - that's a fact.

True, but that doesn't mean that legislation shouldn't exist. For example, the illegality of paedophilia means that some paedophiles will continue to commit sexual acts with children. But that doesn't mean that paedophilia shouldn't be illegal. The same applies to bestiality.

Like many people, I'm suspicious when governments try to legislate on what happens in people's bedrooms. However I think it's possible (and necessary) to have minimal legislation that simply says that any sexual activity needs to be consensual. The form of the sexual activity should be of no concern to anyone else but the consensual participants. If one participant says "no" (i.e. does not give their consent or removes their consent) either before or during the activity then it stops immediately.

Other than that, the only laws required relate to who is able to give consent. Most cultures work (correctly in my opinion) on the basis that children are unable to give consent. Some cultures regard some people with severe mental health issues as unable to give consent. Some cultures regard people who are too drunk as unable to give consent.

I would suggest that animals cannot give consent either. Bicycles, being inanimate items, would not need to give consent. It's all very simple really.

itnAklipse wrote:The offender of accepted ways of behaviour and conduct should be able to explain himself to those superior to him and they would arbitrarily decide on his fate. This would to me seem much better than any laws or court systems.

I don't see how it's that much different from any court system...

emilystrange wrote:now a law against sex with animals is fine by me!
but the guy who had sex with his bicycle in private and got done for it - i'm still contemplating the gray areas on that one.

You and me both!

@itnAklipse: you mixing two different things. legislation of some very stupid thing and something that should to be done. you seems to don't know why/for what written laws exist.

many of regulations are needles and pointless, i agree with that, but in this particular case it isn't breaking a government/administration to your privet life but protecting weakest from "aggression" of stronger.
you seems to use this example to say how bad are laws and public administration.

your idea of "back to a system of tribal elders or something of the kind" sounds very ... naive. that was good when life was just real fight for live now when we live in "peace" when live it's quite complex. take Lazarus words as something that is a golden ratio.

you tried to start very nice debate. but only tried.

itnAklipse wrote:

Bartek wrote:in how strange days we living that some basic facts, natural laws, something that ought to be in every humans brains have to become a written law ?

Now there you are gravely mistaken...it obviously is NOT a basic fact, a natural law. YOU would merely like it to be. i know people who have sex with trees, too (no, not my good self, relaly just a friend this time).

Does hugging count as sex nowadays?

itnAklipse wrote:...and though i don't think there could be laws written against it, i think people should in general have enough sense and sensibility to not practice such things. Of course we know at our time more than ever it is definitely NOT so. But decency can't be preserved or restored by laws - such laws only serve to achieve the opposite which they try.

I strongly subscribe to that statement. If there were a broader sense of responsibility towards the rest of the world in everyone, legislation would not be necessary. The point I see as source of the whole dilemma is that our cultures are founded on very subjective terms of good and evil. Mainly these terms reflect the opinions given in the old books that were written in the Orient.
There are, however, values that hold a more objective angle.
Constructivity and destructivity should replace the terms good and evil, I think.
From observing nature we learn that there are self supporting, self organizing and living structures as well as degenerating, dieing ones. The essence of what makes up the living systems is that all of their elements work together into a wholesome total. They construct out of a diffuse mass. They organize and build.
On the other side there's the growing dissorder and simply following the corrosive nature of the growing entropy. The dead physical world.
That's a concept, taken from nature (and newer results of maths and scinece, actually), which might offer a common base for all societies to function on. ..If their athorities would think constructively enough to realize that their own good is not the greater good and thus a source of the evil that is conflict.

itnAklipse wrote:But i'm very strongly opposed to the legislation. Of course in a few years all bicycle riders must use a helmet...and that's the day i stop riding a bicycle...and various other utterly disgusting and nonsensical forms of control will start taking place in which time i will probably stop living.

Point

itnAklipse wrote:i'm against almost ALL laws that do not deal directly with a person's official public life. Actually i'm against all laws and think we should go back to a system of tribal elders or something of the kind. i like the way certain indian warriors dealt with those who had broken their code. Laws are always full of crap.

Although I find the idea as such very interesting, I doubt this is where a solution might be. The laws we have now are, in the long run, evolved from the tribal legislation written down in the scriptures that later shaped up to become Bible and Coran etc.
Our societies are to evolve into new shapes as new situations that require new sollutions occur. At times the reversing of a developement may make sense, but normally a new intelligent reaction is the best answer. Only I doubt that human societies will prove to have that much of "Swarm Intelligence". I fear Ringelnatz's Quotation, "Vox populi vox Rindvieh" holds more truth to it than we can possibly enjoy.

I guess a solution rather might come from understanding that there's more to morality than organizing a system of "who f*cks who", which woman belongs to which bloke (One of the Leitmotives of the "holy" scriptures..) and what king rules which people.
In the Netherlands gay couples have proven to be great parents for children who had to be rescued from violent "normal" families. Try to get that into order with the "holy" laws.
Morality as I understand it is the ever present awareness of the effect of your own actions on others and avoiding unnecessary offenses and dammages.
It's the duty to be as constructive as you can.
It's as simple. And as effective.

In this world laws are needed to punish those who offend them. Some people need to be punished for what they do to animals but then again....there are no laws against lots of forms of animal cruelty.

I forgot to mention: Many animal of a sexable size know very well how to defend themselves. But what with the sheep?

when sheep can get maggot infested back there, praps it's less of a priority?

Such things never stopped them overhorny folks.

i was thinking from the sheep's POV

I guess it works both ways.

That law is as sick as f**king pets. Every law or rule is useless unless it's possible to make shure that the people aren't disobey. Unfortunately and as for many things it's pretty easy to do whatever you wan't without getting caught. But through the eyes of the politics, a law is an easy and comfy way to put certain issues ad acta...

I think I'm giving up on this place. When raping an animal becomes a question of debate, I really have to ask "is this a place I want to hang out?"

"I feel an animal deep inside"

nodubmanshouts wrote:I think I'm giving up on this place. When raping an animal becomes a question of debate, I really have to ask "is this a place I want to hang out?"

Who said anything about rape. I think that if I "mounted" a horse he/she would be able to get rid of me if he/she was n't consenting.

Another question should the age of the animal be taken into consideration, for example a consenting dog would be OK but a puppy would be out of bounds ( we could draw the line at maybe 6 dog months).