Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Animal Bordellos - yep! or should I say yip!!!

a Danish animal owner offers his horse to a Danish journalist claiming to be interested in animal sex.

Warning: You might want to skip this if you're sensitive. Or enjoy Danish dairy, bacon or ham.

Okay, a cut below what's usually onsite here, but I found this interesting, in terms of the culture Scandanavia, where gay marriage is legal, so is bestiality. And why not? Isn't it just another `life choice'?

From there it's only a hop skip and a jump to Animal bordellos .

Apparently, there is a large - er- market in animal bordellos in Denmark that draw foreign clientle, including many from Norway, where this article originated. Both countries have loopholes in the laws that make such establishments perfectly legal.

The one prohibition either Denmark nor Norway on sex with animals is that the animals do not suffer.

I suppose it all comes down to your definition of suffering...

On the Internet, Danish animal owners advertise openly that they have sex with animals for sale, and it's pefectly legal, so there's no intervention from police or other authorities, Danish newspaper 24timer reports.

In interviewing the animal owners, the newspaper was told that the animals involved have many years of experience and that the animals themselves wanted sex. The cost to the client varied from DKK 500-1,000 (about $85-$170 American).

What I want to know is, who asked the animals if they wanted sex with humans? And did the animals talk back in Danish?

The Norwegian Food Safety Authority's section chief for animal welfare, Torunn Knævelsrud, could not rule out that such a bordello could be legal in Norway as well.

"It is difficult to say yes or no," Knævelsrud told Aftenposten.

As long as the basics like shelter, feed and care are in place, and there's no evidence of injury or suffering to the animal, an animal bordello is pefectly legal in both Denmark and Norway under existing Norwegian law.

Incidentally, Norway is one of those enlightened countries where shehita - Kosher ritual slaughtering - is outlawed becaused of `cruelty'!

"It could be that the animals don't really care," Knævelsrud said. "But I think it is in the nature of the case that animals will often be victims of injury, stress or suffering in connection with sexual acts with humans. Either that they are held fast, or frightened, or suffer pain or physical injury," Knævelsrud said.

A new Norwegian Animal Protection Act is being considered, and there have been proposals from the Norwegian Animal Welfare Alliance among others, that sexual intercourse with animals be forbidden.

"The acts provoke moral disgust. The question is whether immorality should be made illegal. The FSA group discussing the new animal protection act has been in disagreement about this," Knævelsrud said.

According to the Danish 24timer report, Germans, Dutchmen, Swedes and Norwegians visit the Danish bordellos, and a web site devoted to bestiality claimed that many of Denmark's animal sex clients stem from Norway.

A farmer who sells animal sex said he is extremely surprised that foreigners are ready to travel so far for it.

"But the clients tell us that it is much simpler to buy animal sex in Denmark than in their own country," a horse owner from Nord-Jylland told the newspaper.

A new report from the Institute of Criminology at the University of Oslo showed that Norwegian veterinarians are aware of at least 124 cases of animal sex abuse in Norway. The paper reports that 22 percent of Norwegian veterinarians suspect or are sure that they have treated animals that have been sexually abused by humans.

I am NEVER eating anything originating in Scandanavia again. Period!


nazar said...

Them damn gays, sexin up goats and sheep!!! Next thing you know, they'll be raping...uh..armchairs and TV sets. It just ain't nat'ral, they goin to hiell for it!!

Yeah, I think that's how it goes.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Nazar,
Love the `pseudo-redneck' dialect accent..which shows YOU might not be as liberal and free from prejudice as you think you are!

BTW, I imagine that at least half of the animal bordello customers are not homosexual, so I don't know where your `gay' remark comnes from, unless you are trying to imply that you feel I am anti-Homosexual. Considering the stories I've run onsite about gays being targeted for death in Iran, Iraq and the Palestinian areas, I find that to be a large stretch on your part, to say the least.

Just for the record, I have no problem with consenting adults jumping each others' bones as they see fit, provided they're reasonably discreet about it (which includes hetero-sexuals as well, I might add) but I DO have a problem with legalizing homosexual marriage and officially sanctioning it - because ultimately, it leads to behaviour like the above...and because it ultimately damages society, particularly when it is under attack from without, as western society is today.

A successful society is built on the family, and on birthrates that succesfully replenish its citizens. Does legalizing gay marriage help or hinder those trends?

Think about it.

Thanks, as always, for dropping by...


Anonymous said...

this is ff blog and will print/offer as he sees fit.

with that said, if i could find nazar's comments regarding this blog and domestic topics i would plagarize it here, with slight modifications.

you've had your jerry springer essay for the year ff.
get back to work/blogging.

nazar said...

Where to begin?

I never claimed to be liberal but I can tell you I am free from prejudice. Prejudice is judging something before you see it. I judge things after I see them. So, when the statistics say that a huge majority of people down in
ol' dixie are agin' gays marryin' and whatnot, I'm gonna use a southern accent to satirize them. kapish?

You ARE anti-homosexual because you implied the fact that Norway has gay marriage somehow corresponds to an ungodly act like bestiality being legalized in that country. You ARE anti-homosexual because you don't want to see homosexuals have the same rights as we do, namely, the right of marriage. Oh, sure, you may run a story about some homo who gets caught with his pants down (literally) in Iran and gets killed for it, and you may tell us how outraged you are so that you can feel warm and fuzzy, and who's to say, maybe you really do care, maybe not, but that's not even the point. It would be like me saying, "Oh, those poor blacks in Africa getting slaughtered, but god forbid they start getting married down here in the good ol' US of A!!" See the hypocrisy?

As to your question, does it help or hinder marriage? Well, when more people start getting married, how does that hinder marriage? No one is saying that heterosexual men need to be with homosexual men, if you wanna have a traditional family (dog included), then god bless you, go for it, but if two men or women already live together, then the next logical step is for them to get married, regardless of what other people may think. It's all about individual choice.

And finally, if people want to have sex with animals, let them. Sure it's disgusting, but I'm sure the cops have better things to do, like catch murderers, rapists, and thieves than waste their time chasing some pervs.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Louie...
Yeah, you're right. What can I say? I was trying to be light and funny more than anything else.


Hi Nazar,
Whooo, you're in a mood today!

No big deal, but I do kind of take it amiss a bit to be told what I am and what I'm not merely because I make a point about what legalizing gay marriage does to society as a whole.

I think that is a perfectly acceptable POV that does not compromise the rights of homosexuals to live in peace in the slightest.

If you can't see that, we can certainly agree to disagree...but I might point out that one of the reasons Europe imported Muslims wholesale as immigrants was because of the huge bills to pay for the welfare state, coupled with a declining birth rate.

The same dichotomy is due to hit the US re: Social Security and Medicare as the baby boomers retire and has a bit to do with the problem of illegal immigration in the US. I made the point before that the huge rise in illegal immigration coincided with Roe V Wade: J O S H U A P U N D I T: The Immigrant Song: the USA, abortion and the debate on illegal immigration

Read it and let me know your thoughts.

I don't think the legalization of homosexual marriage, bestiality and in some European countries, polygamy and polyandry coupled with the above facts is merely a coincidence, in my opinion.

Successful societies are built on families, and on reproducing enough productive citizens to keep them going.

I'm afraid I still stand by the fact that the legal acceptance of the practices we're discussing tend to weaken the family, and thus society as a whole.

And BTW, keep in mind that I never specified the sex of the animals involved (lol!).

For what it's worth, this is a mere side issue and I apologize for hitting one of your hot buttons.

Mea Culpa.


nazar said...

My apologies for any insult I may have caused you, I can assure you it was inadvertant.

I disagree. If one group of people can't marry, then that very much impacts their ability to live their lives to the fullest. Maybe they can live in peace, but everyone deserves a chance at self-actualization. Living in peace isn't enough.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for privatizing social security and higher birthrates among Americans, but the rights of homosexuals is a seperate and distinct matter from those things. And speaking of polygamy, doesn't that actually produce more children?

Read the article. Very insightful. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as you are on this illegal immigration mess, but everything you said made perfect sense.

You may be wondering why I'm so much for gay rights. I'm a heterosexual male myself, but I have several gay friends, and I don't think it's right at all that they aren't allowed to marry. That's why I'm going to fight this attitude where I can.

Also, don't apologize for anything. It's your blog, after all. I should probably be the one apologizing for being rude.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of torture, Bush got his way again. It is now legal for the US to torture prisoners of war. Instead of reinterpreting the Geneva Convention, they simply do not cite it as a legal defense strategy for any prisoners seeking legal council. The American people again have blood on their hands from this war monger hateful son-of a bitch an bastard dogfucking cock sucking fucken idiot. Cheers USA !!! You are so smart.

So fuck a horse and go to jail, torture a prisoner, and win a prize.

Freedom Fighter said...

You know, anonymous, I'm not sure which is more appalling..the paucity of your thought or the poverty of your vocabulary.

I will only point out that (a) I'm certain your definition of torture and congress and President Bush's are quite different (b) The sole purpose of the Geneva Convention among civilized nations was to provide a civilized guarantee and a quid pro quo of treatment for prisoners on both sides, something that Americans, Russians and Brits who were POWs of the Nazis, Japanese, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Hezbollah and Saddam will tell you was absolutely worthless in those cases and (c)For a bunch of warmongers with blood on our hands, we're behaving with amazing the detriment of our winning this war.

By the way, assuming you're European, congratulations for being able to successfully shelter behind the US armed forces and take advantage of the bravery of these war mongering blood suckers to avoid defending yourselves.

You're quite welcome.

nazar said...

You bring up an interesting point, ff. We've subsidized the europeans' welfare states for the last 60 years. If those American GIs weren't there during the Cold War, what would have stopped the Red Army from rolling into Western Europe?

Yep, they've been mootching off us for quite some time now, and that's why they are so clueless about how to deal with the Islamist threat-they've never really had to deal with the communist threat, and most europeans are too young to remember the nazis.

Anonymous said...