Sweden, Sheep, and Sexual Suicide
Examples of moral inversion abound. What once was called bad is now called good. What once was frowned upon is now celebrated. What once was seen as deviant behaviour is now regarded as just another lifestyle choice. What once was taboo is now all the rage.
In the brave new world of moral anarchy, the only unacceptable activity is to actually state that certain things are still wrong. With tolerance so-called, and moral relativism reigning, anything goes, except for one thing: to actually stand for morality, for right and wrong, for truth and error.
We had another great example of this in the press recently, this time from Sweden. This is a nation of course which has long ago declared war on marriage and family. And like most of Europe, it is among the most secular nations on earth. And it has adopted a policy of anything goes when it comes to sexuality.
This is a heady mix. Thus we should not be surprised when we see bizarre perversions occurring there. And worse yet, no one seems to bat an eyelash about them. Consider this news item: “Swedish man accused of sex with sheep”. Here is how the story goes:
“A Swedish man in his fifties who was allegedly caught having sex with a sheep near Alingsås in western Sweden denies being guilty of animal cruelty. In the beginning of June last year a sheep farmer and his wife heard a curious bleating sound from one of the farm’s pastures.
“When they went to investigate they were shocked to find a man engaged in sexual conduct with one of the ewes. ‘This is an unusual case. Earlier it would have been classified as bestiality but nowadays it is seen as cruelty to animals,’ Tomas Tell of the police told daily Göteborgsposten (GP).
“The witness reports are in themselves not enough to convict the man of cruelty to animals. Therefore a specialist veterinary surgeon has been called in from the Swedish Board of Agriculture (Jordbruksverket) as an expert witness. ‘Because there were no visible injuries the prosecutor must be able to prove that the ewe has suffered from the unpleasant event,’ Tell told GP.”
There you go folks. Once upon a time bestiality was seen as the utter epitome of moral depravity and sexual suicide. Now the only thing the Swedish authorities are worrying about is whether the sheep was injured or not. As long as both parties are unharmed – especially the animal – then everything is just peachy.
This is where contemporary Sweden had gotten to. Put these various ingredients together – super secularism, sexual anarchy, and a war against the family – and you have some very fertile ground for this sort of behaviour. Indeed, the article goes on to say this: “Sex crimes against animals have been reported to be on the rise in Sweden earlier this year with an increase in reported cases of sexual mutilation of horses and other livestock.”
But this is not just an isolated incident unfortunately. And it is not just some dim-witted farmer who is in favour of this. I have mentioned before how one of the world’s most famous and celebrated ethicists has come out in favour of bestiality.
Princeton University’s Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer, is on record as stating that there is nothing wrong with having sex with animals, as long as it is consensual, and no harm is done to the animal. The vegetarian and animal rights crusader was not laughed out of court when he wrote this.
Incredibly, most of his colleagues and fellow academics found nothing unusual or alarming about his remarks. That tells us a lot about where academia in particular and the West in general are at. If world-renowned intellectuals can get away with defending bestiality, then we really are coming to the end of Western civilisation.
So if it is good enough for Singer, then I guess it must be good enough for this poor farmer. Who are we to judge them? Who are we to say anything is wrong? Who are we to find this morally troubling? How can we be so judgmental and so negative?
Albert Camus once said, “A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon the world.” In this case it might be more accurate to say, “A man without ethics is a man loosed upon wild beasts.”
15 Replies to “Sweden, Sheep, and Sexual Suicide”
I think the failure of Singer’s academic colleagues to ostracise him for his silly belief might be explained by the common view that philosophers are seen as odd anyway. They are expected to talk eccentric nonsense so it is shrugged off. But Singer is a Secular Humanist, and I do recall seeing a Secular Humanist “philosophy of sex” publication that non-judgmentally went into the details of an episode of beastiality. Why some of them get into these subjects I don’t know, but the pervert and crank Kinsey is one of their heroes.
That Swedish man should of course be referred to a psychiatrist. His odd behaviour is probably just one of a constellation of problems requiring intervention.
Thank you again Bill. Brilliant final line!
On the practical level, we need to be constantly confronting all the pro-gay propagandists about this sort of thing. Was this man ‘born this way’? Are we ‘bigoted’ to oppose his actions? Would it be ‘mental cruelty’ to seek to change his behaviour if not his ‘orientation’ – and should we pass laws to force livestock farmers to employ him on their pastures without ‘discriminating’ against this ‘sexual orientation’? (After all, do all those silly laws outlawing this, ever define limits to the scope of ‘sexual orientation’?)
In short, we must baldly ask the pro-gays: Do you actually have any sexual ethics at all? Being against rape doesn’t count – the principle of consent isn’t a specifically sexual requirement, as it applies across the board, e.g. to taking someone’s property.
Dan Baynes, U.K.
So there we have it, ladies and gentleman; we are absolutely free no longer to be governed from above, according to an absolute Judeo-Christian morality and value system, whereby, being made in the image of God and endowed with human nobility and dignity, we behave in a way that clearly creates a gulf between us and the rest of fallen nature. Instead, being governed from forces below, we are condemned to become creatures of brute instinct.
A disciple of Peter Singer‘s, Peter Tatchell, has said:
“Acknowledging these social changes is, however, no reason to lapse into anarchic moral relativism. Instead, we need a new moral framework for teaching sex education that can encompass diversity while also giving young people guidance on how they are most likely to find erotic and emotional happiness.
This new moral framework involves three very simple principles: mutual respect, consent and fulfilment… Never coerce or pressure a partner into doing something they don’t want to do. Make sure both of you get physical and psychological enjoyment. That’s it! Simple, inclusive and moral – without being moralistic.”
But Peter Tatchell is also a great devotee of sado-masochism where pain and cruelty are an essential ingredient of sexual pleasure. For him, morality boils down to taste. If one finds anal intercourse, fisting, coprophilia, scats, water sports, paedophilia, bestiality, incest, sado-masochism, necrophilia and cannibalism distasteful, don’t do them. So goodness and badness have moved beyond something being offensive to merely being distasteful. If you don’t like them, doing them don‘t do them, but live and let die.
The ultimate sexual pleasure, however, has to be cannibalism. In this case, the victim willingly consented.
And here the cannibal has become a celebrity
Just a few hints and tips from Tatchell:
“The best way to persuade teenagers to adopt oral sex and mutual masturbation is by making them look and sound sexy, and by emphasizing their advantages over intercourse: no worries about unwanted conceptions, no need to use the pill or condoms.”
David Skinner, UK
Perhaps the ultimate erotic experience apart from autoasphyxiation is suicide, and it this that we should be teaching our children as an option, since it is a sight quicker and more exciting than having than having to go through the misery of catching a sexually transmitted disease.
Giving the gift
David Skinner, UK
This is not morally wrong, merely offensive or just distasteful:
David Skiner, UK
This is not something to joke about. This is very serious. I remember that a while ago in the Dutch Parliament this question came up when considering taking up bestiality in the penal code. Everybody agreed, but the liberal parties objected to any moral argument made and concluded that only the harm to the animal was important or the dignity of the animal. Watch, not any longer the dignity of man, but of the animal is important.
Nevertheless, what seems to be taken out of the picture entirely is the property-right of the owner of the sheep. In the end an animal is a thing much like a table….
This is no joke, Peter, this is tragic to see a once great nation collapse from within.
David Skinner, UK
David Skinner, that professor of sociology described in your link is probably a psychopath, a personality type deeply deficient in conscience and normal social feelings such as empathy. The sort of behaviour he boasts about is simply not compatible with conscience. Psychopaths tend to be predatory, manipulative and exploitative.
Thanks for the links. These are glimpses of a sexual underworld that most folk would rather not think about.
We live in a world where animals are treated like people and people are treated like animals.
How do they know if the sheep consented? Where is the psychiatrist who will determine if the sheep suffered mentally from the event?
This is not a joking matter but the new laws are turning the courtroom into a three ring circus.
Peter Singer is ONE SICK MAN!! I am shocked to read his comments.
Tell me….how does an animal consent to sex with a human??
This guy is a mental freak!! Plenty of these about!
Peter Tatchell’s emulation of Peter Singer is a window into the workings of the queer mind. He says:
“There are many books that have influenced the way I see the world. One that stands out is Animal Liberation (1975) by Peter Singer. Probably one of the most important books of the last 100 years, it expands our moral horizons beyond our own species and is thereby major evolution in ethics…In Singer’s moral universe, cruelty is barbarism, whether it is inflicted on human or non-human animals. The campaigns for animal rights and human rights therefore share the same fundamental aim: a gentler, kinder world, based on compassion and without suffering.”
Now either dear Peter Tatchell is suffering from cognitive dissonance or is just plain hypocritical but how are we to understand his stance on sado-masochism?
“Outlawing other visual depictions of sex – even very explicit depictions – is highly problematic and ethically dubious. After all, since consensual adult sex acts are entirely natural, healthy and lawful, why should images of these acts be criminal offences? Criminalising such pornography is neither necessary nor justified.
There are some grey areas that I feel uncomfortable about, such porn videos produced by consenting participants which nevertheless show images of extreme sexual violence and degradation. But the censorship of these images involves inherent problems: how do you define degradation and who decides? While some porn is degrading, not all of it is. Do we believe that the state, and often elderly conservative judges, are the appropriate and reasonable arbiters of such matters?
The main problem is that there is no agreed consensus on what constitutes a degrading, exploiting or humiliating image. Opinions differ widely. Even if a definition could be generally agreed, it would be very difficult – if not impossible – to set out in law and interpret uniformly in practice….”
Further on he says,
“Criminalising such behaviour violates the right to privacy, individual liberty and personal autonomy. To deny mutually consenting adults the right to personal private space, and the right to make decisions about their own bodies, has more than a whiff of authoritarianism. For these reasons, abusive images produced by consenting participants who act out extreme SM fantasies should not be banned; although there may be a case for discouraging and campaigning against them on the grounds that a minority of disordered people might be unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality and may come to view such abuse as normal and valid – to the detriment of their partners. Any opposition to consensual sexual violence and humiliation is based on many ifs and maybes and it seems unfair to penalise the majority of mature, responsible SM lovers on the grounds of what an aberrant minority of viewers of this extreme imagery might do subsequently.”
David Skinner, UK
“Do you actually have any sexual ethics at all?” (Dan Baynes, above) – or indeed any ethics of any sort? No, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” is what most Western “intellectuals” seem to believe, these days (I used to think satanist Aleister Crowley thought that one up, but I read, the other day, that he got it from someone else, some earlier occultist or suchlike).
John Thomas, UK
Sex with a sheep is both bestiality and cruelty to animals. The ewe would undoubtedly have been distressed at being coerced into behavour alien in the natural world. It would have presented an abnormal scene of the debasement of Man. I would imagine that the aftermath would have been a massive dose of self-disgust for the human concerned. Kinsey, Anthony Storr, the satanist Aleister Crowley, the Marquis de Sade, Peter Tatchell have all proposed that there is no such thing as sexual deviation. They inhabit a profane world where God does not exist and Jesus is mocked and it seems to me they are constantly trying to fill an insatiable void in their lives.
While all the comments already posted on this topic make interesting reading, I am somewhat surprised that no-one has yet directed readers to the mind of God on this matter, clearly and unequivocally stated in Exodus 22:19: ‘Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.’ Thus the main issue here is certainly not the animal nor perhaps even the man up to a point, but rather about the standard of conduct that God himself has decreed for all his creatures.
Graeme Mitchell, Sydney
It seems the link to Singer’s article that I posted above is no longer working, but this one works:
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch