How do Germany and Denmark legally treat bestiality and when were reforms enacted?
Executive summary
Germany criminalized sexual acts with animals in a 2013 reform that clarified and tightened earlier rules after decades of inconsistent law (sources note a 2013 change) [1] [2]. Denmark banned bestiality by parliamentary vote in April 2015, making first offences punishable by up to one year in prison and repeat offences up to two years; lawmakers cited concern about “animal sex tourism” and aligning with neighbouring states [3] [4] [5].
1. How the laws changed: Germany’s 2013 clarification
Germany had long regulated acts with animals unevenly—West German law dating from 1969 had allowed intercourse except where “significant harm” to the animal could be proven. In response to campaigning by animal-rights groups and parliamentary debate, lawmakers moved in 2013 to tighten that legal gap and make clear that sexual acts with animals are prohibited; reporting cites a Bundestag vote in late 2013 as the turning point in German law [1] [2]. Sources emphasize that the 2013 action was intended to clarify the legal position that previously left prosecution dependent on proving significant harm to an animal [1].
2. Denmark’s 2015 ban and the stated motive: stop sex tourism
Denmark’s parliament voted to outlaw sexual relations with animals in April 2015 after ministers and some lawmakers argued existing statutes—which required proof of animal suffering to convict—were inadequate and were attracting foreign “animal sex tourists.” The new penalties were set at up to one year’s imprisonment for a first offence and up to two years for repeat offenders, and officials framed the reform as bringing Denmark into line with Germany, Norway, Sweden and Britain [3] [4] [5]. Government figures including Agriculture Minister Dan Jørgensen argued that the law should assume animals cannot consent and therefore require explicit prohibition [6].
3. Political and expert disagreement in Denmark
Parliamentary coverage shows disagreement inside Denmark: proponents stressed image and prevention of tourism, while the Danish Animal Ethics Council and some critics had previously argued that the country’s existing cruelty and welfare statutes were sufficient and that criminalizing consensual-seeming cases risked driving behaviour underground [5] [7]. Media and activist groups framed the vote as narrow and overdue, with reporting noting a split vote [8].
4. The regional context: converging European trend
Reporting places both reforms in a broader European pattern of updates since about 2010–2014, as several countries revised statutes to remove the necessity of proving injury and to criminalize sexual acts with animals outright. Sources list Germany, Norway, Sweden and Britain among countries that had already outlawed bestiality before Denmark’s 2015 ban, and note that several other nations updated laws within the same general period [4] [2] [7]. Commentators framed Denmark as relatively late to act, influenced by its neighbours’ changes [7].
5. Enforcement and limits of the reporting
Available reporting documents the dates and the stated penalties and motives for reform, but it does not provide comprehensive data on prosecution rates, comparative sentencing outcomes over time, nor precise text of the German 2013 statutory amendments in these excerpts—those legislative texts and longitudinal enforcement statistics are not included in the cited extracts (not found in current reporting). Sources do, however, indicate the legislative intent: Germany’s move in 2013 was to clarify that sexual acts with animals are unlawful rather than only punishable when “significant harm” is shown, and Denmark’s 2015 law explicitly criminalized such acts with set prison terms [1] [3].
6. Competing framings and underlying agendas
Reporting shows two dominant framings. One, advanced by government ministers and many animal-rights advocates, emphasizes animal welfare, consent impossibility, and the need to stop tourists exploiting legal gaps—this framing is explicit in Danish statements and in coverage of both countries’ reforms [6] [4]. The other, voiced by advisory bodies in Denmark and some commentators, warned that existing cruelty laws could suffice and that criminalization might push activity underground and complicate enforcement—this sceptical view appears in coverage of the Danish debate [5] [7]. Activist outlets such as PETA and campaigning journalism treated the bans as moral and protective victories and linked reform to ending “animal-sex tourism” [9].
7. What to read next (based on cited sources)
For legislative text and enforcement practice, consult the 2013 German Bundestag records and the Danish parliamentary bill and penal-code amendments from April 2015; contemporary reporting cited here summarizes motivations and penalties but does not reproduce statutory language or post‑reform prosecution data (not found in current reporting). For context about wider European reforms and continued debates about efficacy and unintended consequences, the Reuters, BBC and local Danish press reports cited above provide contemporaneous accounts of motives, votes and penalties [4] [3] [7].