Another linguistic question

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The sardine in the subway

I don't want to wash myself with that soap.
I don't want to brush my teeth with that toothbrush.
I don't want to lie in that sofa bed.
I feel no need for that toilet paper.
I'm not interested in that insurance.
I won't change into another cigarette brand.
I don't feel like watching that movie.
I refuse to get of at Skärholmen.

The sardine wants the tin to be opened toward the ocean.

Critique from a Critic

• The that's aren't neccessary unless you want to emphasize a particular soap, toothbrush, etc., in which case they are needed,
  
• The reflexive myself isn't necessary either, but removing it would make the first line considerably shorter than its neighbors in the poem, so I'd leave it in.
  
• In the second line, I think it would scan better if you used brush instead of toothbrush.  Both are valid, but its a long line, and the impression that I think you want the poem to convey would be improved were it similar in length to the other lines.
  
• I presume you're trying to preserve a change in form that occurs in the fourth line of the original.  Otherwise "I don't want that toilet paper." or "I don't need that toilet paper" would be more natural sounding to me, but since poetry doesn't always try for a prose effect, I can't say whether it would be an improvement to use another form such as the ones I suggested above.
• Maybe I've read too many Lucky Strikes ads in my day, but I think using switch instead of change seems better to me, altho both are correct.
  
• You probably need to use, as KEmperor already pointed out, the preposition to instead of into in the cigarette line unless you are implying that someone wants the sardine to become a cigarette brand instead of merely using it..
  
• Finally, the last line would be better if you use the present infinitive to open or the present progressive infinitive to be opening instead of the past progressive infinitive to be opened.  Switching from present to past like that is usually wrong.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wouldn't get rid of all mention of teeth in the second line as without it, it doesn't make it clear what is being brushed.  It could be teeth with toothpaste, a car with paste wax,  or a piece of paper with adhesive paste.  Indeed, without context, I'd interpret it as the last of the three.

In the third line, the preposition could be either on or in depending on context.  If one lies in a bed, they are usually underneath sheets or blankets while on would be used if they were merely on top of it without having gone under the covers.  Since I don't know the original, I can't say which is called for.

To me, "to open" or "to be opening" don't imply what is causing the tin to open.  It could be the tin itself or something else doing the opening.

"To be opened" does imply that something else is doing the opening.  From the context, I would have thought the ambiguity would be preferrable, but I can't argue with the source material.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

English has also lost the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs in general so that it can only be told from context whether a verb is one or the other.  Of course such differences are not needed in larguages that use word order instead of endings to determine the case of nouns and adjectives.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Depending upon the exact meaning of the original, I could see "to", "on", "onto", "toward(s)", or "unto" as all being legitimate interpretations.  The choice of preposition would make subtle changes in the meaning, but all of them would be consistent with the sense of the poem as you have translated it, but as for which would be most faithful to the original poem, I can't say, since I don't know Swedish.