A Princeton professor accused of “arguing for decades that we need to rethink bestiality” is again under fire for urging his social media followers to “read and ponder” a “thought provoking” journal article entitled “Zoophilia is Morally Permissible.”
Dr Peter Singer, a teacher of bioethics at the Ivy League school’s Center for Human Values since 1999, posted a link to the article on his X account — where the backlash began almost immediately.
“This piece challenges one of society’s strongest taboos and argues for the moral permissibility of some forms of sexual contact between humans and animals,” the 77-year-old prof wrote of the journal article, written under a pseudonym and published by the Journal of Controversial Ideas.
“This article offers a controversial perspective that calls for a serious and open discussion on animal ethics and sex ethics,” Singer continued. “Read and ponder.”
The piece, which is available online, asserts that animals can consent to sex with humans and that it may not always be a harmful experience for them.
“The case for zoophilia being permissible is fairly robust, and commonly raised objections
fall flat or are insufficiently backed up,” the anonymous author of the piece declares.
“Critics of zoophilia need more than outrage, they need better arguments,” it concludes. “I suggest that the permissibility of zoophilia should now be taken as the default position, with the burden of proof belonging to its critics.”
Singer, who is a vegetarian, is best known for his 1975 work “Animal Liberation,” which famously argues against most animal experimentation.
One X user pointed out what they perceived to be a disparity in a scathing comment, writing: “Can’t eat them. Can f–k them.”
“Someone should probably check your hard drive,” a second critic sneered.
“Not every barrier needs to be broken down. Not every norm needs to be questioned,” another detractor declared.
Gary Francione, a professor at Rutgers University chimed in, reminding users that Singer has “been arguing for decades that we need to rethink bestiality.”
Francione posted a link to a 2001 essay by Singer, where he argued: “Sex with animals does not have to be cruel. Who has not been at a party disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop.”
The disgustedRutgers prof said of that essay: “I thought it was sick then. I think it’s sick now. But I appreciate that whatever keeps you in the public eye is what works.”
Singer’s tweet was still online as of Saturday afternoon. The Post has contacted the frisky professor for comment.
Meanwhile, in a follow-up post on Facebook, the absurd academic insisted that he never explicitly stated he agreed with the premise of the “Zoophilia is Morally Permissible” essay.
“I didn’t write the article on the permissibility of zoophilia. It was published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas, a journal that pushes back against “cancel culture” by providing an outlet for controversial ideas, which authors can publish under a pseudonym,” he wrote, before stating that he is a founding co-editor of that journal.
“The fact that we judge an article worthy of publication does not indicate that I or my co-editors agree with the views contained in it. We send articles submitted to us out for peer review, and if the reviewers consider that the article contains controversial ideas that are defended by argument of a sufficiently high standard to warrant publication, we publish the article,” he said.
Source link
#Princeton #professor #sparks #outrage #calling #journal #article #sex #animals #thought #provoking #check #hard #drive