Just the other day I was thinking: “maybe I should start having sex with animals?”
Right on cue, a very helpful Jew came to address my concerns.
It seems, indeed, I should start having sex with animals.
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.”
See, this is why I love the Jews. They address the real issues, without any need for pretense or filters.
A lot of people these days are saying things like “we should gas the Jews” and “we should wipe every single last dog-fucker kike rat off the face of the earth,” and I really disagree with these statements, because I need the moral guidance that Jews offer.
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.”
(This is actually true under atheistic utilitarianism. If you don’t believe in God, not having sex with animals is just a backward, mindless taboo, a primitive relic of your superstitious past. Seriously, there are supposedly still “atheist right-wingers,” and I would love to see an argument against sex with consenting animals.)
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.”
Gary Francione, a professor at Rutgers University chimed in, reminding users that Singer has “been arguing for decades that we need to rethink bestiality.”
Good thing we live in the age of reason
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.”
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.
I didn’t know there was a Journal of Controversial Ideas.
I would like to publish a piece called “Total Extermination of the Jews is Morally Necessary.”