XPost: talk.politics.misc, uk.legal, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

An Ivy League professor and self-described animal rights activist
promoted a pro-bestiality study online Thursday, calling it "thought-provoking."

Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer shared the study
from the Journal of Controversial Ideas, which he co-founded, saying
the article challenges society's "taboo" against having sex with
animals.

"Another thought-provoking article is ‘Zoophilia Is Morally
Permissible’ by Fira Bensto (pseudonym), which is just out in the
current issue of [the Journal of Controversial Ideas]," Singer wrote
in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

"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," Singer continued.

"This article offers a controversial perspective that calls for a
serious and open discussion on animal ethics and sex ethics," the
Princeton University bioethics professor added, encouraging X users to
"read and ponder" the study promoting sex with animals.

Singer told Fox News Digital that the journal he co-edits "pushes back
against ‘cancel culture’ by providing an outlet for controversial
ideas, which authors can publish under a pseudonym."

"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," he said. "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."

"The Journal of Controversial Ideas is free and open access, for
everyone to read," he added. "We rely on donations from supporters of
freedom of thought and discussion to sustain it."

Princeton University did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's
request for comment.

The study calls zoophilia — a broad term including sexual attraction
to animals as well as bestiality — an "off-limits" sexual orientation
that was left out of the "sexual liberation movement" and is under "a
powerful social taboo that exposes its practitioners to utmost
indignation and stigma."

"I would like to argue that this is a mistake," wrote the author under
the pseudonym Fira Bensto. "There is in fact nothing wrong with having
sex with animals: it is not an inherently problematic sexual
practice."

"Given the sheer outrage that the mere mention of zoophilia triggers
in many people, we might expect the case for its permissibility to be
a hard sell and my claims to be modest and tentative. This is not so:
not only do I think that zoophilia is morally permissible, but I also
think that the case in its favor is rather straightforward, so that it
should be the default position within many philosophical quarters,"
Bensto continued.

"This makes it all the more surprising that no ambitious and explicit
defense of it has been published so far," Bensto wrote about having
sex with animals.

Singer has long been open on his thoughts regarding sex with animals,
even penning an opinion piece in 2001 titled "Heavy Petting," which
Bensto cited in the article.

Singer called bestiality a sexual "taboo" comparable to sodomy and
former President Bill Clinton's Oval Office affair.

"But not every taboo has crumbled," Singer wrote. "Heard anyone
chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their
dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still taboo."

The Princeton University professor quoted a Dutch biologist who had
"assembled a substantial body of evidence to show that humans have
often thought of 'love for animals' in ways that go beyond a pat and a
hug."

Singer wrote that the "existence of sexual contact between humans and
animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the
ambivalence of our relationship with animals" and argued that
Judeo-Christian beliefs distinguishing man from beast created "an
unbridgeable gulf [that] separates us from them."

"Today the language of human rights — rights that we attribute to all
humans but deny to all non-human animals — maintains this separation,"
he added.

Sex education at Princeton University has seen previous controversial
hot takes from professors, including one who said it is "bad science"
to believe biological sex is binary based on reproductive cells.

The Ivy League professor Agustín Fuentes has specialized knowledge in
"racism," "sex/gender" and "chasing monkeys," according to his
biography page. He argued in Scientific American magazine that
biological reproductive cells (gametes) — such as sperm and egg cells
— does not delineate whether someone is male or female.

"That human sex rests on a biological binary of making either sperm or
ova underlies all these claims," Fuentes wrote. "This is bad science."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/princeton-professor-animal-rights-activist-called-bestiality-thought-provoking

For anyone who doubts Prof. Singer is a jew

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)