Professor Says Bestiality "Morally Permissible"

 

Pete Singer, notorious Princeton professor of bioethics, recently shared an article in defense of bestiality. Not kidding. Not satisfied, he then offered his own statement making a case for the formerly taboo practice.

The article Singer selflessly shared is titled “Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible,” and appeared in the aptly named “Journal of Controversial Ideas”—a publication of which he is a founding co-editor. Singer took to ‘X’ to say of the article, “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. This article offers a controversial perspective that calls for a serious and open discussion on animal ethics and sex ethics.”

The article itself states that zoophilia is “one of the few sexual orientations (along with e.g. necrophilia or pedophilia) that remain off-­limits and have been left aside from the sexual liberation movement in the past fifty years.” After which Singer writes: “I would like to argue that this is a mistake. There is in fact nothing wrong with having sex with animals: it is not an inherently problematic sexual practice.”

Egads! Bestiality is not even “inherently problematic?!”

In an earlier article by Singer himself, titled “Heavy petting,” the nutty professor put forth opinions such as “girls are more likely to be attracted to horses than boys,” and suggested that men raping and beheading chickens is “no worse than what egg producers do to their hens all the time.” (Has anyone surveyed the chickens to see if they agree?) He followed that statement up by saying that bestiality is morally preferable to factory farming. I doubt even livestock would agree.

I told you so. This is further proof of the “slippery slope” of declining standards and sexual mores. What’s next? Could there be anything next after bestiality, necrophilia, and pedophilia? On second thought, I don’t want to know.

In any case, it looks like we’re soon gonna need to add some more letters to our favorite living acronym!

LGBTQIIABNP+?

We may not need the ‘plus sign’ much longer.