Kelley Walker wrote:
> > >hey, it might actually be worthwhile to read the article since it
> > >really doesn't say much that is terribly absurd and it certainly
> > >doesn't do what this idiotic press release suggests.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> > Thanks for pointing that out. I'd wondered if the press release was a
> > joke, but it didn't have an April 1 date on it.
> >
> > Doug
Marta Russell:
> No joke. The press release was an announcement of the de-throning of
> Singer from his position at that particular animal group organization.
> Sheep, afterall, can't and don't give consent to humans to use them
> for sexual pleasure --
> so are you saying you condone having sex with animals? That would
> certainly give a new slant on farming.
>From what I heard in the U.S. Army from the farm boys, and
what I read in Kinsey, there's nothing new about having sex
with animals. (There are also quite a few pictures on the
Net, I believe.) Since people don't ask the animals' consent
before confining, torturing, sickening, or killing them, it
seems odd to require it before having sex with them, except
for an animal liberation / rights type. I think most people
are off that board, so their objection to having sex with
animals must have another basis than lack of consent. The
Old Testament, perhaps.
For the animal rights, etc., types, the question of consent actually arises. Now, many people think they can detect consent in some animals. For instance, I have two cats who both seem to understand what being picked up means to the extent of anticipating it under certain circumstances, and one appears to consent while the other doesn't. This anecdote does not mean that I have sex with my cats. But it does indicate that an animal can appear to consent to at least some social activities with humans. That being the case, those animal-rights, etc., fans who believe that an animal cannot consent to have sex with a human being need to refine their case, at least if they think it is all right for humans to socialize in any way with animals. (PETA is not included; they think even keeping pets is wrong.)
Singer, as usual, appears to be playing the contrarian. It seems like a fairly cheap shot this time; popular mores are always full of odd contradictions.