>Kelley Walker wrote:
> >
> > At 02:27 PM 4/3/01 -0800, Marta Russell wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> > >Marta
> >
> > peter singer certainly isn't condoning it either.
>
>I don't really know whether he is or not. This announcement says
>Singer thinks people and animals can have satisfying sexual
>relationships - for utilitarian logic it sounds pretty much like going
>along with the act to me. But I would need to read more.
>
>
>Marta
well, there's an article to read. it does not, in fact, condone sex with animals. rather, he uses the issue to criticize something peculiar to the western tradition: imagining ourselves as somewhere between gods and animals. furthermore, he points out that it all depends on what you call sex. if you aren't of the mind that sex is strictly procreative and, further, you aren't of the mind that only some kinds of sex are sex (unlike former PenisOne and teens who think having anal sex doesn't affect your status as a virgin), then riding a horse is a form of sex, as is allowing a dog to hump your leg! then he mentions the ape that approached a woman for sex. he also points out that men have sex with chickens, which is usely deadly for the chickens and definitely so when they chop off their heads to increase the strength of the anal spasms in the chicken. he then compares that practice to penning the chicken so that it cannot move and keeping it their til butcher time. both,he says are cruel. the sex/head chopping act is no more cruel that penning it up. his point is not to condone sex with animals. he says that noting that we do it and that it appears that apes and perhaps other animals give consent or exercise some form of agency does not mean that it is right or natural. rather, he says that it means that we can no longer justify the view that it (sex with animals) ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings. iow, maybe there are other ways to speak of human dignity without entailing that it be built on the ways we've done so thus far.
i really don't give a bat's eyelash about the issue. but i do find it annoying that the press release is a lie. and a big one.
kelley