Marco Anglesio:
> I would think that it's highly inconvenient (to say the least) to have one
> of their prominent members so much as breathe a word about bestiality. It
> tars the all animal rights advocates as sexual perverts, at least a
> little bit, despite what he said *about* bestiality.
Most hard-line animal-rights theory I've encountered would prohibit sex with animals (because, as noted here before, the animal can't give consent; their politics essentially derives from the belief that animals have significant interests). Using animals for sex would violate a.r. beliefs just as much as using them for research or entertainment does. Of course, every sort of abuse is heaped on such people freely because they are a small and peculiar minority, so perhaps they are afraid of being charged with softness on bestiality as well. But their main quarrel with Singer would be a matter of faith and morals, not public relations.
> For that matter, and this is entirely hypothetical, I'd be surprised if
> Singer couldn't have figured that out for himself. (Why then did he write
> it?)
Outside of religious doctrine (e.g. Leviticus 18:23), it's hard to say why, logically, if one is willing to confine, torture and kill an animal for the pleasure of eating its flesh or wearing its skin, one shouldn't have sex with it instead (or as well). Singer's attraction to provoking controversy about such questions probably outweighs his attachment to honorary positions in the animal rights movement.