> The charge was that the _activist literature_ misrepresented Singer's
> views, taking him out of context. A specific time would be the time you
> forwarded a Press Release about disability activists' rejections of
> Singer's views in a piece on bestiality for an online 'zine called, Nerve.
> What Singer actually said and what the Press Release claimed he said were
> completely at odds.
When this first came around last year, I was so sure Singer had not *endorsed bestiality* that I contacted Nerve, Singer, and Gary Francione to try to get to the bottom of it. I was sure it was a hoax of some sort, since I'd gotten the message on or about 1 April. (My notes about talking to Singer and Emily Nussbaum, Nerve editor, about the article were sent along to LBO and are archived at <http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0104/0255.html>.)
I had a rather long phone conversation with Francione; I did not agree with his reading of Singer's argument in the Nerve article -- and I was disappointed that Singer felt he could use the word "cunt" in what he defended as "feminist appropriation" -- and, yes, Kelley, I agree that the press release is *very* sloppy, but I'm not sure it amounts to a lie.
At least, Francione seemed sincere in his interpretation of Singer as having endorsed bestiality. The press release is, in my view, *wrong*, but I don't think there was intent to deceive requisite for it to be a lie. (That it was an attempt to rid the animal rights movement of Singer's 'leadership', I have no question, and that does make things a bit harder to judge.)
Though the article still strikes me as terribly ill-conceived -- the idea that, in humping your leg at a dinner party, your dog has *consented* to "sex", however defined, is very odd; we don't have a very good theory of consent for humans, much less for dogs -- and strategically dumb on Singer's part, that's a separate issue having more to do with internal animal rights movement politics than anything else.
Kendall Clark