A Princeton professor is facing backlash online for suggesting followers read an article arguing sex between humans and animals is 'morally permissible'.
Peter Singer is currently a Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values of Princeton University, who's previously written a book arguing in support of veganism.
The 77-year-old is also a founding co-editor of the Journal of Controversial Ideas and his sharing of one of those ideas on social media has caused quite the stir.
In a post to X - formerly known as Twitter - on 9 November, Singer shared a link to an article called Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible by pseudonym writer Fira Bensto, calling it 'thought-provoking'.
Advert
The tweet continues: "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.
"Read and ponder."
However, rather than 'read and ponder' like Singer suggested, many social media users have flocked to the post in horror, condemning the professor's reading suggestion.
Advert
One X user wrote: "There is nothing to ponder. People (almost always men) who rape and sexually molest animals should be in jail and on the sex offender register. Sex with someone who can't consent is rape. Next!"
"Not every barrier needs to be broken down. Not every norm needs to be questioned," another added.
A third commented: "Wtf, Peter."
And a fourth resolved: "Professor, Twitter is not a good venue for this. Earth also likely isn't a good a venue, but definitely not Twitter."
Singer has since responded to the backlash over his reading recommendation, taking to his X page yesterday (11 November) to answer specific comments questioning why he'd share an article 'indicating that sexual intercourse with animals is morally permissible' when he's also published a book in the past 'arguing for veganism'.
Advert
He notes he 'didn't write the article on the permissibility of zoophilia' and that it was published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas - of which he reminds us he is a founding co-editor.
Singer continues: "The fact that we judge an article worthy of publication does not indicate that I or my co-editors agree with the views contained in it.
"We send articles submitted to us out for peer review, and if the reviewers consider that the article contains controversial ideas that are defended by argument of a sufficiently high standard to warrant publication, we publish the article.
"The Journal of Controversial Ideas is free and open access, for everyone to read. We rely on donations from supporters of freedom of thought and discussion to sustain it."
Ultimately, the professor leaves his followers with the question: "Would you rather be an animal 'locked up all of your life in a factory stall' eventually slaughtered and eaten.
Advert
"Or, would you rather be an animal 'living with a person who cares about you and loves you [...] but in addition, this person sometimes has sexual contact with you'?"
One follower responded: "Is this satire?"
"Fair, but you dodged the question," another wrote.
And a third resolves: "Somehow, this response is worse than the original article."
Advert
UNILAD has contacted Professor Peter Singer for comment.
Topics: US News, Mental Health, Animals, Twitter, Social Media, Education, Sex and Relationships