A reader e-mailed me to say that "You and the Anon are dead wrong about Ingrid Newkirk and sexual contact with animals." My interlocutor informs me that Newkirk came to Singer's defense in that particular ruckus.

Mea culpa, for some reason I was under the impression that Newkirk and PETA had criticized Singer on that issue. In any case, since it's come up, I'll just say that I agree with Singer that, except in cases of non-consent or where unprotected sex is likely to serve as vector for STIs, sexual behavior is morally irrelevant. Ironically, you could also well describe it as "moral onanism" in the sense that the Biblical story of Onan is not a critique of masturbation, common usage be damned, but a more general cautionary tale about the non-procreative expense of seed, the most of precious of resources for a small tribe in the ancient Near East. The story is the scriptural starting point for the prohibition on non-procreative sex. Today, more accurate to describe preoccupation with sexuality as a non-procreative expense of precious moral energy, the Onanism of the 21st century.

So if some odd character enjoys having his dog hump his leg, I find that deeply icky, but I have a hard time thinking of it as a moral issue.

The problem with discussing these issues at all is that people who are unwilling to accept Singer's more consequential moral demands (20% of your income to the impoverished, please) leap on this kind of academic esoterica to persuade themselves and others that the whole Singer package is pathological. He's written one article on zoophilia, and volumes on our obligation to make material sacrifices for the benefit of impoverished children. Is it the zoophilia article that disgusts people, or the idea of a moral obligation to make material sacrifices?