Just the other day I was thinking: “maybe I should start having sex with animals?”

Right on cue, a very helpful Jew came to address my concerns.

It seems, indeed, I should start having sex with animals.

New York Post:

A Princeton professor accused of “arguing for decades that we need to rethink bestiality” is again under fire for urging his social media followers to “read and ponder” a “thought provoking” journal article entitled “Zoophilia is Morally Permissible.”

Dr Peter Singer, a teacher of bioethics at the Ivy League school’s Center for Human Values since 1999, posted a link to the article on his X account — where the backlash began almost immediately.

“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,” the 77-year-old prof wrote of the journal article, written under a pseudonym and published by the Journal of Controversial Ideas.

“This article offers a controversial perspective that calls for a serious and open discussion on animal ethics and sex ethics,” Singer continued. “Read and ponder.”

See, this is why I love the Jews. The address the real issues, without any need for pretense or filters.

A lot of people these days are saying things like “we should gas the Jews” and “we should wipe every single last dog-fucker kike rat off the face of the earth,” and I really disagree with these statements, because I need the moral guidance that Jews offer.

The piece, which is available online, asserts that animals can consent to sex with humans and that it may not always be a harmful experience for them.

“The case for zoophilia being permissible is fairly robust, and commonly raised objections fall flat or are insufficiently backed up,” the anonymous author of the piece declares.

“Critics of zoophilia need more than outrage, they need better arguments,” it concludes. “I suggest that the permissibility of zoophilia should now be taken as the default position, with the burden of proof belonging to its critics.”

(This is actually true under atheistic utilitarianism. If you don’t believe in God, not having sex with animals is just a backward, mindless taboo, a primitive relic of your superstitious past. Seriously, there are supposedly still “atheist right-wingers,” and I would love to see an argument against sex with consenting animals.)

Singer, who is a vegetarian, is best known for his 1975 work “Animal Liberation,” which famously argues against most animal experimentation.

One X user pointed out what they perceived to be a disparity in a scathing comment, writing: “Can’t eat them. Can f–k them.”

…

Gary Francione, a professor at Rutgers University chimed in, reminding users that Singer has “been arguing for decades that we need to rethink bestiality.”

Good thing we live in the age of reason

Francione posted a link to a 2001 essay by Singer, where he argued: “Sex with animals does not have to be cruel. Who has not been at a party disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop.”

…

Meanwhile, in a follow-up post on Facebook, the absurd academic insisted that he never explicitly stated he agreed with the premise of the “Zoophilia is Morally Permissible” essay.

“I didn’t write the article on the permissibility of zoophilia. It was published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas, a journal that pushes back against “cancel culture” by providing an outlet for controversial ideas, which authors can publish under a pseudonym,” he wrote, before stating that he is a founding co-editor of that journal.

I didn’t know there was a Journal of Controversial Ideas.

I would like to publish a piece called “Total Extermination of the Jews is Morally Necessary.”

How can being sexually attracted to young Haitian girls be any different than being sexually attracted to female chimpanzees from a zoo?

If you put random chimpanzees in an enclosure and throw internet access, the white man’s knowledge, money, technology, food, and resources at them, the result will be no different than Haiti.

They’d be unable to do stuff on their own, they would reproduce like cockroaches, and they wouldn’t really know what to do to survive after being taken away from their natural habitat.

On what basis, then, can sex with blacks be considered any different than sex with chimpanzees?

Daily Mail:

Peacekeepers of the United Nations had ‘hundreds’ of babies with women in Haiti before abandoning the young mothers, a new report has claimed.

The study into the UN mission in the disaster-hit Caribbean country said girls as young as 11 were left pregnant after being sexually abused.

Some of the girls were traded for ‘a few coins’ in order to get food and would have sex with the peacekeepers so they could survive, the British academic-led study found.

After their children were born, the young mothers were left to a life of poverty, according to the Times.

After their children were born, the young mothers were left just as they were before their pregnancy, then.

Let’s not pretend that they weren’t already living in misery.

The problem of UN workers fathering children during the political upheaval in the wake of the 2010 earthquake became some bad locals even had a nickname for it.

Haitians have reportedly named the peacekeeper-fathered children as ‘Petit Minustah’, a play on the UN’s acronym – United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti – for their mission.

Sabine Lee, of the University of Birmingham, led the team that carried out more than 2,500 interviews with people living in Haiti near UN bases over a three-month period in 2017.

The study concluded that, ‘girls as young as 11 were sexually abused and impregnated by peacekeepers and…left in misery to raise their children alone’.

It would be more accurate to say that black females as young as 11 were impregnated by peacekeepers and left at the same place that they were before their pregnancy.

From their wording it isn’t clear if they’re outraged by the age of the black females or if they’re trying to shame the peacekeepers for not taking the little pregnant blacks with them once they were sent back to their countries of origin.

Soldiers from as many as 12 different countries, including Uruguay, Chile, Argentina, Canada and France, were found to have impregnated local women, the report stated.

Lee said it was impossible to work out the exact number of peacekeeper babies but added that, ‘most researchers and NGO officials would agree that hundreds is a credible estimate’.

Can you blame them for not being able to resist the seductive charm of the black velvet though?

Absolutely disgusting.

The UN mission in Haiti is one of its longest peacekeeping deployments and the humanitarian effort has been dogged by controversy.

After the devastating earthquake, Nepalese soldiers inadvertently introduced a cholera outbreak that claimed 10,000 lives.

Oops.

Maybe they should try just giving the blacks there some bows, arrows, spears, and watermelons and… just leaving them be.

This is totally normal and healthy behavior, goyim.

The movie “The Shape of Water” is transparently a promotion of White women having sex with brown men in order to “stick it to the White patriarchy” or whatever.

However, that doesn’t mean it can’t also be used to promote an equally important Jewish agenda: having sex with literal animals.

Everyone with half a brain was saying a few years ago that as soon as faggotry was normalized and gay marriage was made law, they’d immediately start pushing all sorts of other degeneracy like pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia.

Remember this?

And HuffPo, which is always proud to be at the forefront of such things, doesn’t fail to deliver.

Huffington Post:

In 2010, journalist Malcolm J. Brenner released his autobiographical novel, Wet Goddess. A few years later, Brenner was the subject of an award-winning documentary, “Dolphin Lover.” Both works explore a period in the 1970s for which Brenner became famous — the time he fell in love with and ultimately made love to a dolphin named Dolly.

“Made love.”

That right there is all you need to know about the purpose of this article. Anyone who’d describe copulating with a wild animal as “making love” is in dire need of Zyklon therapy.

Every damn time.

As he was rocketing toward a sensational sort of renown, Brenner also became the subject of a number of think pieces and interviews. But the internet’s metabolism is quick, even when inter-species dolphin sex is involved, and Brenner’s name slowly faded from the national conversation.

Yeah, isn’t that unfortunate? Good that this movie gives you an excuse to trot out this lunatic again to remind the stupid goyim the importance and beauty of fucking animals.

You have much to learn from Moslems.

Then, Guillermo del Toro made “The Shape of Water,” a movie about a mute woman who falls in love with and ultimately makes love to a strapping humanoid amphibian, and it won the Best Picture Academy Award this past Sunday. I immediately thought of Brenner.

I bet you did, you degenerate kike.

In 1970, when Brenner was a college sophomore, he was given open access to the now-defunct theme park Floridaland near Sarasota to take photos for a book about the dolphin show. There, he claims, Dolly the dolphin began courting him.

“She would rub her genital slit against me,” he says in “Dolphin Lover.” “And if I tried to push her away, she would get very angry with me. One time, when she wanted to masturbate on my foot and I wouldn’t let her, she threw herself on top of me and pushed me down to the 12-foot bottom of the pool.”

Yeah I’m sure that’s how it happened. The dolphin “courted” the guy who also just happened to be a zoophile pervert.

After some time, Brenner and Dolly consummated their relationship — he vertical, she horizontal — but Brenner eventually moved away and Dolly was sent to an aquarium in Mississippi, where she later died.

“Consumated their relationship.”

This is completely nuts.

We’re talking about a guy who fucked an aquatic animal here.

Brenner is a thinking person’s zoophile. He draws a careful distinction between zoophiles and mere bestialists, noting in “Dolphin Lover” that the latter “might just have sex with an animal and walk away,” while the former “is someone who has tender or caring emotions for their animal partner.”

Hohoho, he’s not a “mere bestialist,” but a sophisticated and hip “zoophile.” Excuse me.

Know the difference between an aristocratic zoophile elite VS pleb-tier bestialist.

He doesn’t think anyone is necessarily born with these particular sexual proclivities. That runs counter to the dogma of a number of other zoophiles. In the documentary, Brenner explains that he believes his zoophilia is the result of the “very intense physical and sexual abuse” he claims to have suffered in early childhood at the hands of psychologist Albert Duvall, a student of the controversial psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich. “I think I found animals to be a safe and secure repository for my sexual desires,” he says in the movie.

Outrageous sexual perversions are a result of being abused as a child?

What a SHOCKING revelation!

Me irl right now.

So if this is the case, why is this HuffPo kike trying to normalize it? If these people are doing this because they’re mentally ill after being abused as children, shouldn’t be just give them psychological help instead of indulging their insanity?

The Jews are elevating mental illness to normalcy in order to undermine the fabric of society – not out of some sort of compassion for these cranks.