Peter Singer的電郵訪問 康寧馨，破週報記者©版權所有 請參考破週報239期＜動物解放與達爾文左派 專訪Peter Singer＞（訪談、整理／康寧馨） Since Chuen-juei Ho, a Professor at National Central University and director of the Center for the Study of Sexualities, recently resorts to your theory to defend herself against the charge of promoting the idea of bestiality, I wonder if you could spare some time to comment on this issue. For your reference, I will first provide an account of this controversy. Ho posted on the center's homepage a hyperlink to a website about having sex with animals. Since the website provides a manual with instructions on how to have sex with various animals and also pictures of intercourse between humans and animals (I.e. illustration of a goat mounting on a woman, of a man inserting his penis into the vagina of a dog, and of humans having sex with pigs, bears, zebras, etc.), women's groups (especially the “End Children Prostitution, Child Pornography & trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT Taiwan)”) launch severe protest against the center and call for the removal of the link. Although the website belongs neither to the center nor to the university, the Ministry of Education asks the center to drop the link on the ground that the center should not abuse the Taiwan Academic Network by posting a pornographic hyperlink that has nothing to do with academic research or education. When responding to these complaints, Ho draws on your idea of “interspecies intercourse” to justify her stance. Ho contends that she is simply elucidating further the theory that Peter Singer, the author of Animal Liberation, has already proposed. Now the hyperlink has been removed by the center but the controversy has not yet ceased. What do you think about this controversy? Actually I asked you a question related to bestiality in Pots' special issue on animal rights (12.13-12.22, 2002. Http://192.192.149.200/potsback/weekly/239/index.htm). Your answer then was that "interspecies intercourse” is not so much a proposal you intended to put forward as a question you pondered on when writing a certain book review. Can you elaborate your viewpoint more clearly by relating the topic to philosophy or animal welfare? 你的「跨物種性交」一說在台灣被一中央大學性解放派教授何春蕤所引用，該位教授所負責之性／別研究室網站（位於學術網路裡）可連結到一個名為「性解放」的網頁，「性解放」網頁上有個「人獸交」超連結，人獸交網頁討論介紹動物戀、動物戀相片集（人獸交，有裸女和豬、熊、斑馬等多種動物性交、羊騎在女子身上做愛、蛇進出女性陰道，女人吸吮狗陰莖、動物射精在女人胸部、臉上及嘴巴裡，以及裸男將陰莖插入狗陰道），且有實務手冊教導如何與動物性交。日前引發爭議，諸多媒體報導，不僅婦女團體（主要是終止童妓團體）抗議，教育部也欲追究相關責任。在四月十日何春蕤教授的公開聲明裡，其中有一條說「人獸交」是動物解放一書作者你的觀點、理論，他們只是加以闡釋。人獸交網頁連結現已為教授自行撤除，請問你對此有何感想？我曾在去年（2002年）十一月破週報復刊239期的採訪中也問了你相關的問題（該期採訪連結http://192.192.149.200/potsback/weekly/239/index.htm ），你當時回答「跨物種性交」一說是對一本書所寫的書評中引伸的問題而非提議，那麼，能否較詳細地說明你現在對於「跨物種性交」的哲學思考或想法？ •Peter Singer： It's nice to hear from you again! I am in Portugal now and don't have much time to do email. But in brief, what I said to you in the previous interview is still my view. I have no"theory of interspecies intercourse". I have never written on this topic except for a single book review. But I do think that it is legitimate for a philosopher to raise the question of whether there is anything wrong with Interspecies sexual contact in circumstances that causes no pain or distress to the animal, and where the animal is free to withdraw if he or she does not like what is happening. I would prefer not to comment on the link to the website, as I am not familiar with the website in question. 很高興再收到你的消息！我現在人在葡萄牙，並沒有足夠的時間可以回信。簡短地說，我在先前的採訪中對你的回答仍然是我的觀點。我沒有所謂「跨物種性交理論」。除了一篇書評外，我從未針對這個主題寫過其他的文章。但是我的確認為哲學家如下的提問是合法的--「如果沒有造成動物的傷害或苦痛，而當動物不喜歡時又能自由撤離性交的狀態，那麼跨物種性交是否有任何不妥？」我傾向不要對該網站的那個連結下評論，因為我不熟悉問題中的這個網站。 （本文承謝Gibbon協助翻譯）