Why isn’t zoosexuality accepted? So many double standards...?

[Psy]

You've answered a lot of your own questions quite well. Humans are most definitely animals, but for ease of typing I'll use "human" and "animal" to distinguish between humans and nonhuman animals. And for definitions: zoophilia is when someone loves and respects animals as true equals and is romantically/emotionally attracted to one or more species as mates; zoosexuality is when the zoophile is also physically/sexually attracted to those animal species as mates; bestiality by dictionary definition is sexual activity between a human and a nonhuman animal; and a bestialist (my definition) is someone who has sex with animals without being in love or attracted to them and still seeing them as just an animal, things, property, lesser beings, etc. (whether the sex is harmless or harmful). Zoophilia/zoosexuality is a sexual orientation no less than heterosexual, etc.

The media only ever reports stories of harm or abuse--real crimes. A fence hopper trespasses, someone ties up a goat, a person dies from a big overexcited stallion, etc. That makes the news. Stories of true love, affection, care, and intimacy between a zoophile and animal mate doesn't make the news because nobody hears about it (zoos are usually very secretive), and even if it did become public the media wouldn't touch it since it's good news. All the general public ever hears about bestiality is abuse and harm.

The consensual, mutually pleasurable, non-rape sexual activity between a human and animal is condemned by society for those reasons of people seeing it as inhuman, abusive, etc. even if there is no logic behind their judgment. Usually it comes down to religious values or the "ewww" factor. The line is clearly drawn between zoophilia and zoosadism at the point where sex becomes coerced, forced, abusive, harmful, or fatal. Zoophilia is a sexual orientation; zoosadism is a fetish (note that not all zoosadism is sexual; some people just get pleasure from harming animals in general).

You're correct that interspecies sex is natural because it has been observed in countless animal species, including humans. And it's not just sex, but also actual mateships between animals of different species. Humans are no different.

The dictionary definition of "moral" or "immoral" has to do with what is truly right and truly wrong. The common usage of it seems to be more based on personal opinion or religious beliefs; "I don't like that, therefore it's immoral," that sort of mentality. Rating something as moral or immoral requires logic and rational analysis, not just a kneejerk reaction. Love, tenderness, intimacy, etc. are harmless and beneficial, enjoyed by those who experience it, and that makes it truly right and therefore moral. The species of those involved is irrelevant.

Zoophiles truly love and respect their animal mates as equals, no less than human mates feel for each other, and the zoo provides the greatest love and care for his/her mate(s) possible. There is no abuse; they wouldn't dream of it. If sexual intimacy happens it's consensual and mutually desired, and if one or the other doesn't want it, it doesn't happen.

The old "consent" argument assumes consent requires a spoken language, but that’s far from true. Animals communicate through nonverbal means of vocalizations and body language, and communicate sexual consent with each other all the time. A human would have to be blind or a moron to not be able to understand that communication, and would be a rapist to ignore an animal's statement of "NO!" and proceed anyway. Animals communicate consent and pleasure to eat or have a tummy rubbed, and communicate a non-consent to get a bath (if they don't like it) or go to the vet. People in general accept that fact; it's ridiculous to think animals are incapable of consenting to or rejecting sexual activity. Zoophiles pay very close attention to that communication, accepting consent and obeying rejection in intimate matters. It goes both ways; the animal may make a sexual offer and the human can consent or reject that offer. [More on consent below.]

Sex between humans and animals is not harmful provided they are adequately matched in size for penetration and each one takes care to not harm the other (mind the teeth during a BJ, large animal moving gently, etc.) and the sex is fully consensual. A smart & caring human (ie. zoophile) would not try intercourse with an animal who is physically incompatible in size or other factors, sexually immature, or too wild in behavior.

You’re right, bestiality is rejected like pedophilia but they are not the same thing.

[out of space] Final question’s answer, it isn’t wrong for a human and animal to enjoy each other in such a way.