Favorite Answer

Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation no less than any other orientation. It is different in that the subject of one's attraction is a nonhuman animal, it is right for that person who is that orientation, and it's not wrong when the feelings are mutual and sexual activity is fully consensual. Just like any other sexual orientation, it's something they're born with, not a psychological problem.

Actually, zoosexuality is a part of the larger orientation of zoophilia. A zoophile is someone who loves and respects animals as true equals, and very often is emotionally and romantically attracted to one or more species as a mate. It's no different than a heterosexual person being romantically attracted to someone of the opposite sex, or a homosexual person being romantically attracted to a person of the same sex, etc. When the zoophile is also physically and sexually attracted to the animal mate(s), that added part is zoosexuality. It doesn't require actual sexual experience to be zoosexual, just like a heterosexual person can be heterosexual without having yet been sexually active with someone of the opposite sex, for example.

When the zoophile/zoosexual does share sexual intimacy with the animal mate(s), that intimacy is an extension and expression of their love and affection just the same as any human-human couple.

As you can see from other responses, most people assume that animals can't consent and therefore sex is rape. Actually, animals are fully capable of expressing consent or rejection and use nonverbal communication like vocalizations and body language to express themselves. It's just the same as having a human sex partner who doesn't speak your same language; even without understandable words you can understand what that person is saying to you. When communicating with each other in sexual matters, they use body position, movements, and vocalizations to show desire, offers, or acceptance of an offering mate; they also use body position, movements, vocalizations, and also teeth, claws, and hooves to show lack of desire, rejection of a mate, and basically saying "No!".

A zoophile's mate can also use those same methods to communicate "yes" or "no", and zoophiles are very much in tune to that communication to know their mate's thoughts, feelings, desires, and sexual consent, plus sexual enjoyment. A person would have to be a blind moron to not see and understand that communication.

And if a person saw and ignored the animal's rejection and lack of consent, and proceeded with sex anyway with methods of coercion, restraint, or sedation, that person would not be a zoophile/zoosexual. That person would be a rapist and deserves every much as harsh a penalty as if the victim was a human. (IMO, whether the victim is animal or human, rapists should face forcible gonad removal and lengthy prison sentences on up through execution, depending on the severity of the assault.)

But back to your question! I think zoophiles/zoosexuals are perfectly fine, and I don't find it wrong at all just because the person they're in love with happens to be a nonhuman animal. There's nothing wrong with being romantically and sexually attracted to someone who's different, even if that someone is an animal, and when it comes to their sexual intimacy, as long as everyone involved is consenting and enjoys it then more power and love to them.