'Zoophiles', as they call themselves, often claim that committing sexual acts with animals is okay because animals are capable of consenting, either by sexual displays (lifting tails, humping hapless human legs, etc), or by not biting/fighting back, or by allowing the human access to them, so to speak. The problem I have with this is that an animal can't attribute the same idea to sex as a human can - for a human sex may be bound up with love and other types of emotions where by and large for animals it is another biological duty. In my opinion that would mean that there is no real consent between an animal and a human because the two are essentially contemplating a different act. Am I missing something here? And is there any validity in the idea that it is wrong to engage in sex with animals because for most humans it is intuitively wrong? If it doesn't really harm anyone - if the animal is unscathed - does that make the whole argument pointless?

The part of the question that I find interesting is the claim that "there is no real consent between an animal and a human because the two are essentially contemplating a different act" (italics added). The question assumes that animals can contemplate. We grant that, for the sake of discussion. Animals contemplate sex biologically, while humans contemplate sex emotionally, according to the question. Suppose two people, X and Y, meet in a bar or club, and drink wine, talk, and dance together intimately. After an hour or so, X says to Y: "shall we go to my place"? Y says "sure," and off they go. As soon as they get inside X's flat [crib, pad], they eagerly embrace, kiss, undress each other, and eventually end up entwined [perhaps coitally] on the sofa, floor, or bed. The consent of X and Y to this sexual act is implicit, not explicit, but that's not the issue here. The claim I quoted assumes that all is well with implicit consent. I will assume that, too, for the sake of discussion. The...