Animals are already being killed, raped and tortured every single day so to be against bestiality due to harm it would inflict on the animals is hypocritical.
Some acts of bestiality potentally inflict no harm on the animals and could not even be considered rape, if a adult dog mounts a human and that human consents to it how is it rape? The dog iwllingly mounted the human and proceeded to havse sex with it, personally I fail to see the problem with it.
You could argue ''well if a toddler sucks our penis the toddler initiated it but that doesn't make it ok because it's a toddler', that is entirely correct, however you seem to forget a adult dog is not a toddler, whereas a toddler has not the faintest of clues what sex is, a adult dog does, after all the dog is grown up and has sex with other dogs as well, if you still claim it to be rape then that must mean there exists no consensual sex between dogs which is ridiculous.
I've read of humans havig sex with a horse, clearly that is impossible unless the horse consents to it considering how strong horses are.
I believe bestiality to be ethical as long as no intentional harm is done to the animal and there are still BILLIONS of animals being killed, tortured and raped by industries every year
Bestiality is very similar to that of consuming an animal for sustenance, and in more recent cases found uniquely, mostly, in developed countries, excessive consumption of animal derived products- meat, for instance- for pleasure; compare the gratification from eating a $100 steak to a $10 steak- while monetary value is surely an element in the gratification, it is not mutually exclusive from that $100 steak, being that it is the price tag that elevates the value (no object's value is inherent) of the steak, translating the $100 steak into perceived sweetness, decadence dancing on the taste buds (you might argue that a $100 steak will surely taste better than a $10 steak, but then consider what is meant by "better"- the notion of "better"in this instance is not universal, as such, a $100 steak cannot be said to be better in any way, save for personal opinion). So, if it is taboo or unethical to have sexual intercourse with a mare, for example, then it should be taboo to even eat an animal- in some cultures, eating meat is considered taboo (vegans), which then begs consideration of the subjectivity of morality between cultures, rendering the illusion of absolute immorality dispelled.
We too often impose our values and perspectives on others, believing that some actions are to be condemned- in this case, having sex with animals-, but if the individual committing the act deems it fair to have sexual intercourse with the animal, then clearly his/her beliefs do not align with convention, so to judge their actions based on our beliefs without full, objective consideration for their beliefs, would only sow more ignorance.
In seeing animals/creatures of lesser intellect, used in a manner that would presuppose exploitation, we insert our own feelings into the situation and stare at it believing that if that horrendous act is to be done to ourselves, we would surely not like it, and thus we castigate such actions. In other words, empathy leads us to make very erroneous judgments that result in value based categorization- while a flea bitten, mange, starving dog that is used for sexual gratification is no different from a dog that is well nourished and has been raised in a safe environment, we see them for their superficial differences and invest our entire existence into those differences, resulting in us "feeling" their pain.
And so, suffice to say, with ethics being a subjective concept that at its closest to an absolute form is in majority's opinion, bestiality, or any other -alities for that matter, is not unethical.