Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

I can't find anything I didn't address in Keytar's post but I guess I will do a little expansion on what the subject of consent is. That is, if an organism has the power of volition, and consents to an action or interaction; what are they really consenting to? I will consider only interaction given the context. There are three possible 'truths' (or viewpoints if you wish) about the interaction: 1. The perception of the interaction by party A. 2. The perception of the interaction by party B. 3. The complete objective reality of the interaction. Now ideally these are all equal, that is what I mean by perfect informed consent in my OP. However that is pretty much impossible for two reasons. First, understanding anything in the universe with complete specificity is impossible for finite minds. The truth can be known but only to a certain level of conceptualization. Second, some component of the perception is subjective; i.e. it exists because of the interactions relation to the observer and does not objectively exist unless the observer is specified as the context. Let me give an example using sex between two humans Jim and Sally. They have fallen in love and are talking about having sex. However they want to make sure they give each other informed consent first. Sally is a world class bio-chemist and an expert on human sexual biology/anatomy. Jim is an artist who grew up on a tribal island is profoundly ignorant of biology. Sally starts off by listing off all the risks she can think of, no matter how remote. Jim gets a headache and no matter how many times she repeats the list he can't remember them all. Jim says "you seem to understand it, if you think it's safe I'll trust you", but Sally complains that such is not informed consent but only consent. In frustration she tells him to inform her of everything she needs to know. Jim launches into a poem about how much he loves her and what their first coupling will mean to him. Sally thinks it's touching but complains that it is hopelessly vague. Then they start to talk about how what the sensations would be, but they can't seem to agree on anything more than 'it will feel good'. Sally points out that since they have different organs they will never experience the sensations the other would feel and thus can never know them since all description of sensation is relative to common experience. This presents a 'problem of sorts' to the mindset implied by KeytarHero (Con). Jim isn't aware of all the biological details of sex, Sally seems far more competent in that department but we must concede that her knowledge has it's limits as well. Because of this it could be said that neither knows what they are consenting to. Objective mechanics of the act aside, only Jim and Sally truly know what the interaction will mean and feel like to themselves, not each other. Therefore to each person, they are accepting the consent of the other without knowing exactly how it will affect the other. Here we see the failure of the "ignorant of what is being consented to" postulation. If any organism on this planet could be absolutely sure how an interaction would affect another, and therefore be sure that it would only be perceived as positive there would be no requirement for consent at all. The basic premise of seeking consent is this: "I'm not you so it's up to you to decide if this interaction is acceptable to you" The differences in perception are no doubt greater between humans and animals, but this is a difference of degree not fundamental quality. To a dog sex probably means little more than sticking his penis in someone and experiencing pleasure. Their knowledge of the objective mechanics of the act are very basic and that cannot be remedied. I would be surprised if dogs or horses make the connection between sex and offspring. (not that they need to) The exact emotions or sensations they feel is a matter of speculation. However all of this is moot because there is no deception involved, and that is what is the real reason people talk about informed consent. No one is trying to trick an animal, sex means and is what they think it is. Same for the human. They accept it and saying that they are not allowed to accept their own perception of the interaction negates the concept of consent. It could just as easily be applied to any other action or interaction, not just with animals but with people too. We all consent only to our own perception of an action or interaction. We all accept only what these interactions mean to us.