I just realized that this discussion sounds a lot weirder than I thought. It didn't sound that weird in my head, I promise.

If beastiality is inherently wrong, what about anthropomorphic animals? — john27

Anthropomorphic features are on an arbitrary continuum. If you put a hat on some slime mold, it's more human eh?

If you dress an animal up to give it anthropomorphic features before you exercise sexual gratification with said animal, it's still bestiality. Veggestiality is far more common. Melons are quite popular.

But given that, if we don't need consent to eat an animal, why would we need consent to eat out an animal? Taboo and probably useless questions from a standpoint of good taste to be sure.

Stylized/cartoony bestiality porn is probably far less stigmatizing with regard to your peers finding out rather than the real act.

Anthropomorphic features are on an arbitrary continuum. If you put a hat on some slime mold, it's more human eh? — Nils Loc

Exactly. It's all about finding that delicate balance of almost unacceptable, but acceptable.

If you dress an animal up to give it anthropomorphic features before you exercise sexual gratification with said animal, it's still bestiality. Veggestiality is far more common. Melons are quite popular. — Nils Loc

I find that Pygmalion is a wonderful rendition of our modern dilemma. Did he fall in love with a statue, or a human? If the latter, it comes of parallel consequence that we accept modern humanistic bestiality as "human" with cute, incomprehensibly cute parentheses.

If the latter, it comes of parallel consequence that we accept modern humanistic bestiality as "human" with cute, incomprehensibly cute parentheses. — john27

Ain't no one gonna accept beastiality except a vanishing and disturbed minority. Getting off to furry/octopus porn doesn't count as beastiality. A human dressed in a costume is a human.

Score.