Bestiality, having sex with non-human animals, has been a controversial topic all these years. Some believe that it is animal abuse and that people who practice bestiality are mentally ill. Peter Singer, author of the Heavy Petting article, argues otherwise. Considering ethical issues from a preferably utilitarian perspective, it promotes actions that meet the interests of those involved. As in the case of bestiality, since both human and animal can enjoy sex, this act can be ethically moral if the sex performed is not cruel, if both partners are mutually favored and if the best consequences are made for the greatest number. of people involved. “We copulate, like them; They have penises and vaginas, like us.” In Singer's article he mentions the great resemblance between man and animals, mammals in particular, and the fact that a man can be sexually satisfied by the vagina of a calf. With this resemblance and the satisfaction gained, animal sex is not much different from other non-reproductive sex, such as oral sex. However, “bestiality” and “oral sex” can only be put in the same category if they rest on the same basis. Although humans and animals have structural similarities, this does not make copulation correct. Like bestiality, oral sex cannot lead to fertilization through the action itself. But in many cases, oral sex is considered foreplay, which then leads to sexual intercourse that can serve the purpose of reproduction. Therefore, due to the functional difference between humans and animals, despite the structural similarity, the argument that bestiality is like other types of non-reproductive sexual relations is not supported. Moreover, the satisfaction evoked by Singer is rather one-sided. Due to the language used in the middle of the paper and the fact that both can result in pleasure as a result, this does not mean that it is moral to have sex with children. Therefore, regarding the similarities, if we cannot justify sex with children as moral, we cannot justify bestiality as moral either. To conclude, Singer's view that bestiality is moral under conditions where sexual activity is not cruel, mutually favored, and better. The consequences for the greatest number of people concerned do not hold up. One of the main reasons is that the species barrier made animals difficult to communicate, and it is impossible for humans to know the true thoughts of animals. In reverse bestiality, the human being, a passive participant, may not have the strength to fight the powerful animals. To justify bestiality as moral, we must be able to obtain informed consent from animals. Otherwise, no ethically correct results can be obtained..