So it is the societal and cultural context that dictates whether it is okay or not, and not something actually tangible and measurable?

Yes, of course. Societal and cultural context is quite literally what defines morality itself. There is no universal morality. It is not a physical thing. Even things that at first appear universally "wrong", like violence or theft, are actually justified and morally "right" in some contexts, while not everyone may agree on what all of those contexts are or where the lines can be drawn.

Then I hope we may shift that context a bit to perhaps treat animals a bit less like robots overall, and individual living creatures with their own emotional lives and complexities.

Okay.

Tradition, and personal satisfaction is a poor excuse to continue something abusive.

Yes, which is why it is good that we aren't doing anything abusive by artificially inseminating livestock.

Pet animals and other animals are no different in and of themselves, objectively. A pet dog is no different than a stray dog. A pet cow is no different than a domesticated cow.

Agreed. This is completely irrelevant though. If someone was fucking cows, that would also be wrong. Duh?

The difference in these scenarios is one scenario was artificial insemination of an animal and the other scenario was a person having sex with an animal. These are not the same actions.

I guess the vast majority of people on the planet are "psychopaths" because the can tell the obvious difference between these 2 things? Honestly, if you cannot tell the difference between this, then you seem more like a psychopath.