Attenborough Betrays His Age, Snubs Gay Animals

[cronus]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entert ... 6574670194

Sir David Attenborough accused of 'ignoring gay animals' in BBC documentaries

AN ACADEMIC has accused Sir David Attenborough of failing to cover homosexuality in his famous BBC nature documentaries.

Dr Brett Mills, head of media studies at the University of East Anglia, said that while he doubted Sir David was deliberately ignoring the issues, homosexuality is "pretty much everywhere" in the animal world.

He said that by ignoring or sidelining the issue, wildlife documentary makers are skewing the audience's view of what is natural.

Dr Mills – who has previously criticised such documentaries for invading animals’ rights to privacy – said: "These programmes make a valuable contribution to environmental awareness and how people think about the world around them. They are highly regarded and educational but they should also be offering alternative interpretations of animal behaviour.

"The central role in documentary stories of pairing, mating and raising offspring commonly rests on assumptions of heterosexuality within the animal kingdom.

"This is despite a wealth of scientific evidence which demonstrates that many non-human species have complex and changeable forms of sexual activity, with heterosexuality only one of the many possible options."

Dr Mills's criticisms come after watching hours of Sir David's documentaries, spanning two decades.

In one example from 2003’s The Life Of Mammals, two male chimps are shown embracing. The narrator describes it as an act of friendly affection – but Dr Mills says alternative explanations should also be given.

(continued, wasn't sure if this belonged in 'evolution' so put it here)

[JimC]

heterosexuality only one of the many possible options.

Yes, but in the vast majority of species, the completely dominant form. In mammals with complex cognitive abilities and social structures, it starts to make an appearance. The evolutionary implications are interesting, but there is no need for the politically correct chattering classes to use it as a battering ram for gay rights - they stand or fall on ethical grounds, not appeals to biology...

[cronus]

heterosexuality only one of the many possible options.

Yes, but in the vast majority of species, the completely dominant form. In mammals with complex cognitive abilities and social structures, it starts to make an appearance. The evolutionary implications are interesting, but there is no need for the politically correct chattering classes to use it as a battering ram for gay rights - they stand or fall on ethical grounds, not appeals to biology...

It isn't anything to do with gay rights just accurate reporting. I see where you are coming from though...

[klr]

From the title, you'd have thought that DA had actively poo-poohed the idea of discussing gay animals in documentaries.

Yes, he certainly does not explicitly discuss them, but when have you ever seen a natural science documentary that did that?

And some of the examples in the article are spurious IMHO. More Daily Fail ...

[cronus]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/08/da ... mentaries/

David Attenborough accused of excluding homosexuality from animal documentaries

Sir David Attenborough has been accused by a university academic of restricting his programmes to representing only a “single interpretation” of the sexual behaviour of animals, excluding the possibility of homosexuality.

Dr Brett Mills of the University of East Anglia argues in his paper that documentaries should show more than just the interpretation of animal behaviour which is widely shown.

The 86-year-old broadcaster is not directly named in the paper, however three of his programmes are, and are blamed for causing a “mismatch” between scientific findings, that animals engage in homosexual sex, and what is presented, which Dr Mills describes as a heterosexual “norm”.

He says: “Heterosexuality is upheld as the norm in wildlife documentaries and the idea of the family it presents is one which equates the family with heterosexuality. The central role in documentary stories of pairing, mating and raising offspring commonly rests on assumptions of heterosexuality within the animal kingdom.

“This is despite a wealth of scientific evidence which demonstrates that many non-human species have complex and changeable forms of sexual activity, with heterosexuality only one of many possible options.

“Within the academic community there is clearly much debate over precisely what particular moments of animal behaviour mean, and the purposes they fulfil.”

Dr Mills goes on to stress the importance of showing the full spectrum of sexual behaviour of animals, including “alternative” sexual practices such as homosexuality.

“Yet wildlife documentaries commonly offer a single interpretation as unarguable and uncontested. So there is this mismatch between what the science is saying and what is being presented in these programmes.”

(continued, Well they don't mind showing conventional sex but you never see chimps giving a blow job either way, but they often do, especially the Bonobos dirty little fuckers)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Anybody who fails to give Lichtenstein's role in WWII equal time is a right bastard.

[Rum]

Anybody who fails to give Lichtenstein's role in WWII equal time is a right bastard.

My granny washed my dad's army uniform at the end of 1944. I am pretty sure that contributed to the Allied victory!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Anybody who fails to give Lichtenstein's role in WWII equal time is a right bastard.

My granny washed my dad's army uniform at the end of 1944. I am pretty sure that contributed to the Allied victory!

That rates an entire hour of "The World At War" by itself.

[Audley Strange]

Dr Mills. Can you get a PhD in being a wank?

[Jason]

Showing the rampant homosexuality in nature would do much to disarm the homophobic religious right methinks.

[hadespussercats]

I don't see anything wrong with suggesting that nature documentaries cover something that, while not dominant, is certainly common behavior in many many non-human animals.

[Audley Strange]

I'd like to see Dr Mills exhaustive research on heterosexuality not being the "norm" in the animal kingdom, bold research for a media studies wank.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't see anything wrong with suggesting that nature documentaries cover something that, while not dominant, is certainly common behavior in many many non-human animals.

Then it would be perfectly okay for the documentararians to cover the bits they wanted to cover?

[Jason]

I'd like to see Dr Mills exhaustive research on heterosexuality not being the "norm" in the animal kingdom, bold research for a media studies wank.

I'm not saying it isn't the norm, just that homosexuality is commonplace in nature. If you look at the law books, a lot of places have, or had, laws prohibiting homosexuality on the grounds that it was a 'crime' against nature. There still exists the common misconception that homosexuality is something 'unnatural'. I think documentaries including homosexuality in nature, without soft-pedaling it, would do much to defuse homophobia in society.

How could you object to that?

[hadespussercats]

I don't see anything wrong with suggesting that nature documentaries cover something that, while not dominant, is certainly common behavior in many many non-human animals.

Then it would be perfectly okay for the documentararians to cover the bits they wanted to cover?

?

I think this is one of those times I should ignore your posts for not making sense.