Attenborough Betrays His Age, Snubs Gay Animals

[hadespussercats]

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?

[Thinking Aloud]

I'm pretty sure I've seen more than one documentary which covers this subject on the BBC. That Attenborough's programmes, which are usually covering very large topics in terms of broad animal types or geographical spread, haven't covered this comparatively minor aspect of behaviour in any detail bothers me not at all.

[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?

?

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

Okay then.

[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.

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?

Well I don't object to that and you make an excellent point that indeed there is little about it that is un-natural (but lets face it those folks think we're divine breathe in a meat costume anyway). What I object to is making an issue out of it when it is not one.

TA is right, there have been several documentaries about such. What I object to is the Dr Mills talking shit. To me complaining about one set of features focus on what it misses and then bitch about something to get some press. It would be like complaining that Eastenders does not have enough scripts about gang-rape amongst Owls.

[Audley Strange]

doop

[Jason]

I'm pretty sure I've seen more than one documentary which covers this subject on the BBC. That Attenborough's programmes, which are usually covering very large topics in terms of broad animal types or geographical spread, haven't covered this comparatively minor aspect of behaviour in any detail bothers me not at all.

Absolutely there have been such documentaries, but the inclusion of homosexual behaviour in nature is not widespread in popular documentaries; Sir Attenborough's being amongst the most popular. I'm not saying this is in anyway an indictable offense, rather I'm saying that the inclusion of homosexual behaviour in such documentaries would be beneficial to the advancement of society.

[Thinking Aloud]

I'm pretty sure I've seen more than one documentary which covers this subject on the BBC. That Attenborough's programmes, which are usually covering very large topics in terms of broad animal types or geographical spread, haven't covered this comparatively minor aspect of behaviour in any detail bothers me not at all.

Absolutely there have been such documentaries, but the inclusion of homosexual behaviour in nature is not widespread in popular documentaries; Sir Attenborough's being amongst the most popular. I'm not saying this is in anyway an indictable offense, rather I'm saying that the inclusion of homosexual behaviour in such documentaries would be beneficial to the advancement of society.

Well that depends on what the scope of the documentary is. Attenborough has most often produced epic-scale series that cover an entire class of life globally, or by some geographical connection (such as Africa). When you're trying to cover things on that scale, and introduce the viewer to the typical behaviours over a broad spectrum of species, you have to decide whether a specific and relatively uncommon behaviour in a particular example species is worth concentrating on in the time available. I recently read his autobiography, and was taken by his desire to astound and amaze the audience, and awaken in them an enthusiasm and passion for the wonder of nature. He's acutely aware of what's been covered before, and what hasn't, and has gone to great pains to keep showing new things. If homosexuality in animals has been covered in existing documentaries, why should he repeat it, based on his personal popularity, just to make a social statement about human interactions?

[cronus]

Is it possible to do a objective analysis of the real data vs the documentary coverage to determine whether he is at fault and to what extent if he is? Surely it is a easy thing to do? See if he has misrepresented animal behavior which if it was proper peer reviewed research would certainly lose him some credibility?

[Jason]

He's not at fault in my opinion. TA makes the case that his focus is so broad that he doesn't not include homosexuality. Perhaps so. I think if one wants to impart a full understanding, or at least exposure, to the natural world, then homosexuality ought to be included. If the argument is homosexuality has been covered in some documentaries then I think we can extend that line of reason to say that heterosexuality has been covered in the majority of documentaries. I'm not blaming Attenborough, he does have the BBC board of directors to contend with as well, but I don't see the validity of the argument which says "it's been covered". One might say the same of the theory of evolution.

[Tero]

I hear male chimpanzees do this so they can establish dominance. Their "fuck you" gesture is to be taken seriously.

So I think Dawkins and Attenborough owe it to the audience they have worldwide to demonstrate this.

[Audley Strange]

Yeah while we are on the subject. You ever watch those documentaries where Dawkins gleefully butchers animals with his pals? Well some humans are vegatarians, why don't we see them dissecting a carrot?

[hadespussercats]

Yeah while we are on the subject. You ever watch those documentaries where Dawkins gleefully butchers animals with his pals? Well some humans are vegatarians, why don't we see them dissecting a carrot?

?

What are you talking about?

There are documentaries about botany, where we see plants in section and on slides and such. But I don't think that's what you're talking about.

Not sure though. Are you mad we never hear about gay radishes?

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Brett Mills, head of media studies at the University of East Anglia...

[/thread]

[Audley Strange]

Yeah while we are on the subject. You ever watch those documentaries where Dawkins gleefully butchers animals with his pals? Well some humans are vegatarians, why don't we see them dissecting a carrot?

?

What are you talking about?

There are documentaries about botany, where we see plants in section and on slides and such. But I don't think that's what you're talking about.

Not sure though. Are you mad we never hear about gay radishes?

What I am talking about is that no matter what you create, perform or exhibit someone somewhere will complain it isn't inclusive of whatever bee they have in their bonnet. Imagine for example someone complaining that a documentary about the history of the Scots during the time of Calgacus, didn't have enough about the plight of disabled lesbians in it. I'm sure there were disabled lesbians in that era, I'm sure their plight might be fascinating however it's not about that. I accept that homosexuality, polyamoury, gang rape, paedophilia, incest, necrophilia, murder for fun, parasitosis and cannibalism are all part and parcel of the "majesty" of nature, there are documentaries I've seen about almost all of these things. I'm not sure people are that interested in being exposed to all of that in an early evening light entertainment documentary with the kids.

[Audley Strange]

...Brett Mills, head of media studies at the University of East Anglia...

[/thread]