David Attenborough under fire for ignoring gay animals - Polidicks

[B]Sir David Attenborough gets a mauling from academic....because he's 'ignoring' all the gay animals in his BBC nature documentaries[/B] - Homosexuality in animal world 'pretty much everywhere' - Dr Brett Mills says documentary makers are ignoring issue - As a result, audience's view of what is natural is being skewed [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276012/Sir-David-Attenborough-gets-mauling-academic--hes-ignoring-gay-animals-BBC-nature-documentaries.html#axzz2KOoQZunb[/url]

It only said "David Attenborough.." in the front page, thought he'd died. Not cool.

Have we already ran out of things to complain about?

This is ridiculous, how is this even an issue?

Who the hell can even care about this shit

The argument is that people think that homophobes don't think homosexuality is natural because it isn't being shown in documentaries?

Just because he doesn't mention them it doesn't mean he's maliciously ignoring them.

i want to see those gay animals dave, come on

They have a point, but its kind of a weak one. i very much doubt Attenborough was intentionally leaving gay animals out, its more likely theres no footage simply becuase gay animals doesnt sound as interesting as some of the things on his shows.

Gay or not I'd rather not watch a pair of elephants fuck each other

Why would you even want to watch that? How bored do you have to be to actually think "You know what I could really go for right now? A documentary about gay animals."

Daily Mail, move along! [sp]or, in this case, daily MALE ;)[/sp]

I mean no offense, but I just really fail to see how it could be really implemented into most documentaries. I mean most documentaries have pretty straight-forward topics, and they don't really bring forth sexuality of any animals. It would just seem kind of out of place to just insert "and over here we have the homosexual orangutans". I could see it working if the documentaries had a really strong focus on the social aspect of wildlife. I feel like this was worded terribly sloppy, I need to hit the hay.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;39526776]It only said "David Attenborough.." in the front page, thought he'd died. Not cool.[/QUOTE] I felt my heart skip a beat.

If you want to see a specific type of documentary on TV, the worst thing to do would be to fly off the handle because it hasn't been made yet. How are they supposed to think of every single possible subject on which a documentary could be made? They haven't made a documentary about upside-down purple headgear yet either. How long until somebody complains about that?

When I read this I ended up visualising him saying "Animals can be gay?". No idea why, it just showed up in my brain-screen. Also they probably should do a gay animals documentary, and then show it on every channel that rednecks love to watch, forcing them to see that gayness is actually natural. Sure it's kind of pushing stuff in their face, but in the case of the ignorant it's a need-to-know thing; however screw the wilfully-ignorant, they can go try and fuck alligators in their back yards.

This is stupid, animals documentary wouldn't be all that interesting to watch and since when WERE gay animals "pretty much everywhere"?

I know this is just a silly article about gay animals boning and all, but can we stop posting Daily Mail? They're a horrible rag of low-standard journalism. When they aren't saying that all immigrants want to rape and murder the Queen before crowning themselves Sultan of Britain, they give you horrible fluff stories like this.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39527013]I know this is just a silly article about gay animals boning and all, but can we stop posting Daily Mail? They're a horrible rag of low-standard journalism. When they aren't saying that all immigrants want to rape and murder the Queen before crowning themselves Sultan of Britain, they give you horrible fluff stories like this.[/QUOTE] its entertaining.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39527051]its entertaining.[/QUOTE] Okay so are the horrible FOX Nation articles but they shouldn't be posted either.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39527056]Okay so are the horrible FOX Nation articles but they shouldn't be posted either.[/QUOTE] the nation disagrees.

"oh ok, they want the gay ones, hey cameraman just pop down there and film some of the gay ones doing stuff" Doesn't exactly work like that Don't they spend weeks at a time in one place waiting for the perfect shot?

Did they ever think that maybe gay animals AREN'T everywhere and that he never actually saw any? Do they expect him to go specifically hunting for shots of gay animals?

They never show any retarded or transgender animals either, shame on them

Animals really need to start checking their privileges.

Hey, it would be cool if he made a documentary about homosexuality in animals. No need to hate him though.

[QUOTE]Dr Mills – who has previously criticised such documentaries for invading animals’ rights to privacy [/QUOTE] What? And also- [QUOTE]He highlighted footage of emperor penguins from 1993 that suggests ‘family is an essential unit for the success of the offspring’. Similarly, the description of blue manakins, South American birds which have multiple mates, as ‘neglectful of their parental duties’ feeds the idea that one type of family is better than others, it is claimed. [/QUOTE] Um, it's pretty established amongst psychologists and the like that stable families of two parents are generally better for children. What's this guy talking about?

How homophobic David is to animals. :C

I really don't understand why a slurry of homophobes are complaining about supposedly "gay" animals. Do they really have nothing better to do than whine about trivial things? I mean yeah, some animals can be a bit "fruity"... [img]http://www.myextralife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ugly-fish.png[/img] ...but I don't think they are as bad as these idiots make them out to be.

I feel this is relevant: [video=youtube;OIcrCZQkSlg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIcrCZQkSlg[/video]