1) Whether or not something is "natural" is really in the eye of the beholder. For example, animals also commit rape sometimes (distinguished by the absence of usual courting behaviour). Does that make rape natural?
2) And even if rape is natural, does that make it okay? Animals are hardly role models for human behaviour. Some of them eat their own young. Some of them will eat their own faeces. I don't understand why people will justify their behaviour by saying "Animals do it, so it must be okay."
3) It's a human arrogance to believe that the behaviour of animals (especially amongst higher-order mammals) is purely hard-wired and has no socially-determined aspect, when there's so much evidence to the contrary.
But yes, a awful lot of time gets wasted discussing whether things are "natural" or not, and the Discovery Channel makes a lot of money out of broadcasting stupid pseudo-scientific shows which attempt to rationalise human behaviour with dodgy socio-biological theories. And people love it, because it's the religion of our secular age.
And like any religion, it has ludicrously complicated theories, it's capable of justifying anything the theorist wants to justify, and it's utterly unprovable.
But I won't deny that a lot of people feel better when they learn about gay animals. QueerTelevision (and God I loved that show -- Go Irshad!) used to have a segment each week called "It's a Queer World After All" where they gave an example of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
So enjoy your book.
And by the way, my homosexuality is perfectly natural. Because I say so.
it's too long to go into it here... perhaps on the phone or in person would be best. the mix of 'natural' & queer politics is my cup of tea, so i have too much to say. :oP
And by the way, how could CityTV let QueerTelevision be cancelled after just two seasons?! It was ten times better than any other piece of gay-oriented media I've seen.
Controversial debate. Unflinching self-criticism. A strong devotion to journalistic ethics.
And best of all, a complete absence of feel-good, self-serving gay slogans.
It was a great show. It went beyond trendy identity politics and instead concentrated on documenting people as they are, warts and all. In doing that, it remained accessible to non-queer audiences, and it got to show many kinds of gay people who don't usually appear in the gay media.
My favourite bit was when they played that week's phone messages from viewers, whether they be pro-gay or anti-gay. You've got to admire a gay show which isn't afraid to show homophobes sounding compassionate, juxtaposed against queer people sounding intolerant and bigoted.
And I can't believe it got cancelled after two seasons.
I think it occurs in other primates as well, like Bonobos and chimps. But then again, Bonobos are prolly the most sexually adventurous animals on the planet. Unfortunately, I have seen it. ech.
no subject
Date: 2002-03-25 11:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-25 11:58 pm (UTC)1) Whether or not something is "natural" is really in the eye of the beholder. For example, animals also commit rape sometimes (distinguished by the absence of usual courting behaviour). Does that make rape natural?
2) And even if rape is natural, does that make it okay? Animals are hardly role models for human behaviour. Some of them eat their own young. Some of them will eat their own faeces. I don't understand why people will justify their behaviour by saying "Animals do it, so it must be okay."
3) It's a human arrogance to believe that the behaviour of animals (especially amongst higher-order mammals) is purely hard-wired and has no socially-determined aspect, when there's so much evidence to the contrary.
But yes, a awful lot of time gets wasted discussing whether things are "natural" or not, and the Discovery Channel makes a lot of money out of broadcasting stupid pseudo-scientific shows which attempt to rationalise human behaviour with dodgy socio-biological theories. And people love it, because it's the religion of our secular age.
And like any religion, it has ludicrously complicated theories, it's capable of justifying anything the theorist wants to justify, and it's utterly unprovable.
But I won't deny that a lot of people feel better when they learn about gay animals. QueerTelevision (and God I loved that show -- Go Irshad!) used to have a segment each week called "It's a Queer World After All" where they gave an example of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
So enjoy your book.
And by the way, my homosexuality is perfectly natural. Because I say so.
no subject
Date: 2002-03-26 12:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-26 12:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-26 06:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-26 09:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-26 12:28 am (UTC)Queer Muslims. Queer youth. Queer rappers. Queer racists. Queer criminals. Queer animals.
Controversial debate. Unflinching self-criticism. A strong devotion to journalistic ethics.
And best of all, a complete absence of feel-good, self-serving gay slogans.
It was a great show. It went beyond trendy identity politics and instead concentrated on documenting people as they are, warts and all. In doing that, it remained accessible to non-queer audiences, and it got to show many kinds of gay people who don't usually appear in the gay media.
My favourite bit was when they played that week's phone messages from viewers, whether they be pro-gay or anti-gay. You've got to admire a gay show which isn't afraid to show homophobes sounding compassionate, juxtaposed against queer people sounding intolerant and bigoted.
And I can't believe it got cancelled after two seasons.
Meanwhile, SoGay TV is doing fine on PrideVision.
no subject
Date: 2002-03-26 06:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-26 06:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-26 02:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-26 06:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-26 07:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-26 06:26 am (UTC)