Debates over nature and sexuality have become, recently especially, a frequent affair in mainstream U.S. political discourse. U.S. presidential candidate Rick Santorum attracted a wave of controversy from the mainstream center left for his equation of homosexuality with bestiality, the subtext being of course that attraction to one’s own sex is inherently “against nature.” Reproduction-centered sexuality and heterosexual familial relations are, according to adherents of this position, the foundation of a functioning society. Contemporary queer theorists not only take issue with the assumption of a universal “natural” normative sexuality but critique the entire imperative of reproduction and future-oriented sexualities in favor of a politics of immediacy and contingency. Identities exist within a complex social network, and a variety of genders and sexualities emerge from that network. The critical response to people like Santorum rests on the reality of socialization, of complexity, of difference, multitude, and contingency, and diverges from the language of hegemony employed by Santorum to approach the debate from an entirely different epistemological framework.
Isabella Rossellini’s video series, both “Green Porno” and the similar “Seduce Me” cleverly re-opens this discourse, and reinscribes the question of nature in polemic opposition to its appropriation by crusaders for heteronormativity. The video depicts the head of Rossellini in the bodies of various animals, and explores (in a scientifically accurate manner) the ways in which their many bodies do sexuality, and the way the “nature” of a body changes the nature of sexuality. Normative conceptions of sex are, as Rossellini displays, impossible to impose outside of the limited reach of their own discourse and the limited bodily representations they encompass.
Rossellini’s fun, absurd, cleverly stylized and narrated series depicts a variety of modes of animal embodiment and sexuality. The female bedbug’s lack of genitalia, the self-cloning sexuality of the earthworm, parthenogenetic (virgin birthing) insects…Rossellini employs a perverse, ironic perspective, herself appearing as an absurd and disorienting hybrid of animal and narrator. Breaking down these normative relations, which are “by nature” hierarchical, Rossellini brings the viewer into a world of heterogeneity, absurdity, and bodily difference and multiplicity—the absurd world of nature in stark contrast to the hegemonic narratives of monoamorous, heterosexual embodiment parading as self-evident natural law.
The “Green Porno” and “Seduce Me” series can be found at http://www.sundancechannel.com/greenporno/
Unruly Bodies 
I love the video! Sexuality is so fluid in the nature of animals, but when it comes to humans, it is expected to be static. Homosexuality is only considered “against nature” when it comes to the social construction of human beings. Even plants do not always use “male” and “female” parts to reproduce all of the time. If an animal can express its fluid sexuality through its body, why can’t humans enjoy that same mobility?
I’m not sure what sort of proof Santorum has that heterosexual familial relations provide the foundation for a functioning society. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, and society still seems to be functioning. I’m just saying…
Exactly. Well, I think Santorum’s “proof” of this principle is Biblical/theological in nature. You can’t really argue with mythical texts. But I think opening up discussions about non-heterosexual, non-monoamorous animals is more politically compelling than talking about non-heterosexual humans throughout history, just because, from the standpoint of someone like Santorum, people with divergent sexualities have always existed at the margins of society, and always been a corruptive or unnatural element. Thus equating homosexuality with bestiality. I think, however, talking about “queer animals” directly addresses whether or not heterosexuality is the “natural” orientation for procreation, sex, etc.
Someone go ahead and prove me wrong, but isn’t homoPHOBIA only found in one species?
It outrages me when people that have some amount of real power and influence (i.e. Rick Santorum) come out of the blue and say things that are complete fabrications with no physical proof or evidence whatsoever! I’m glad someone made a video about this a showed (in a calm manner that I don’t think I could have made it in). It is outrageous that people can actually say things like this and people listen. I believe that if you have any sort of power you should do at least a moderate amount of scientific research before making claims like the ones made by Herman Cain when he said that if there was scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality had a biological component he would be inclined to listen to the arguments for it. Clearly, there is scientific evidence to this. But if sexuality and gender are not binary in nature, why is it taking humans so long to figure that out?
It upsets me that the people who are most forthright about their opinions and projecting them across all forms of the media are the same ones who accuse the LGBT community of having an “agenda”. Aren’t they the ones with an agenda? Aren’t they the ones trying to convince people of their beliefs with no facts whatsoever to back them up?
Homosexuality has been found in hundreds of species, and yet even those of us who are in favor of a “live and let live” policy are still surrounded by thoughts of those who consider it to be “unnatural”. However, if the definition of “natural” is “found in nature” and homosexuality is found in nature, wouldn’t that make homosexuality completely natural?