In terms of agency in this article, it was easy to see that the agency was nature portrayed and equivalent to that of a woman. What could have been said more directly however were distinctions between how one agency gets abused more than another and how they are manipulated and exploited by the act or other form of rhetoric. Now I do realize that throughout most of this article the author made clear examples of how nature was exploited, such as how when the sharks were forced to leap out of the water using fake seal lures just to get a good shot. I also understand that he mentioned how women are often forced into sexuality and tend to be dominated by the male in normal porn. But what was his real point in bringing these things into focus? Was he really trying to bring light onto how Animal Planet and PETA are liars and Walt Disney is apparently an eco-porn-woman-dominating-pervert? Or was he trying to get the message through that our forms of rhetoric are very effective in being manipulative, whether it's through women or nature?
I think he went a bit too far and dramatic to compare manipulated shots of animals and call it equivalent to the rape and abuse of a woman. At most I would call what some nature programs do to animals as "bullying" and "cheating".