dondigitalia

See it and you'll understand. Even those who didn't watch the series will enjoy it; they did a fantastic job of making it self-contained. I have to admit that I was extremely skeptical going into the movie and was very, very surprised at how much I enjoyed it. I thought it was going to be a "play to the fans" kind of thing, where they try to artificially, but unsuccessfully, recreate the charm of the show. They were able to recreate the charm, but in a new, non-artificial way.

Oh yeah, I gave it a 6 for artistic merit, and a 10 for its sense of life.

I thought this movie was very charming. It wasn't flawless, but definitely has a lot to offer Objectivists. In particular, I've always considered myself "a Samantha," but after seeing the way she was portrayed in this movie, it's inconceivable to me that any Objectivist wouldn't identify with her. I don't want to give away too much, but her egoism is really emphasized in this movie and all she lacks for an explicit declaration of it is the right wording. I definitely recommend it.

Suggested for rating.

No contradiction. Value is objective. What "objective" means, though, is one of the more difficult ideas in Objectivism to understand. The best way I can think of to sum up what is meant by "objective" is: based on facts integrated by choice, for a purpose. That is a gross oversimplification, though. Dr. Peikoff's course Understanding Objectivism, gives the fullest coverage I know of.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think sexuality is a binary, either-or thing. Rather, I think it's a continuum. There are plenty of women who I still find attractive, although I much prefer men. That's where the element of choice comes in.

No. I recognize the difference. I don't view a healthy submissive psychology as weak, depraved, what-have-you; it's just not what I want in a partner. I can see how others would, though. My own psychology would prevent me from fully respecting such a person as a lover. By the same token, though, my own psychology prevents me from taking a submissive role all the time either. But there are times when I want my (hypothetical) partner to make the final decisions and act as a leader, just as there are times when I really have to be in control.

That's just silly. The only areas I think gays would have any reason to be activists are in regard to gay marriage and gay men being able to give blood. Both are extremely low on my list of priorities.

It is. BTW, did you know that you are one of my top matches in "Likeness?" P.S. Completely unrelated: is Bumble & Bumble's clay-type product good for texture? I know B&B is ossum, but I'd love to hear if you have another recommendation.

I like it because it allows me to have a one-stop place to keep up on all the people I've known over the years, whether through school, work, or just being friends. It sorting of streamlines the whole ordeal of keeping in touch, which I'm not very good at. Plus, I'm a big fan of Facebook stalking. (Not as creepy as it sounds, lol).

Just to give some insight as to how widely gay relationships can vary, I know more than a few couples were both partners are exclusive "tops" or both are exclusive "bottoms." In such relationships, the psychological aspects vary just as much as the others.

Although I think that is the case in many cases, I don't think it is enough to be considered a norm of any sort. There is an extremely wide variance in the way homosexual relationship work. Sexuality is a complex issue to begin with. Toss in all the other complexities involved in homosexuality (not that heterosexual relationships aren't complex; they are, but in a vastly different way that doesn't have as direct a relationship to sexuality) and it complicates the issue even more. It's something that would require an extremely skilled psychologist to study. And I think such a psychologist would have to be gay himself to interpret his findings correctly. In addition, I don't think psychology is advanced enough yet to engage in a study rigorous enough to yield anything worthwhile on this issue either, but you would probably know better than I do on that last point, as I'm just beginning to explore psychology enough to identify problems in philosophy of psychology, much less draw any conclusions about what a proper methodology would entail.

I don't really know about that. I think women are more prone to be fluid with their sexuality than men are. There have actually been studies done on this. One that I read about showed gay and straight pornography to men who self-identified as gay and straight, and the measurements showed that their arousal was perfectly aligned with their orientation. The same procedure was done with women, who were aroused by all pornography, regardless of their orientation. I don't recall where the study was published, however. I doubt it would be too hard to find with a Google search though. Gay men tend to have much more "out there" lifestyles though. There is a joke among gays: What do lesbians do on a second date? Rent a U-haul. It implies that lesbians are more apt to settle down and start nesting right away, whereas gay men tend to have a more active culture later in life, which gives the impression that there are more of us. We're just more visible than they are, I think.

I think "abnormal" would be a better word to describe it, although I hesitate to call a practice engaged in by 10% of the population abnormal, as there are many practices engaged in by far fewer people that are considered perfectly normal.

I actually know three sets of identical twins where one is straight and one is gay. That isn't enough to be considered a study of any sort, but it illustrates that the matter is not wholly genetic. I think it's a mistake even to say sexuality is determined by a combination of nature and nurture. My view is rather unpopular among gays, but I am of the very strong opinion that there is an element of choice to it as well. In general, I think almost everything in human psychology is a combination of all three, at least going from what I can gather from introspection. I think I've talked to you (and to Jason) about this before; it's the reason I consider the standard experimental model to be inappropriate for psychology (free will is a variable that cannot, in principle, be held constant). That's a different topic altogether, though...