Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Becky

Regulars
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Becky

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Kentucky
  • Real Name
    Rebecca
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Occupation
    CEO
  1. Oh, heavens, yes, ballet is far superior than strip clubs - I made no comment to contradict that at all. I guess I don't think that people who go to strip clubs as a novelty, as something different and interesting are necessarily immoral by any means. Then again, I'm speaking just for myself - I know that I have gone as an interest of curiousity (I've actually only gone twice) and not as a means to shore up my self-esteem by paying someone to like me in order to feel good about myself. I am just not threatened or bothered by someone going to a strip club as a rule. Then again, I know my fiancee's reasons inside and out and I trust him and know what kind of person he is so it doesn't make me think less of him. Just a personal thing, I guess. On a light note, as far as the ballet being less expensive, not in my town - the ballet tickets are upwards of $45 and that doesn't include dinner, which one usually has beforehand, or new shoes and dress (being a girl I love to have a reason to purchase new, gorgeous clothes). The strip club is $10 to get in, $2 for a coke and a few bucks for the dancing chicks.
  2. I like that the teenager had a goal he worked hard on, but I thought it was completely impractical to sacrifice the thing he did. And not only that, but near the end It was ridiculous. The movie was trying to portray life as a depressing time that one can only manage to get through, not actually enjoy. Im sure there were other things that I just dont remember, since I stopped focusing on it after the first 40 minutes. I was half asleep during the second half of this movie, so I have a hard time remembering a lot of it. I remember roughly that the wives in Stepford were "too perfect" because they were able to perform all the menial tasks around the house, and be happy. Plus, I found the plot and charcters to be superficial. There wasnt any thought required to take on figuring any of it out. Again, I was half asleep during the second part of this one. Whether or not Streisand was funny in "sections" of the movie, or how supportive they were of their son, I would still say the majority of the movie lacked any kind of entertainment or comedy. The scenes were made up of long, boring conversations with no funny jokes or action. When I say action, I mean scenes like in the first movie when Greg loses the cat, or when he breaks the vase with the remains of their dead mother. I kept hoping for a priceless scene in this movie because the first one had so many of them, but it never came(not even once, I dont think). I went in with very high hopes because of how good the first one was, but I was so disappointed that I wont even call Meet the Fockers a decent comedy - it was just bad. I didn't see the father as the bad guy. I didn't see anyone as the bad guy. I saw him as committed to his dreams and goals as anyone else. The only time I did see him negatively was when he was chiding the daughter for ordering the ice cream in the restaurant. I did want to smack him upside the head then - how evil to foist that sort of mindset on an eight-year-old girl. Yes, he seemed a bit overbearing but his real love for his family and honest, sincere desire to see them succeed was apparent to me. as for the end: I was tongue in cheek about Meet the Fockers - well, I meant what I wrote but I just mean that my historic distaste for Miss Streisand was such that I was AMAZED by anything that led me not to detest her. My comments on both of the movies were really to point out the instances in which I found them not to be irrational, that's all. As far as enjoyable - that's another story. There are a ton of movies everyone loves that I can't watch. I've never once gotten through E.T. Go figure.
  3. Correct me if I am wrong, but I've always believed the definition of prurient to be "to have lustful longings." I term lust as a matter of having sexual attraction to someone on a purely physical basis - that one sees someone they find attractive and are aroused. So what? I may be naive in some resepects but I am not naive enough to believe that just because I am in a committed relationship that my love and I will never have lustful feelings towards someone else. Whether we act upon them or not is what is important. Physiologically men are aroused by the visual more than are women. While the men I admire may harbor some feelings of attraction or even lust towards someone on a physical basis, they do not act upon those feelings unless/until they know the woman in question. Heck, I've had feelings of lust towards men in the past yet when I get to know them and they underwhelm me with their lack of intelligence my feelings dissipate. I am not Jimmy Carter - I do not believe it's wrong to "sin" in one's heart by feeling lust for someone else. It's a biological response based on what one finds visually alluring. That's all. For a man to go to a strip club because they find it sexually exciting is of no consequence to me - I am not threatened by a man being aroused by someone other than me. If he needs to act upon it instead of bringing that lusty energy home, then that may be a problem but I simply date men of honor who would not act upon baser feelings like that. If it is wrong for a man to go to a strip club in order to elicit sexual feelings than I guess we ought to rule out all pornographic material as wrong as well, right? Plus anything which has sexually explicit and sexually arousing aspects - novels, pictures, movies, songs, etc. I find the Chris Issak song, "Wicked Game" to sound very sensual and arousing - is that wrong because I am being aroused by something other than my boyfriend? Am I being a traitor to my values by getting all hot and bothered at sensual music? I'm digressing... The point is, I didn't write that all strip clubs are about beauty and art. I wrote that I can see it as a novelty, as an extra bit of naughty oomph in a relationship between consenting adults. I don't think that simply watching naked women in order to become sexually aroused makes a man immoral or act in a degrading manner. If they look at those women as nothing more than a hot body and without value as human beings, then they are being degrading but then again, the women who choose that line of work are aware of that. I doubt they take the job under the impression that they are going to admired for their skill. In short, I wonder why people spend so much time (and obviously I am now included in this milleu) worrying about whether the choices of consenting adults is appropriate or not. If you don't want to date someone who frequents strip clubs, don't date them. It's your personal preference - it's not moral or immoral to state your preferences and act upon them. (edited: I reread this and realize that it may sound like it's drifting in thought and expression...I have been hit with the onset of the flu and I think my meds are making me groggy. I am really a very articulate person though my post here today may not show that. I would've deleted it but I thought maybe I'd leave it just to see if it may lead to any more interesting discussions. Thanks.)
  4. The Sopranos. No ifs, ands or buts. This is definitely the best show on tv, ever. I am aware that the fact that there is no hero at all may turn a lot of people off, but the writing is so amazing, the acting even more so. It is a character driven show in the best sense. I shan't even go into the objectivist/non-objectivist aspects of the show. I admire it for its skill in execution (no pun intended).
  5. Movies I love: Million Dollar Baby - Eastwood, Swank, Freeman - what more do I need to say? Wonder Boys - acting is extraordinary, writing amazing (book even better) The Boondock Saints - religion plays a part but I always think of Edmund Burke - "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." It's a fun, late-night popcorn flick. Bringing Up Baby - Kate is adorable, Carey is gorgeous, screwball comedy at its finest Seabiscuit - watch the movie and then read the book - Hillenbrand is a literary artist The Life of Brian - a textbook case of why religion is ridiculous Casablanca - there's a reason why it's always on the top 5 of greatest movies ever made. I consider it the most perfect movie ever The Big Sleep & To Have and Have Not - just for the Bogie/Bacall repartee alone - they don't write 'em like that anymore
  6. I disagree with these three. Little Miss Sunshine - while one might dismiss it as an overblown attempt at quirkiness, I found it engaging. Each of these characters had their own "dream" - that which drove them at all costs. The fact that the whole dysfunctional family stepped up to support the dream of the youngest member and in doing so found a way to reconnect and hold up their individuality as the highest ideal is touching. I was also happy to see that even though the little girl's dream (winning a beauty pagaent) wasn't something I'd declare as worthy myself I was happy to see that the entire family stood behind her and encouraged her in their own way. The Stepford Wives - I loved the end portrayal of "a man." A man is not someone who wants an airheaded wife without her own thoughts, ideas, strengths and intelligence but one who is accomplished, intelligent, capable, strong, atriculate. Every "wife" was once a powerhouse - the hero was Matthew Broderick, who realized that he was enhanced by being with a woman who was even more accomplished than him - that he wasn't emasculated by his wife's success, but it said something about his character that he would be attracted to her. Meet the Fockers - simply listed because I DIDN'T want to find Streisand and smush her. She actually tickled me in sections of this movie. Plus, I found the Focker's valuation and adoration of their son to be moving - they valued his effort, his intelligence and were gleeful in extolling his virtues to others.
  7. I have read this thread and have found it very interesting. First of all, I am what my friends call a "raised objectivist." My parents are objectivist and I was raised with the philosophy as my childhood classmates were raised with religion. So I consider myself rather well versed in the subject. That said... My fiance and I have gone to a local strip club a few times and have found it to be a visually stimulating experience for both of us. We have a drink, relax, trade comments on the physical attractivenss of the women. We discuss what we do and do not find attractive on a purely physical basis. We watch the interaction between the dancers and the patrons. We applaud the dancer's skills - being a physically awkward person without much grace I am amazed by anyone who can dance on a pole while wearing platform shoes - this is not a joke - I think it's interesting. The point is - we enjoy a wonderfully full, exciting, mutually pleasurable sex life and revel in the wonder of exploring each other sexually. It is an extension of the love we share on a moral, psychological and intellectual basis. None of that is threatened by either of us going to a strip club - either together or seperately. To my knowledge he hasn't gone without me, but I don't see it as different than him admiring a woman's beauty in the mall or in a magazine. I think those women who are threatened by a man's appreciation of feminine beauty not her own have greater problems with self-esteem than they do with the quality of their relationship. Sure, some men use these outlets - strip clubs - as a means by which to engage in degrading sexual acts or hide them out of shame because they see the women as degraded and are ashamed that they can only feel sexual attraction to a woman they hold in low esteem...those are larger problems. But as far as two consenting, intelligent, mutually respecting adults who can view the strip club as a novelty it can be exciting and mutually enjoyable. Where is the immorality in that?
  8. Isn't there a difference between altruism and charity? From what I've read, Angelina saves 1/3 of her salary, spends 1/3 and gives away 1/3. She is not advocating one live in poverty to save others. I have read nothing to indicate that her actions are anything more than her being charitable. She has made many comments on the joy she receives from the children she's adopted. I don't see why charitable actions are automatically deemed altruistic. She obviously enjoys the fruits of her labor - large home, travels, shopping, etc. As far as the movie goes, I was impressed with it. Not great cinema perhaps, but a wonderful, fun time. I would recommend it as a great date pic.
×
×
  • Create New...