Michelle

That Rear Window is "the greatest suspense film ever made" is of course a subjecive value judgement on your part. ;) But no doubt there is breathtaking suspense in RW. Just think of the scene where Lisa (Grace Kelly) is in Thorwald's apartment. Or when Thorwald comes over and James Stewart has no other "weapon" but too shoot his flashlights at him. But I find several other Hitchcock movies at least as suspenseful, e. g. Dial 'M' for Murder. Or Strangers on a Train. North by Northwest (one of my favorite Hitchcock movies) is also a film where the theme of suspense is all-present and played out in fast-paced, breathtaking scenes. I never tire of reviewing it. One of Hitchcock's best imo. "Citizen Kane" is another of my favorite films. A work of pure genius imo. Of course it is my subjective value judgment. Nothing is written in the heavens declaring that Rear Window is the world's greatest suspense film. And you forget that I'm not an Objectivist. Still, nothing else I've seen can compare to it. The most brilliant and suspenseful scene in the movie is when Jeff (and, consequently, the viewer) watches helplessly as Thorwald makes his way into the apartment while Lisa is still in it. The second best, I think, is the expanse of silence which elapses, after Thorwald has made his way into the building. That, and the build-up to the door slowly opening is absolutely horrifying, as the viewer feels as powerless as Jeff does. Identifying with Jeff, we become paralyzed and defenseless. I remember North by Northwest boring me. It is regarded as one of Hitchcock's best films, though. I should rewatch it. I have no desire to rewatch Vertigo, though. What a disappointment. Citizen Kane. What a godawful boring film. It took me two tries to make it all the way through. Just slightly less painful than The Godfather and LOTR trilogies. I will admit the effectiveness of the scenes where Charles Foster Kane (I believe that was his name, been many years since I last saw it) wanders like a ghost through his huge mansion, though. Wealth divorced from values is worthless. Marnie is Hitchcock's best film. NxNW is perfect except for its l...e...n...g...t...h. The 39 Steps, which I watched last night, is the film of which NxNW is a remake, and although it has some minor flaws, some stilted acting, it is one of his best. It can be seen for free on HULU. Vertigo could have been his best had it had a happy ending. Man Who Knew Too Much is also excellent. (I have only seen the remake with Stewart.) As for Rear Window, it is just too claustrophobic. It begs the question whether Stewart or his audience suffers more watching the horror unfold before them. I've actually never watched Marnie. A happy ending would have destroyed Vertigo. Nevertheless, the ending is awful, and quite possibly the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've ever seen in my life (am I the only one who cracks up over how random and abrupt it seems?). See, that's what makes Rear Window so great. It fully engages the audience. You actually feel powerless and horrified watching it.

People victimized by others. Obviously. OK... I've seen death, AIDS, children thrown out of their homes, gay bashers, bashing of gay bashers, and a hell of a lot more as well. I've known friends who were murdered and who died by AIDS, and have had more than a few brushes with the criminally insane. Is there a reason we're making these lists? Brokeback Mountain is no more a 'gay movie' than Romeo and Juliet was a play about the conflicts between two upper-class English families. It makes no attempt at analyzing gay life beyond the immediate necessities of the plot. It is not about 'gay people' in any thematic sense. Homosexuality, still being socially taboo in several parts of America, allows the theme of people letting society's demands destroy their lives (which is what the movie is about) to stand out. It wouldn't have been as effective if an interracial conflict or a conflict of differing religions was used. It isn't trying to make gay people seem 'good and sympathetic' or portray the gritty realities of life in that era. If anything, both of the main characters come off rather badly in the film, devolving into hatred and making life miserable for their wives and children. You wouldn't know this, of course, as you only watched the first thirty minutes of a two hour and fourteen minute movie. I fail to see how adding poppers and AIDS to the movie would have improved it. Look, if you don't like it, that's fine, but you're not going to have an accurate perspective on a movie you've not even watched half of. Poppers? I think you will admit that BBM was described as if it humanized homosexuals for a wide audience. As far as I am concerned, it patronized homosexuals with two pretty actors who look ever so boy-next-doorish and unthreatening and wholesome as possible so as not to alienate a certain target demographic. If you think it is worth watching, do you want to say why? If there is some good reason I actually should watch the whole thing, I will be happy to be corrected. Did you watch the clips I suggested? I was being a smart-ass. The characters in that setting and time period would not have been using poppers. It humanized them, sure, but it didn't idealize them. Later in the film, Ennis del Mar in particular becomes quite violent around his wife, and he ends the film an embittered and broken man. Jack Twist (Gyllenhaal) starts sleeping with prostitutes and grows distant from his family before he dies near the end of the film. The actors are pretty boys, yes, but the characters are not idealized. They're certainly not wholesome and unthreatening. The cinematography is gorgeous (come on, watch some of the mountain scenes from a purely aesthetic standpoint). Michelle Williams and Heath Ledger both turn in riveting and heart-breaking performances as their respective characters. Moreover, the film never devolves into a slog about gay oppression at the hands of evil heteros. Like I said, it isn't about gay or straight. That element is not central to the core of the film. The film is majestic and lonely and unflinching in its analysis of its characters. I'm not saying it doesn't have flaws. I rolled my eyes at some of the dialogue ('Ah wish ah knew how to quit you!' etc.). A few of the initial mountain scenes are a bit corny. Moreover, Gyllenhaal doesn't do a great job as Jack Twist. He's way too boyish for the role, and I never fully buy him as a 35+ year old man later in the film. Jack's wife Lureen never gets properly developed (Anne Hathaway is nowhere near as compelling in this role as Michelle Williams is playing Ennis' wife). But compared to what it does right, these flaws are insubstantial. It isn't the greatest film ever made, but it is superb, and I'd whole-heartedly recommend it to almost anybody. Yes. The Living End looks terrific (by its trailer, at least). Not too sure about Paris is Building. I tend to avoid documentaries like the plague.

That Rear Window is "the greatest suspense film ever made" is of course a subjecive value judgement on your part. ;) But no doubt there is breathtaking suspense in RW. Just think of the scene where Lisa (Grace Kelly) is in Thorwald's apartment. Or when Thorwald comes over and James Stewart has no other "weapon" but too shoot his flashlights at him. But I find several other Hitchcock movies at least as suspenseful, e. g. Dial 'M' for Murder. Or Strangers on a Train. North by Northwest (one of my favorite Hitchcock movies) is also a film where the theme of suspense is all-present and played out in fast-paced, breathtaking scenes. I never tire of reviewing it. One of Hitchcock's best imo. "Citizen Kane" is another of my favorite films. A work of pure genius imo. Of course it is my subjective value judgment. Nothing is written in the heavens declaring that Rear Window is the world's greatest suspense film. And you forget that I'm not an Objectivist. Still, nothing else I've seen can compare to it. The most brilliant and suspenseful scene in the movie is when Jeff (and, consequently, the viewer) watches helplessly as Thorwald makes his way into the apartment while Lisa is still in it. The second best, I think, is the expanse of silence which elapses, after Thorwald has made his way into the building. That, and the build-up to the door slowly opening is absolutely horrifying, as the viewer feels as powerless as Jeff does. Identifying with Jeff, we become paralyzed and defenseless. I remember North by Northwest boring me. It is regarded as one of Hitchcock's best films, though. I should rewatch it. I have no desire to rewatch Vertigo, though. What a disappointment. Citizen Kane. What a godawful boring film. It took me two tries to make it all the way through. Just slightly less painful than The Godfather and LOTR trilogies. I will admit the effectiveness of the scenes where Charles Foster Kane (I believe that was his name, been many years since I last saw it) wanders like a ghost through his huge mansion, though. Wealth divorced from values is worthless.

People victimized by others. Obviously. OK... I've seen death, AIDS, children thrown out of their homes, gay bashers, bashing of gay bashers, and a hell of a lot more as well. I've known friends who were murdered and who died by AIDS, and have had more than a few brushes with the criminally insane. Is there a reason we're making these lists? Brokeback Mountain is no more a 'gay movie' than Romeo and Juliet was a play about the conflicts between two upper-class English families. It makes no attempt at analyzing gay life beyond the immediate necessities of the plot. It is not about 'gay people' in any thematic sense. Homosexuality, still being socially taboo in several parts of America, allows the theme of people letting society's demands destroy their lives (which is what the movie is about) to stand out. It wouldn't have been as effective if an interracial conflict or a conflict of differing religions was used. It isn't trying to make gay people seem 'good and sympathetic' or portray the gritty realities of life in that era. If anything, both of the main characters come off rather badly in the film, devolving into hatred and making life miserable for their wives and children. You wouldn't know this, of course, as you only watched the first thirty minutes of a two hour and fourteen minute movie. I fail to see how adding poppers and AIDS to the movie would have improved it. Look, if you don't like it, that's fine, but you're not going to have an accurate perspective on a movie you've not even watched half of.

Never was a fan of The Color Purple. Brokeback Mountain is certainly not about 'gay victims.' The two men are only victims to the degree that they victimize themselves. If anything, the innocent victims are the families of the two men who must deal with the emotional fallout of what happens. Saying it is "overblown, pretentious, [and] melodramatic" is merely listing words, not criticisms. What is overblown, pretentious (a label I believe to be complete rubbish which distracts from the vital considerations of the importance of a thing, and is completely devoid of meaning), and melodramatic about it? What, specifically, is wrong with the first thirty minutes of the film?

Oh, god. This is the worst book I ever actually bothered to finish, I read it two months ago. The best joke is that all cassette tapes left in a demons car metamorphose into a Best of Queen compilation within two weeks. I kept waiting for it to get as clever as it was trying to be. The story is about as sophisticated as a National Lampoon does the Apocalypse screen play, and it has no ending, (i/e/ no climax) but rather just stops. Think Mars Attacks, but without the visuals. I could never recommend it to anyone. When I finished it, I donated it to a charity used bookstore as being slightly better than just throwing it out. I like it. It isn't self-consciously funny. It is, rather, sarcastic and witty. Not stupid like most British comedy. Excellent characterizations. The writing is decent. I'll have to finish it before I have any opinion of the plot, however. Want to read a bad book? Try "Wizard's First Rule."

Michelle; Miss Rand spoke highly of Fritz Lang. TCM showed a lot of Hitchcock yesterday but sadly did not show Rear Window or Shadow of a Doubt. I agree with you about Batman Begins. I also think you have caught why Brokeback is such a good movie. I could see her enjoying his Metropolis. He was a master of his craft, and one of the leading lights of german cinema. He contributed greatly to the expressionist movement as well, which casts a great shadow over modern American cinema. Burton's films, in particular. Watch Edward Scissorhands or his Batman films (hate the stories in his Batman series, personally, but they're gorgeous to look at). Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride as well. Hell, I'd even list Pee-Wee's Playhouse for TV, with its twisted and deformed child world. Modern suspense is so dull that the pacing of Rear Window might throw people off. It isn't a quick film. You're essentially forced to identify with the hero, who has been injured and so spends his recovery time at his bedroom window spying on the neighbors. You feel his sense of wonder when he see what he thinks is a murder, his sense of adventure when he tries to piece together the clues without ever leaving his bedroom to do so, and his profound sense of horror when he realizes that someone dangerous has caught on to his game. The movie is claustrophobic as hell. Most of the film is fairly leisurely paced, but the atmosphere developed pays off during the climax.

Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. Really, really cute so far.

Sweet thread, Ted. For me... The Passion of Joan of Arc (Very intense silent film. Some guy watched it, felt inspired, and wrote music to go with it. It actually fits the action of the movie pretty well. Better than Dark Side of the Moon and The Wizard of Oz, to be sure) Kill Bill volume one (I enjoyed it for its manic energy and tongue-in-cheek playfulness) Rear Window (I've written much on the brilliance of this film, and will probably do so here as well. Needless to say, it is Hitchcock's best film and the greatest suspense film ever made) Halloween (Not the sequels. Just the original. Observe modern "horror" films, which wallow in visual and narrative depravity in order to get their shocks in, and then observe this film. It is one of the scariest horror films ever made. If you watch, it is also very tame when it comes to violence. Carpenter is a magician who's tools are darkness and an uncanny perception of man's worst fears. The film is minimalistic but fully integrates all of its elements in order to develop just the right atmosphere of stark terror without using excessive violence or cheap tricks. Of course, horror has, at its core, a malevolent view of existence, and Carpenter doesn't whitewash this: the ending is perhaps one of the most hopeless and despairing I've ever seen by virtue of what it implies. Nevertheless, this is the work of a master) Brokeback Mountain (Get past the gay cowboy thing and see this for what it really is: a somber, heartrending meditation on what happens when people allow social custom to dictate their lives. Brilliant performances turned in by Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams. Nice minimalistic soundtrack. GORGEOUS cinematography. A really, really well-made film) Blade Runner (The perfect mixture of Noir and Science Fiction. Atmospheric as hell. The images burn themselves into your brain) Strangers On A Train (Great thriller. Engaging, well-paced, and I love the tension between the two men) Noir in general (Maltese Falcon, Big Combo, etc. I suppose Fritz Lang's "M" could be included here as well) The Last Unicorn (Lovely animated fantasy classic) Kiki's Delivery Service (Wonderful animated film about a young witch learning to stand on her own two feet by running a delivery service. Most other studio Ghibli films are also good, but I'm very fond of this one in particular) Batman Begins (Not as action-packed as the over-hyped The Dark Knight. More of a quiet character study of Bruce Wayne. Not a fan of superhero stuff, but this was enjoyable. Also enjoyed Iron Man) Edward Scissorhands (BEAUTIFUL soundtrack. Quirky, gothic, and very inventive)

I won't be insulting by pretending that I'm saddened by his death. I didn't know the guy, and frankly, he rather made a mess of his life. Still, Thriller remains to this day one of my favorite music videos.

Have you insulted me without meaning to? Alright. I'm sorry for telling you what you do and do not know. I get irritated when people do it to me, and I shouldn't be doing it to you. I'll amend my statement: it seems like you're not understanding the difference between orientation, identity, and subculture in relationship to homosexuality. I'm not sure if you're understanding me. When have I said our sexuality defines our identity? It IS an aspect of one's identity, but it is NOT equivalent to one's identity. As you said, homosexuals, outside of having sex with others of the same gender, have no more in relation to other homosexuals than they do to heterosexuals. What has this to do with the issue of sexual orientation? A sexual orientation does not imply separate types of human beings, other than a psychological difference which does not influence people beyond the realm of romance. Forget identity politics and leftists and whatnot. Those are beside the point. I asked you because I assumed that you, like most self-identifying bisexuals I know, were still oriented to one gender or the other, even if you enjoyed sex with both. If you aren't, then the information does not serve my purpose.

This problem is particularly bad among Objectivists, who have attached themselves to a philosophy extolling independence and rationality. I can't imagine how hard it is for an orthodox Objectivist to go to one of these things. It must really be a smack in the face to him. Letting other people help him? Dear sweet jesus, how awful!

The problem, I think, is that people are irrationally attached to the notion of a completely free will that is unaffected by biological factors and resides in the realm of pure reason. Humans are free to the extent that they can choose to think and to act, but they are not floating consciousnesses. The essentially nasty thing about addiction in most cases is that the addict is fighting against her own biological impulses. It's an awful and long and terrible and seemingly hopeless fight after a certain point.

Hah. You just haven't slept with as many "straight" men as I have. I'm sure not. And I probably won't. For all my support of homosexuality and the creative ways in which one can express one's own sexuality, I tend to be extremely conservative in my personal life. Nevertheless, I'm not saying you can't seduce many straight men. But if they really are oriented toward the other gender, it would not be wise to try having a relationship with them. Did I say seduce? I have been out and bisexual since I was 14, and the almost universal response, from over 80% of people I have told, men and women is (1) Well, I have a secret to confess myself and (2) Do you think maybe you and I could... They come on to me when I come out to them, men and women, and my normal response is to say no. The simple truth is that the homosexual/heterosexual dichotomy of our present culture is a thing of the modern post-freudian era. Buggery and sodomy and the like has always been a potential activity of all people, not of just some special identity class. Of course some men prefer some activities more than others. But a wide spectrum of bisexuality (with most people mostly preferring heterosexuality) is the norm for most cultures and most ages. Homosexuals are not people who merely prefer homosexual activities any more than heterosexuals are people who prefer vaginal intercourse. Of course they do enjoy these things, but they proceed from their orientation. Some homosexuals merely screw. So do some heterosexuals. But there is a level of emotional and romantic engagement that cannot be changed. This also proceeds from their orientation, and is an essential expression of it. Answer me honestly: could you spend the rest of your life with another man and be emotionally satisfied with the relationship? Well, thanks for neither calling me a slut nor a "true believer" this time. First, I deny the validity of the concept "homosexual" as in meaning "gay" in the modern sense of identity politics. We do not divide the world into drinkers and non-drinkers and expect drinkers to vote democrat or have a keen fashion sense. There are many different types of people who primarily engage in homosexual relations, from transsexuals who feel they were born the wrong gender, to very effeminate men who nevertheless treasure their phalluses, to the large majority of men who are "on the down low" and who may or may not have girlfriends. All this modern nonsense about gay identity is a product of the medicalization of sexuality by psychologists since Freud and by people on the left who espouse victimhood and identity politics to deal with their own alienation from the wider society. Consider the Romans. The historian Suetonius in his Twelve Caesars goes out of his way to remark that Claudius, alone among the emperors, was known for his exclusive attraction to woman. If a man would sleep with another man in classical society, this was not considered worth remark. Only exclusive attraction to one sex or the other was worth remark. As to your second question, I am not sure if I get your point. I have been in committed loving long term relations with men and women. I am in a current relationship of 15 years. I cannot imagine being in a relationship with someone to whom I was not attracted. I happen to love the smell of both men and women, (I have had crushes on men and women since the debut of The Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman, when I was six years old, seven years before I learned what sex was.) so I consider myself lucky in that respect. When did I call you a slut? (And I didn't call you a true believer, I said you were "playing" the true believer. Bit of a difference. I act like a bitch sometimes, but acting like one on occasion and being one as a rule are entirely different things) I enjoy talking to you and, if I don't always agree with you, still respect you. You have to remember I'm just not a subdued person, and I'm not easily insulted. I forget others are more sensitive than I am. And for that I do apologize. Drinking does not relate to any aspect of a person's nature. Stop constructing strawmen. I don't agree with 'gay identity' to the extent that is has become a leftist sub-culture, but sexual orientation is a very real thing. Yes, a wide variety of people engage in homosexual behavior (calling transsexuals 'homosexual' when they are oriented toward men, however, is incorrect), and this does not make them homosexual, but this does not mean that homosexuals do not exist. Your problem is that you do not distinguish between sexual orientation, sexual expression, and stereotypes of the gay subculture, and dismiss orientation as leftist victim politics. Needless to say, there are self-identified homosexuals who are neither leftists nor victims. And there are MANY more self-identified heterosexuals. Your account of human sexuality is alien to millions of heterosexuals and homosexuals who have never had an inclination toward the non-oriented gender. Freudian psychology did not 'create' heterosexuals and homosexuals in any other sense than a sociological one. It only gave them the language they needed in order to discern the facts, empower themselves and fight against the puritan impulses of their respective societies.

Hah. You just haven't slept with as many "straight" men as I have. I'm sure not. And I probably won't. For all my support of homosexuality and the creative ways in which one can express one's own sexuality, I tend to be extremely conservative in my personal life. Nevertheless, I'm not saying you can't seduce many straight men. But if they really are oriented toward the other gender, it would not be wise to try having a relationship with them. Did I say seduce? I have been out and bisexual since I was 14, and the almost universal response, from over 80% of people I have told, men and women is (1) Well, I have a secret to confess myself and (2) Do you think maybe you and I could... They come on to me when I come out to them, men and women, and my normal response is to say no. The simple truth is that the homosexual/heterosexual dichotomy of our present culture is a thing of the modern post-freudian era. Buggery and sodomy and the like has always been a potential activity of all people, not of just some special identity class. Of course some men prefer some activities more than others. But a wide spectrum of bisexuality (with most people mostly preferring heterosexuality) is the norm for most cultures and most ages. Homosexuals are not people who merely prefer homosexual activities any more than heterosexuals are people who prefer vaginal intercourse. Of course they do enjoy these things, but they proceed from their orientation. Some homosexuals merely screw. So do some heterosexuals. But there is a level of emotional and romantic engagement that cannot be changed. This also proceeds from their orientation, and is an essential expression of it. Answer me honestly: could you spend the rest of your life with another man and be emotionally satisfied with the relationship?

You disrespect homosexuals because heterosexual men in America are paranoid about how others perceive them? LOL! That has to do with Puretanical Protestantism, not homosexuals. Well, when homosexuality was widely discredited, men could be friendlier with one-another without being perceived as homosexuals. You've got it backwards. Societies like Rome that did not freak out about homosexuality did not find men holding hands to be suspicious. It was uptight English puratinism that made friendliness between any people seem suspicious, and made friendliness between men appear incomprehensible except in the context of sodomy. I'm speaking of modern times in America. Relatively modern. Last 100 or so years. Physical affection between men certainly wasn't encouraged, but neither was it seen as the mark of the homosexual as it is today. Men could hug or tell the other that they loved them without people suspecting them of meaning it in a romantic sense. It IS a product of the puritan mindset, but the widespread demonization of homosexuality in America made physical affection less suspect. Especially among upstanding members of the community. Of course the Romans and ancient Greeks wouldn't react to homosexuality the same way people in the modern Christian West would. The zeitgeist was entirely different. It is interesting to note how men in early Christian communities were remarkably friendly with one-another.

I'm remembering a conversation I had with a libertarian guy who saw fit to inform me that addictions do not exist, and that people who are 'addicted' to something can quit any time they want. I'm extremely grateful to that person to this day. It was not until I spoke with him that I realized how truly unreasonable people can be. I spent an hour trying to explain that he didn't know what he was talking about before I gave up and went on my way. That really gave me an insight into the mind of the truly irrational person.

Hah. You just haven't slept with as many "straight" men as I have. I'm sure not. And I probably won't. For all my support of homosexuality and the creative ways in which one can express one's own sexuality, I tend to be extremely conservative in my personal life. Nevertheless, I'm not saying you can't seduce many straight men. But if they really are oriented toward the other gender, it would not be wise to try having a relationship with them.

Now, as to the Roark/Wynand or Rearden/Francisco thing, there is definitely a homoerotic undercurrent to these, but I do not believe this is indicative of anything but the fact that Ayn Rand is a woman and can understand close male-male relationships only to a certain degree. The fact that she was a heterosexual woman who was attracted to men certainly affected how she portrayed these scenes

You disrespect homosexuals because heterosexual men in America are paranoid about how others perceive them? LOL! That has to do with Puretanical Protestantism, not homosexuals. Well, when homosexuality was widely discredited, men could be friendlier with one-another without being perceived as homosexuals.

Well, that's like saying wanting to eat at a fine restaurant is not an urge. Of course the urge is hunger, and the stimulus is the taste and smell of the meal, or the memory of that taste and smell, and how it satisfied past urges. Sexual attraction is based on feeling horny and on the smell or look of an attractive person, or the memory thereof. Sometimes this urge is toward a person of the same sex, and thus it is called homosexual. The question is, do our sexual urges arrive from the bottom up, from our nature, from sensations, or do they come from the top down, from the decision that we wish to be rational people, which makes us decide for no reason other than pure reason that we want to sleep with Dagny Taggart, which then makes the curve of her breasts and the musk of her pubic hair smell good? Sorry, the top down theory is absurd, it contradicts Rand's bottom up theory of knowledge, and to hold the top down theory of value shows a serious lack of introspection and self knowledge. No, it is not like saying that. If a homosexual feels the urge to sleep with a sexy man, THAT is an urge. It proceeds from his basic orientation. Now, see, you're treating humans as if they are essentially bisexual creatures. This is simply not true. Many men would never, ever have any desire for another man. This is not because of social limitations, but because they developed in that manner. The same applies to homosexuals. We do not know if this is genetic or purely psychological or a mix of the two, but it is so. Heterosexuals and homosexuals just can't be perceived as people who only want to eat at one side of the buffet because the food looks better there. It is true that sexuality is a spectrum, to a degree. But most humans are also wired to only want one end of that expression. Hell, even bisexuals are generally oriented to one gender or the other. Bisexuality, I think, is more properly termed "sexual openness," in that, even if they're oriented toward one gender, they're still open to having sexual relations with members of the other gender. I think you can be attracted to the things you admire in a person who is not the gender you're oriented toward, and sleep with him/her, and be fine with it, but such relationships (I've seen one or two) will fall apart if they try to build something romantic and lasting on it. I mean really, Ted, could you spend the rest of your life with another man?

You disrespect homosexuals because heterosexual men in America are paranoid about how others perceive them?

Instead of treating the homosexual like an unthinking animal that needs to be reconditioned, you might try to convince him that being homosexual was not in his rational self interest. Darrell Aligning one's life with one's authentic nature is not in one's rational self-interest? There's a reason homosexuals who try to live as heterosexuals end up, by and large, embittered and miserable. As Ayn Rand said, you can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality. Let's take a hypothetical case: Let's just suppose that being a homosexual would serve your rational self-interest. I'm not saying it would, this is just a hypothetical to serve for this thought experiment. Would any amount of 'convincing' orient you sexually and emotionally toward other men? Would not your mind scream against it, because it is against your authentic nature?

I would think a homosexual Objectivist, like a heterosexual Objectivist, would consummate his feelings for a person he respected and who shared his vision of existence. As to 'changing homosexuals,' there is a test any heterosexual person can take to test the legitimacy of it. Would any amount of reconditioning orient you, sexually and emotionally, toward your own gender?

Homosexuality is not an urge. I've known heterosexuals who have found themselves attracted to a man and felt the urge to have sex with him. This did not make them homosexuals. They were heterosexuals who had a homosexual urge, but homosexuality itself, like heterosexuality, is a psycho-sexual orientation.