I thought it was interesting that YD's attitude seemed to be, "Yes of course, we loved her." The Diamonds seem to be bound together by love and are happy to be that way, which seems interesting considering how all the other homeworld gems interact. Perhaps the structure is "We love each other and lesser Gems love…

I mean, I guess it depends on what you count as "interesting." I thought the insight into how the Diamonds interact with each other (equal rulers) and that a huge part of their relationship was based on love, was pretty interesting considering how love and affection doesn't seem to be encouraged in the lesser gems…

I don't know. It seems like Rose willingly took the responsibility for Pink's death - e.g. Garnet's explanation to Steven. Why would Rose do that, if it was as elaborate plot by White Diamond?

I thought a lot of the Famethyst looked like Villain Jasper (I assume you mean the Jasper who was Malachite right?). What do you mean by a different shape? The Diamonds all seem to be sort of lanky and elongated, not like Jasper at all.

Chimps n' Stuff.

Honestly, I think I hated every aspect of it. What they did to Norrington's character (who in the first one, was refreshingly not a cliche), the tedious back and forth about the East India Company, that island… I honestly can't think of a single plot point that I liked.

Again, I'm not seeing the connection to the article. Plus, I'm not seeing why prostitution being normalized would affect how I got along with my buddies. Prostitution being legal doesn't mean everyone works as a prostitute. Being an engineer is legal, do you assume everyone you meet is an engineer?

So? You come from a culture that doesn't prioritize aunt/uncle relationships as much as the Mosuo, so it doesn't really matter. And bullies exist everywhere - nuclear families and monogamy doesn't cure bullying.

So? I don't understand the point you're making.

In the Mideast it was because the dead brother's bloodline needed to be past on. The children the woman birthed by the brother, were legally the deceased husband's and carried on his name.

Where does it say that mothers "let go" of their children? And what "bias"? I don't understand.

I don't know. How smart is your life philosophy is it doesn't have any dry land farming experience? Every culture adapts to its own needs, not the needs of random other cultures hundreds and thousands of miles away. I mean, you wouldn't expect people in Hawaii to have experience walking on glaciers would you?

And in ancient Semitic culture a husband's brothers would have the DUTY to marry his widow if she had no sons yet. Cultures differ.

Well of course it doesn't appeal to you. You've been raised in a different culture and accordingly want different things. I wouldn't want to live as a Mosuo either - seeing as how I was raised as an American and want things that Americans tend to want.

Yeah but he'd actually have to take me to court and win, which is very different thing than me lacking a legal identity apart from him such that I couldn't appear in court on my own behalf. It's very different than my literally having no property at all because everything I have and earn is legally my husband's…

But whether they are likely to feel that "subjective condition" is dependent on their culture. If you are part of a culture that views fatherhood as ephemeral but siblinghood as deeply important, you're less likely to be interested in being an involved parent and will prioritize your nieces and nephews.

I doubt Captain Salazar is British… And maybe the Cash song is a mini-spoiler! We're finally getting that pirate-cowboy mashup!

I recently saw the first one and it holds up well. One thing I liked is that even the callow hero and heroine are believably smart. Not super smart (they make mistakes) but smart enough to hold their own with the pirates.

X-Men movies only seem to have to be consistent with the movie released immediately before them. Which I kind of like - seems more comicbook-y.

Caliban