There's one particular scene that's so wrong I had to laugh. Bond is with his chick of the moment by the pool when his colleague stops by. Bond says to his chick something like 'Off you go now. man talk.' Then slaps her on the ass. I felt like I was watching a parody.
share[deleted]
Literally nothing wrong with that. They both understood it was in a joking manner and it has nothing to do with misogyny.
shareWould it be misandry if the roles were reversed and her colleauge had stopped by, she pinches his bum and says 'on your way, girl talk 😉'...?
I doubt it... This is just a playfull thing couple do... even temporary ones... It's called teasing...
FYI there are still straight men who treat women that way, and women who put up with it.
shareI dated Miss Ogyny a few times. She was great. Wet as a Old Faithful, but much, much tighter.
And VERY grateful.
PS Boorishness cannot be “dated,” because condescending behavior is a constant across time.
I think you misunderstand.
There's nothing wrong so long as it's consensual. She thinks Bond is hot, that's why she's flirting with him. She has no problem with getting a pat on the ass from 007. That doesn't mean she'd be ok with random Joe Public grabbing her ass.
Consenting adults do behave like fools when sex is in the picture, nothing to be done about it.
Except to point out that no woman will put up with treatment like that, without an ulterior motive.
Again I think you misunderstand.
A pat on the butt is a signal of flirtatious and playful affection between consenting adults. No one is "behaving like fools" unless there's a lack of consent.
Oh please, everyone behaves foolishly when sex is in the cards! In fact, behaving like an idiot when sex might be happening is so common that most people accept it as normal, and don't laugh when people pull idiotic stunts or say ludicrous things or forget their manners and act like assholes.
As Bond did in this scene. He's being very rude to that girl, and I presume she has... shown him nothing but kindness.
If she doesn't see it as foolish and he doesn't see it as foolish, then what makes it foolish? Because you said so? lolz.
You've done a very poor job articulating why it's objectively "foolish" and "idiotic", because you can't. It's only your opinion based on some arbitrarily prurient standards you hold of how people should behave in public.
My point is that it's only 'rude' if SHE perceives it that way or he intended to be rude, which he clearly did not. Not because you have a right to dictate to her what she should and should not perceive as rude. You're being ridiculous.
There's no use talking to people who are determined to defend the indefensible, or who have no sense of humor.
Bye.
I really regret you feel this way, as all I'm asking of you is respectfully to defend your idea. What makes it rude and foolish? I've clearly defined 'consent' as my line in the sand of what is acceptable and what is not. I just haven't heard you even try to defend how something can be rude and foolish between two people who don't perceive it that way.
shareWhat the hell isn't rude about slapping someone on the bum and telling them to go away? How would you like it if you were hanging with the guys, and one of them slapped you on the bum and told you go buzz off when a he wanted to talk seriously to someone who came by? Bond could have politely asked for a moment alone or playfully said that something dull was about to be discussed and why doesn't she get that drink she wants, but no. Sixties films have a lot of scenes like that, heroes ordering women around as if they had no brains or feelings, and the women liking it - apparently that's something straight men fantasize about.
And look, I'm no prude, I'm all for some good dirty fun... so my eye-rolling isn't based what some people call "morality". No, it's based on the observation that when the hormones get moving most human beings forget their ethics and manners! I mean I flew to South America last year, and there was a straight couple behind me, and for eight fucking hours all I heard was the young male idiot talking about himself in boastful terms and the young female idiot pretending to be impressed by his momumental self-absorption, and of course it was all perfectly legal and consensual and normal... and absolutely ridiculous. Almost all human sexual behavior is, if viewed through a rational eye.
"How would you like it if you were hanging with the guys, and one of them slapped you on the bum and told you go buzz off when a he wanted to talk seriously to someone who came by?"
You're not providing an analogous situation here because I would have had zero interest in any guy slapping my ass because I'm not gay. But if it were say Ksenia Solo I just got done flirting with and it was her slapping my ass while saying "off you go, girl talk" as her way of excusing me because she wanted to talk to her girlfriend alone in private, I would be literally thrilled! Because it would indicate a certain level of flirtatiousness, interest, and reciprocity on her part even if nothing ever came of it.
That's why I draw the line in the sand at consent, because that's all that really matters here. Context is everything. It's not so black and white that a situation like that is always condescending, demeaning, or boorish when it could be entirely innocent and flirtatious as perceived and intended by both parties ... just like in the scenario I described just now if Ksenia Solo had done it to me. What determines offense is consent.
I take your point about how human mating rituals may appear objectively ridiculous to a 3rd party observer, especially when viewing less sophisticated ways some have of deciding who to mate with and what kind of preening turns them on that we personally can't relate to. But I wouldn't go so far as you do of calling it "irrational" when it's impossible to divorce words like 'rationality' with our constant drive to satisfy our biological imperative. It's perfectly rational to want to have sex, no? If so, then it's perfectly rational to engage in flirtatious behavior to increase sexual opportunities; as a society we draw the line at a lack of consent.
Consent is not IMHO, everything. It's massively important, but it's the first step in building a relationship between humans that includes sex, not the entirety. Without that first step, you can't reach any of the others! But a human relationship may be 100% consensual, and still include behavior that is offensive, thoughtless, boorish, hurtful, unpleasant, unsatisfying, or insulting... which is why there are so many breakups.
I don't disagree, but that still requires offense to be taken or delivered by at least one party in the relationship.
Say I'm casually or aggressively flirting with Ksenia Solo and she dismisses me by patting me on the ass saying "off you go" because she wants private time with her gf, if I take no offense while she meant no offense, then where's the offense?
Put it this way... anyone who wasn't in a hormonal haze WOULD mind.
Which is why people who watch this movie without being in a hormonal haze bring it up.
And that's all there is to say on the subject. If you think rudeness is okay within the context of a sexual relationship, you'll just have to go on thinking that until real life teaches you differently.
But if she's not taking offense because she doesn't see it as rude, then how is it rude? That's my point that you don't seem to get. "Rudeness" is when one person takes offense. Where's the offense?
You keep insisting that I'm condoning rudeness when I'm not. I'm questioning how it's 'rude' at all when the two people involved don't see it that way and there was no offense given. The only thing she was nonplussed about was being dismissed when she was hoping to get it on with Bond, as we see her giving him a back rub at the start of that scene.
FYI I've affectionately tapped my SO on the butt, a few times in public. Never did she consider it rude nor did I intend it to be rude. I've seen my parents who were very much in love with each other for 50+ years do the same, usually it was my mom who would affectionately tap my dad on the butt to urge him to hurry on his way to get somewhere.
So are you really going to lecture me that my parents were being rude and that I was being rude and that I'm somehow condoning rudeness when no one found it rude? Are you even aware of how unjustifiably condescending you're being?
What I think you're missing is that it still all boils down to consent. You might be in a sexual relationship with someone, yet you're not ok with being treated rudely; an act is only rude if you consider it to be rude.
Your 'people not in a hormonal haze' argument quickly falls apart when we apply a little scrutiny because that's not the situation being described here. Obviously it would be inappropriate for him to tap her on the butt if she wasn't attracted to Bond or even if she was but wasn't ok with him doing it. There was no 'hormonal haze' when my 70 year old mother would tap my 80 year old father on the butt to urge him to hurry up to get somewhere. Like I said, context is everything. It's not black and white where the act is always disrespectful and rude, although it obviously *could* be in different circumstances. All we have to go by is the feelings of the parties involved.
By your logic, nobody should object to racial epithets, since old movies are full of people taking gross racially-based slurs with a smile, if not an abject grovel. Why should anyone pay any attention to their own feelings or standards, when there are unrealistically written characters in movies who seem to like things we can't stand ourselves! What do real people with real feelings matter, compared to the wisdom found in the scripts of James Bond films!
This exchange has lost any entertainment value. You're either a troll, a slow learner, or painfully naïve. Don't bother to reply.
Your 'racial epithet' analogy doesn't work either because that's a clear cut case of a slur being used that demeans, degrades, or makes fun of another person. I've been respectfully trying to explain the nuance that you refuse to acknowledge; that a tap on the butt is not so black and white. It *could* be demeaning depending on the intention or how it's received but I've pointed out how it can be an entirely innocent and affectionate gesture which was far more common during my parent's generation. It really wasn't all that much different from a peck on the cheek between intimates, so long as intentions of affections were clear and receptively received like in the case here. Your idea this gesture was "unrealistically written" about Bond in 1964 just isn't accurate.
If it was written today of course it'd be unrealistic. To be clear, I'm not telling *you* to disregard how you'd feel if someone did that to you. Times and social norms have changed because of a recognition legit victims of abuse could take offense from painful memories or it could be misinterpreted to cause offense. We're not likely to see it much in public or depicted in movies anymore, nor am I saying it should, I get where you're coming from on this point. But it doesn't make it wrong if done affectionately between two people with the hots for one another. Your 'racial epithet' analogy illustrates how you keep trying to impose your idea that it's *always* demeaning (like a racist slur) that otherwise "no woman would put up with". That's just simply not true when more commonly in an earlier era but also today it's also gesture of affection between intimates. Surely you can't be saying no woman would would tolerate an affectionate gesture from an intimate, it's not like the act itself causes any real physical pain. I've been trying to keep it civil, I don't know why you're reacting with insults and hostility. If you don't want to read my replies you could just not respond instead of deliberately trying to offend.
Lol at "don´t bother replying". Because poor old Otter got absolutely destroyed in this argument.
shareIt really is sad. It was way too obvious how little a militant social justice warrior like himself had actually bothered to think through whether his militancy is justified.
I guess I'm really not surprised. Too many today reflexively come to their beliefs without bothering to think them through. If what he believed was true, it really shouldn't have been difficult for him to justify and defend his beliefs. Instead he was all over the map jumping from one point to another that really had nothing to do with the base fact that no offense was taken. He'd clearly lost sight of why we as a society take offense and consider certain things taboo in the first place. It's because there's a victim, yet there was no victim here and he knew he had no argument or justification for his claims. He's a neophyte.
LOL
shareIt must be miserable for young people, growing up in such a puritanical era...
sharesuicide rates climb, because being a man is becoming the worst thing you can be and being a white man wow everything that was bad, happened because of you, even if the stuff happened before you were born.
shareIt's backlash from the "free love" era of the 1970s.
shareThis movie was released in 1964. Grow up
shareReleased in the 55 years ago, and, arguably the cornerstone that solidified the most successful film series in history, but we still (sadly, understandably) have wimpy alleged males trying to get points by moaning about it. News flash: she’s not going to fall in love with you online.
And, BigJack, I agree with you. Full admission time: I am a white, very heterosexual man, of the Baby Boom generation, unapologetically so, and I am sick unto death of the mania for verbal consensual approval. “Do you mind if I hold your hand?” “Do you mind if I hug you?” “Do you mind if I kiss you?” If your broker, today, asked you, “Do you mind if I make you money?,” would you do anything other than laugh in her/his face? Same thing, Millennial castratis. Real passions are understood.
I am shocked that you are surprised by anachronistic treatment of women in a James Bond movie, even a current one
share