Are modern audiences too offended by Pussy Galore?

Tools    





I think the situations where "no" means something other than "no" are a) really rare and b) really obvious.

Whether or not the "no" is in reference to a specific physical act and the general pursuit is kinda important, too, since the consequence of being wrong on the latter is, uh, much less pronounced.
I'd agree. Except that the no always being really obvious depends on the partner.
As stated, one girlfriend I had felt that having to explain the game to someone too dense (or too afraid to make a mistake) to read the signals correctly killed the mood. But, let's just say she had some eccentric tastes that might not be shared by all women.

One problem today is many men are too afraid to make a mistake (and rightly so). But generally, scared men are still relatively unattractive to a lot of women.

Meanwhile, some of the men who are not cautiously scared of making a mistake find themselves in court rooms. It's become something of a double edge sword for both sexes (not that I'm championing returning to cave man days either or even the sexual / societal norms of a few decades ago).

Seems the balance is open communication despite the fact that sometimes laying down all the ground rules can be a bit of buzz kill - maybe lay them all out in non-amorous moments, so when the time comes, everyone is on the same page.

As far as "no" for general pursuits, I never had to worry about that - if I got that "no" at any point then no relationship would develop (or, sadly, we'd "just be friends.") Ug! If I had a dime for every time I heard that phrase... I'd have a few dimes!



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
[...] is sometimes part of the game, and if a man is not aggressive enough to force his way past the resistance, then it is a turn off for a woman (especially if they're in the mood to be "taken" without having to explain the whole game before hand - which seems to be a mood killer).
If your partner wants to play some games without establishing the rules in advance, and ends up disappointed, the issue is with them, not you. How can you possibly know what is okay, and what's too far for them if you never discussed that? Even if one likes to be "taken", one should be understanding and forgiving if not downright thankful if the partner would rather take it slowly. Mutual trust is the most important part of a relationship, so you better tread carefully. If doing so would be the only reason that person leaves you, he or she wasn't worth it anyway.

"No means no when I mean it, but it means yes when I don't..."
Guys, please. Unless said otherwise, a "no" is a "no". If you're doing some BDSM stuff, the "no" is replaced with a safeword, but the rule stays. Don't abuse your partner's trust. If they said "no", you gotta stop. If they didn't want you to stop, they will tell you to continue, but they will appreciate you stopping.

I hope I don't have to get graphic for people to know what I mean.
You're way more kinky than I thought!

having to outline all the ground rules first kills the mood of the whole game
It does not. But it's discouraging to learn how many people think it does. You don't have to plan the whole thing in advance, but especially at the beginning of your relationship with a person, you gotta establish some general do's and dont's and stick to them. A honest talk about it is a must!

good thing I'm an "incel" now!


Except that the no always being really obvious depends on the partner.
When in doubt, don't.

she had some eccentric tastes that might not be shared by all women.
Tell me more.

One problem today is many men are too afraid to make a mistake [...] scared men are still relatively unattractive to a lot of women.
The worst thing you can do is be insecure about it. If you can embrace it yourself, then it's pretty much up to a woman to decide if she can accept you the way you are or not. If she can't, that's her problem, not yours.

maybe lay them all out in non-amorous moments, so when the time comes, everyone is on the same page.
Lay them out whenever you both feel comfortable, and feel free to adjust them at any time.

If I had a dime for every time I heard that phrase... I'd have a few dimes!
Wait, but the phrase isn't "Why, you dirty Asian-ogling slob."!
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



Only to Neanderthals.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



We've gone on holiday by mistake
Only to Neanderthals.
Or rapists(like Bond).
__________________



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Yes. Sexual abuse is psychologically complicated and doesn't retroactively become okay later based on whether the victim develops affection for the person.

Even if she literally liked the act itself, best-case scenario, he couldn't know she'd end up liking it, which means at minimum he was willing to potentially inflict a horrible trauma on her.
I see what you mean, I don't know if Bond would have continued, if she wasn't aroused by it, but since all the Bond girls are always aroused by his advances, it's hard to tell.



Also answers to Jabba
Offended is not right word for me. I started watching the franchise in chronological order a few years back (still in the 80s and the Moore era as far as I recall) and not only is it bad film-making but it is glorifying a horrible androcentric mentality. Bond rapes, uses people (mostly women) as tools and at the end of the day he is a hero and his behavior is justified and even considered 'cool'. Generations have been raised to that garbage which is why half the people in here try to justify a rape scene or similar behavior as 'no big deal' by some half-baked justification.

Nobody said that you need to censor this out of cinema, as at its best, the medium is supposed to reflect real life, not some idealized version of it. Those scenes alone should not be a reason to dislike a film. It's what you do with those situations that shows what kind of message you want to pass on to your audience. In Bond's case, the film doesn't actively glorify it, but it does something worse, it passes it as normal behavior. It is not a case of a villain getting away with it, or even presenting the scene as a heinous action. Listen to the music, they are romanticizing rape. That is what makes this and most of Bond's actions despicable.

Now if you kids find this cool, then you probably wouldn't have a problem pulling something like that off in your real life, right?

PS. Lightening the mood of this post, it was ironically Louis CK who did a very humorous take on that type of mentality.



Now if you kids find this cool, then you probably wouldn't have a problem pulling something like that off in your real life, right?
You have some pretty violent movies in your top 10, probably not because you think they're uncool or because you plan on duplicating the actions. Jules is one of the coolest characters ever brought to screen and he's a murderer.

Adults should be able to handle whatever is on screen and good parents should monitor their kids. It's a fictional character we're talking about and I don't think anyone here misunderstands that.



I just watched the Pussy Galore barn scene to see what all the fuss is about. I'd say when he grabs her arm as she's trying to leave and saying "no" that it's sexual harassment, but I think once she throws him over her shoulder and then waits for him to get up instead of leaving, even that goes out the window. But there is absolutely no grounds for calling it rape. It may look like it could be implied rape if you only see the few seconds of the scene where he's forcing himself down on her, but that's just to kiss her. Once she starts kissing back it's consensual. She stops resisting, wraps her arms around him, visibly kisses back, and moans with pleasure. Now, I'm not interested in watching the whole movie just to see, but the scenes I found all cut out here, so it doesn't look like there's any rape scene at all in the first place. Apparently people think kissing is how babies are made, or the scene is just cut out, but I'd bet my socks that she's swooning over him in later scenes.


The medium is supposed to reflect real life, not some idealized version of it.
Why do you think this?



Also answers to Jabba
You have some pretty violent movies in your top 10, probably not because you think they're uncool or because you plan on duplicating the actions. Jules is one of the coolest characters ever brought to screen and he's a murderer.

Adults should be able to handle whatever is on screen and good parents should monitor their kids. It's a fictional character we're talking about and I don't think anyone here misunderstands that.
In what way is this relevant? None of those films present their characters as heroes, or justify their actions in any way. Jules might have this debonair attitude, but Pulp never tried to present him as an example to be followed. If you hadn't just glanced over my previous message, you would understand why your attempt at a counterargument was off base. Violence exists in real life and should not be 'hidden' to appease sensitive audiences. But if you like Pulp Fiction because you think Jules is a hero of some sort then you are viewing the film in a very wrong way.

A slightly more apt example would be something like Brando in Last Tango in Paris. He rapes Jeanne while in a co-dependent relationship and she ends up staying with him for some time afterwards. But both how the scene is presented and his downfall are there to exhibit that his behavior was wrong. It is a question of morality in the end. It is what separates commentary from propaganda. No sweet romantic music is playing in the background and the camera doesn't cut after a kiss and leaves you with the feeling that it's all rainbows and unicorns. It shows you a raw version of rape, where Jeanne is crying, wanting him to stop. This is how life works. If you think that being handsome and suave means you can force yourself on a (possibly homosexual) woman and all is well, then you grew up watching too many Bond films.



In what way is this relevant? None of those films present their characters as heroes, or justify their actions in any way. Jules might have this debonair attitude, but Pulp never tried to present him as an example to be followed. If you hadn't just glanced over my previous message, you would understand why your attempt at a counterargument was off base. Violence exists in real life and should not be 'hidden' to appease sensitive audiences. But if you like Pulp Fiction because you think Jules is a hero of some sort then you are viewing the film in a very wrong way.

A slightly more apt example would be something like Brando in Last Tango in Paris. He rapes Jeanne while in a co-dependent relationship and she ends up staying with him for some time afterwards. But both how the scene is presented and his downfall are there to exhibit that his behavior was wrong. It is a question of morality in the end. It is what separates commentary from propaganda. No sweet romantic music is playing in the background and the camera doesn't cut after a kiss and leaves you with the feeling that it's all rainbows and unicorns. It shows you a raw version of rape, where Jeanne is crying, wanting him to stop. This is how life works. If you think that being handsome and suave means you can force yourself on a (possibly homosexual) woman and all is well, then you grew up watching too many Bond films.
Who in the world thinks this? Anybody who does has other problems. And Jules isn't supposed to be a hero but he is supposed to be cool.



Also answers to Jabba
Who in the world thinks this? Anybody who does has other problems. And Jules isn't supposed to be a hero but he is supposed to be cool.
Are we saying that the stories we expose ourselves to have no effect on us? Because right off the bat, I am willing to claim that the sole reason most people are trying to defend this scene so much is because it comes from a "beloved" character from their childhood. If that is not the case, then it is true that their morals align with that sort of behavior. Which as you just noted, is even worse.



Are we saying that the stories we expose ourselves to have no effect on us? Because right off the bat, I am willing to claim that the sole reason most people are trying to defend this scene so much is because it comes from a "beloved" character from their childhood. If that is not the case, then it is true that their morals align with that sort of behavior. Which as you just noted, is even worse.
With all due respect I think you and other likeminded people are looking at it too deeply. I love movies like A Serbian Film, Last House on the Left, etc. It means nothing.



A slightly more apt example would be something like Brando in Last Tango in Paris. He rapes Jeanne while in a co-dependent relationship and she ends up staying with him for some time afterwards. But both how the scene is presented and his downfall are there to exhibit that his behavior was wrong. It is a question of morality in the end.
I think it's much simpler than that. Even if Last Tango in Paris ended immediately after the rape scene everyone would know that it was wrong and that it was rape because it was clearly depicted in an unsettling way. The James Bond scene had a playful and even romantic tone. Still, I think you missed the point cricket was making.



Also answers to Jabba
Why do you think this?
Let me clarify this point so there is no confusion. With this I mean for characters to feel real their actions (and reactions) need to have some basis in the vast range of human behavior we know as reality. Not just to feel relatable in any way, but in order for the story to make some sort of sense (not in a anti-Lynchian kind of way). Allegory and surrealism are always welcomed but the Bond franchise as well as other escapist movies, try to alter the spectrum of reality to create a character that will appeal to the masses exactly because his action never have any consequences. Subsequently, the supporting characters in those films are warped in this new reality where all women want to be treated like tools after a 2 minute meet and greet with Bond, or how for instance in You Only Live Twice a Scotchman is turned into a Japanese man with a hat and slight application of eye makeup. There are countless examples like that in that franchise alone.



Also answers to Jabba
I think it's much simpler than that. Even if Last Tango in Paris ended immediately after the rape scene everyone would know that it was wrong and that it was rape because it was clearly depicted in an unsettling way. The James Bond scene had a playful and even romantic tone. Still, I think you missed the point cricket was making.
Exactly my point. You know it was wrong and Bertolucci clearly tried to show it. In the Pussy Galore scene (the name should be a red flag by itself) you get romantic music before the scene cuts. One is showing an accurate depiction of a rape, while the other romanticizes it. Just because Hamilton chose to go that route, doesn't mean you should say 'ah nice music is playing so it's no big deal'. And yet here we are. Which ties to what I was saying about the stories we expose ourselves to affecting us in a big way.



Also answers to Jabba
Applying 2019 Woke/PC culture to a 1960s James Bond film is not only whacked, it's a form of Temporal Bigotry.
I am not sure how "don't rape people" is PC culture and not a universal moral code that predates the 60s but alright. I guess branding **** we don't want to hear with tags like social justice warrior and pc culture is easier than addressing an issue.

PS. I don't know what Woke is by the way.



Bond is a fictional character and one of his characteristics is that he's irresistible to woman, meaning they can't resist him. He doesn't rape her; she gives in because she finds him irresistible. That's really it and it's not supposed to be real.