Are modern audiences too offended by Pussy Galore?

Tools    





Even with that being said, Connery will always be my favorite Bond, and From Russia With Love is my favorite in the series. He really represents the essence of "cool", like a detective trying to deduce what's going on and coming up with clever solutions to every problem.
From Russia With Love was one of the few Bond films I actually remember enjoying. I love the female Russian spy sent to seduce him who actually falls for him. I thought it was more romantic than most of his affairs.

I've been googling around a bit since this debate sparked my curiosity. I've noticed that every article refers to him as a notorious womanizer. Isn't it funny that Jabs constantly accuses everyone of being manipulated into thinking he's a hero, completely ignoring how everyone uses the word "notorious" with it's clearly negative connotation. All these politically correct movements are the same. In their efforts to champion some group they reduce them to the most gullible brainwashed imbeciles with the same stroke.

I think when you see these illogical responses you can tell the person is really being dishonest. They won't face facts. They make an argument, then tack on an additional qualifier every time someone exposes a contradiction. Why? Because they were never interested in the truth to begin with.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
He actually said penetration is not a requirement for rape.
Because it isn't.
__________________
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.



Also answers to Jabba
I was hoping to resist the urge to engage again, but the idiocy that followed is off the charts:

This was my quote:
"From saying, she agreed to it in the end, to making a great impression of an ostrich by burying your head in the sand and claiming that since you didn't see penetration nothing happened."

I was talking about the depiction angle you were going for.

So not only you distorted my argument, but you used it to make another invalid one, like "it's not rape unless there is penetration". Which is in no way relevant with what I was talking about.

Even so, and just for the sake of argument:
A bunch of guys hold you down, fondle you, force you to give them rim jobs and ejaculate all over you. Is that not rape, just because it doesn't fit in the narrow law definition given by the US constitution? Why go with the US version (like cricket did) by the way? Why not Sweden's?

In recent years, several revisions to the definition of rape have been made to the law of Sweden, to include not only intercourse but also comparable sexual acts against someone incapable of giving consent, due to being in a vulnerable situation



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Maybe you should get a dictionary.
Which language?

Polish:
https://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/gwa%C5%82t

zmuszenie do odbycia stosunku seksualnego lub innej czynności seksualnej
which roughly translates to:
forced sexual intercourse or other sexual activity
Stop pretending USA is the only country in the world. Stop pretending the US law is the only unadulterated law.


If the law changed, and they restricted what rape is to just anal intercourse longer than 10 minutes and with no less than 10 males involved, 9 minutes with 9 males wouldn't be considered rape legally, but it would still be rape in every other meaning of the word.


I gave you a semantic example.You have a law example above.



rape
noun
unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.

Haven't I though you guys anything? Look for definitions.



Stop pretending USA is the only country in the world. Stop pretending the US law is the only unadulterated law.
I gave you a semantic example.You have a law example above.
I think you're referring to cricket's post. I'm Canadian, remember.

You gave me a definition for an English word from a Polish dictionary, lol.

Edit: To be specific, you gave me the definition of the word Gwalt, not the word Rape. If Gwalt conflates Sexual Assault with Rape, it doesn't have any bearing on the English word.



I was hoping to resist the urge to engage again, but the idiocy that followed is off the charts:

This was my quote:
"From saying, she agreed to it in the end, to making a great impression of an ostrich by burying your head in the sand and claiming that since you didn't see penetration nothing happened."

I was talking about the depiction angle you were going for.

So not only you distorted my argument, but you used it to make another invalid one, like "it's not rape unless there is penetration". Which is in no way relevant with what I was talking about.

Even so, and just for the sake of argument:
A bunch of guys hold you down, fondle you, force you to give them rim jobs and ejaculate all over you. Is that not rape, just because it doesn't fit in the narrow law definition given by the US constitution? Why go with the US version (like cricket did) by the way? Why not Sweden's?
That's just the only country I could speak to.



I was hoping to resist the urge to engage again, but the idiocy that followed is off the charts:

This was my quote:
"From saying, she agreed to it in the end, to making a great impression of an ostrich by burying your head in the sand and claiming that since you didn't see penetration nothing happened."

I was talking about the depiction angle you were going for.
I understood your point. I just chose to ignore it because I'm loosing my interested in arguing with you. I think we have both made our positions clear and there is little point in continuing. It would be beating a dead horse, so to speak. Besides, when I make a counter point to your point and instead of adressing it you claim that it is unrelated, the debate is over right then and there. You stopped debating with me and resorted to insulting my intelligence, so I will not treat those comments as if they deserve respect. If you present an argument that I feel needs to be addressed I may do so. But I don't really want to talk to you anymore because I feel extremely insulted and disrespected. I forgive you, but I won't respond to disrespectful insults and childish antics as if they are credible arguments. If you decide to be more respectful, perhaps we can resume.

So not only you distorted my argument, but you used it to make another invalid one, like "it's not rape unless there is penetration". Which is in no way relevant with what I was talking about.
Case in point.

Even so, and just for the sake of argument:
A bunch of guys hold you down, fondle you, force you to give them rim jobs and ejaculate all over you. Is that not rape, just because it doesn't fit in the narrow law definition given by the US constitution? Why go with the US version (like cricket did) by the way? Why not Sweden's?
This was actually a fair point and good questions, so I'll address them.

I would call the example you gave Sexual Assault. I would make an omission though. Instead of forcing me to give them rim jobs, I would say try to. Because your example implies that I gave in, but I would exert every fiber of my being unto death to not give in to that. Even with a gun to my head it is still my choice and my act of will to extend my tongue and lick or take a bullet. That is my conviction. Either way, I don't consider it rape.

My view has nothing to do with American laws. It has everything to do with how I've understood the word all my life and read it's definition in dictionaries.

The Swedish definition, or any definition from any source that is not English, means absolutely nothing. Any word in any language is only defined by authoritative credible sources in its own language.

I have never before, in my entire life up until this point, heard so much as a rumor of kissing being considered rape or something not actually witnessed (or in the case of literature, described) referred to as depicted.

I hope that answers your questions to your satisfaction.

I believe that what you're doing is conflating sexual assault with rape, which trivializes rape and blurs the distinction.

(I edited the post to change some wording to what I feel is more accurate upon proof reading and reflecting.)



Also answers to Jabba
Lets see if the following statements make any sense:

This was my quote:
"From saying, she agreed to it in the end, to making a great impression of an ostrich by burying your head in the sand and claiming that since you didn't see penetration nothing happened."

Originally Posted by Zotis
I understood your point. I just chose to ignore it
Originally Posted by Zotis
when I make a counter point to your point
Your "counterpoint" was:
Originally Posted by Zotis
He actually said penetration is not a requirement for rape. Someone explain to Jabs what sex is. He won't listen to me
So either:

A. You did not understand my point
B. Are not aware what counterpoint means
C. Are lying
D. Some combination of the above

I won't go into why your statement about rim jobs is utterly ignorant until we resolve this little tidbit. Because you are being dishonest trying to cover your ass. At least when I say you are an idiot, I am honest about it



Please stop short of direct personal insults. Be as scathing as you want about the validity of an idea, however, but the distinction between that and insulting the person is big bright line I have to insist we stay on the other side on. Thank you.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
I would call the example you gave Sexual Assault. I would make an omission though. Instead of forcing me to give them rim jobs, I would say try to. Because your example implies that I gave in, but I would exert every fiber of my being unto death to not give in to that. Even with a gun to my head it is still my choice and my act of will to extend my tongue and lick or take a bullet. That is my conviction. Either way, I don't consider it rape.
I tried not to get into this debate too much, but what the heck. A rimjob is an extremely intimate sexual act. It is penetration if someone makes you lick their ass against your will. Not considering such a horrific non-consensual act rape is trivializing rape.