Are modern audiences too offended by Pussy Galore?

I wonder what would have happened without "the pill". Women's rights were/are always improving. 40+ years before, they couldn't vote.

Less sex.

Could have helped with overpopulation. I'm so sick of constantly hearing sounds from outside.

The same as happened before the pill: unwanted pregnancies, backroom abortions, shotgun weddings. Loads of misery for women.

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

It's bad enough to find it offensive, after having the scene brought to their attention and thinking about it, but for it to pop into anyone's mind randomly is unfathomable to me. If you don't like it, turn it off. It feels like people are just looking for a reason to cry on the Internet. Poor babies!

I mostly agree with Citizen Rules. I haven't seen the old Bond films in some time, but it seems to me his sexual encounters were consensual though he started out aggressively with PG and there may have been times when his motive was to get information (I know that sometimes the women had ulterior motives. I think one or two tried to kill him afterwards!).

But you can't deny the old double standard still exists. What would viewers say about a female spy who had sex with as many people as he? And women's sexuality is still used by men. Some of the Bond girls are two-dimensional characters who serve a function in the story. But who said the Bond films are about two-dimensional characters? (And I don't mean that in a negative way.)

Atomic Blonde did very well at the box office.

Hmm... I've always just assumed that Atomic Blonde is some silly action-comedy. Now that I glanced IMDb it seems to be more or less serious R-rated spy action film. A bit misleading title, eh. Maybe I should give it a watch someday.

__________________

If anybody is offended by a film, then good, I'm glad they're offended, they deserve to be. Let me offend them some more by calling them weirdos.

Yeah I know Bond uses women. It's just that for a lot of people online or even people I know to call it rape, after Bond forces the kiss on her, she kisses him back and then wants him sexually for the rest of the movie after, so I don't consider that to be a rape. One time me and my gf had a fight so I grabbed her and kissed her while she was arguing, so I guess that was by force then I admit. Then she kissed me back, we made up and she we are still together. After hearing what people say about Pussy Galore, I asked my gf if I raped her from the kiss, when she didn't want it cause we were fighting and she said no, not at all, it's completely fine.

So I just felt maybe people were taking it too negatively, to call it rape.

I don't recall the specifics of his interactions with Pussy Galore, but I remember an incident in an older Bond film where he blackmailed a woman into sleeping with him (threatening to get her fired, I think it was). I think that would qualify. Or at least be so close as to make parsing it further unnecessary for purposes of evaluating his character (in both senses of the word).

I'll concur with the sentiment, insofar as this is what's being expressed, that flattening a stark term like "rape" helps neither accused nor victim in the long run, though.

Please don't, the movie sucked.

Don't worry, I have lots of experience with bad movies

That was Thunderball where Bond blackmailed the woman. However, the woman was actually aroused by it, and was attracted to Bond afterward and still went back to him and was enjoying her company with him. So can we really feel bad for her, if she was aroused by the sexual blackmail, and wanted to sleep with him?

No means yes.

__________________

They should make modern Bond like this, except instead of visiting Q's gadget workshop, Bond instead has to spend 5 minutes of every film with HR department receiving disciplinary action for inappropriate treatment of his female co-workers.

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.

This is dangerous ground to tread these days... but sometimes this is true.

I've always been a gentlemen, but at times in my distant past, I actually had to have women try to explain this to me because I obviously didn't know all the rules of the game.

There's very little way to read the signals as resisting convincingly 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).

Of course this is a dangerous game for women who play this particular "catch me" type game because it delivers a message that obviously would not be applicable to all women.

What makes it more confusing is I've been told that "No means no when I mean it, but it means yes when I don't..." and it's up to the man to try to decipher when the meaning is real and when it's not. A misread can lead either to a very bad scene (up to even perhaps legal issues) or ruining what could have been an evening of romance if only the signals had been interpreted correctly.

I had girlfriends who wanted to play "other" types of games as well, ones I was not particularly good at (not even when playing a part) due to my rather sensitive nature. (I hope I don't have to get graphic for people to know what I mean.)

I don't know what men do nowadays (esp. with women who do enjoy a bit of game playing for lack of a better term, but who find having to outline all the ground rules first kills the mood of the whole game)... good thing I'm an "incel" now!

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.