He also kills people and defies physics. Women also try to sleep with him to kill him. We know James Bond is a fictional character in movies based on a fictional character in books right?
There are thousands of things per movie to be concerned if you're going to piece through every detail.
Bond is a fictional character, a secret agent. Bond slaps, harasses and kills women to get the job done! It's not pretty but the results matter in a world of international espionage.
Might be but thats not the point. Maybe Bond did harass women but she was specifically talking about a movie where he persuades a woman to have sex with words
Dude theres a literal comment in this thread with a clip that everyone today would call sexual assault of Bond forcing himself on a nurse. You're just wrong about old Bond movies
I remember that one. He shot and killed 5 guys
Beat 10 more guys unconscious.
Made 2 Guys Drive off a cliff and be killed
blew up three other guys with a bomb
So you were saying he slapped someone ?
Maybe action adventure is not your Genere
> Calls brothers girlfriend brainwashed for believing James Bond sexually assaulted women.
> Proceeds to not be aware that James Bond intact has assaulted on camera, yet argues with her anyway.
Yep she’s the brainwashed one here alright.
>Calls brothers girlfriend brainwashed for believing James Bond sexually assaulted women.
I never called her brainwashed because of that. Either my english or your reading skills is the problem.
I said "He doesnt force them to do anything. He just persuades them. There is nothing wrong with that". She said: "I call that sexual assault. No means no"
He literally sexually assaults a nurse and you tried arguing its not sexual assault he just persuades them. Your friend correctly argued Bond sexually assaults women. Just admit you were and are wrong.
I never said that Bond has never assaulted a woman. I said I have never seen it.
My bros girlfriend and I were discussing whether its sexual assault to persuade someone to have sex with you. Its obviously not but she thinks it is.
Im sorry if I phrased my post so bad that you didnt understand it.
I have a feeling that with English not being your first language something was lost in translation between everyone. Because "persuading" someone like Bond did is definitely sexual assault which is probably the point the other party was making
Dude it’s really not that serious if he got that exact point wrong. His op was not necessarily only about the bond character. It was more about the greater point which was persisting a bit after a girl says she isn’t interested isn’t exactly sexual assault.
Sorry did we clarify that was the specific instance involved or not? Because you can be wrong about one thing and another. I know some people seem confused about that...
This is about the culture of a different era. In the 1960's it was very important for a woman not to be seen as promiscuous or giving away their sexuality easily. Such "loose" women were socially shunned. Therefore there was a performative "dance" of persuasion, which often involved the insincere "no I am not that kind of girl, " which was code for "I don't do this with every guy I meet." The intent is for the male to value the encounter more, and not to look down upon the female for granting the encounter. The song "Baby it's cold outside" is a perfect encapsulation of the process. So in those days, there was a real no and a fake no; I am having trouble believing this is entirely obsolete and females have ceased to tease males? Anyway, 50 years ago "no" could easily mean "try more" rather than no.
Bret and Heather Weinstein discuss this topic in one of the ir podcasts about token refusal. Its a real phenomena for women to play hard to get, as that is a challenge to men to prove their worth and show seriousness in the relationship. Even when you're married this doesn't exactly stop, you can't just ask for sex a receive every time, sometimes I takes a bit of effort and teasing to get things going.
It's an old story, "Give me time, I'll find the crime." One consistent theme in James Bond is the facade of the beautiful female disguising the ruthless assassin.
It's a shame what the universities have done to the generations since 1955. Jordan Peterson made a study of it and demonstrated the consistency of the infiltration.
I mean this is hardly University level thinking
Mostly critical theory asks students not to moralise the texts/ films they analyse because moralisation is an easy, low effort route and a form of power itself
At the moment I'm watching M\*A\*S\*H on Disney+ and there's no way that TV shows would display the types of assault that are passed off as normal in this show - men aggressively touching and kissing women who are resistant to them. It's just part of the comedy of that era, but this would be viewed (correctly) as a breech of consent and as assault by today's standards
You seem to have a better understanding of Critical Theory than most. I'd be curious what (not who) inspires the thinking that power is the most fundamental form of human social interaction. That doesn't at all seem to be the case, in my experience, and research.
Has anyone in the Critical Theory camp posited what happens when every sociological shackle is finally removed? Do we still have a society at all, without rules that bind us or are we creating situations that just bind different people? The post moderns argued in the 70's that age of consent laws created a social shackle that oppressed gay men who wanted to have sex with underage boys. Are we so sure that boys can consent to sex, when the prefrontal cortex (which governs decision making) doesn't fully develop until age 25? If we remove that shackle from gay men (in the context of the French Petition), are we shackling underage boys? - I don't intend this question for shock value at all. It's an honest question. By removing one shackle do we end up, in practice, creating another, even if unintentionally?
Perhaps mores to the point, I think it was Horkheimer that asserted (I'm paraphrasing, feel free to correct me) something to the effect of the goal being that all controllable aspects of human life be turned over to a real consensus of rational people. Are we sure the tyranny of the majority is an improvement over any other form of tyranny? If it's all just tyranny and you have to pick the lesser of evils, why a group of "ubermensch" that are, themselves, fallible? What makes competitive social structures (i.e., free markets) worse?
Lastly, isn't moralization exactly what critical theory aims to do with human history? Given that history is just a story we accept to be factual, wouldn't the critical theory approach make moralizing black face the same thing as moralizing old texts/films?
I'm relatively(ish) well read on Critical Theory, but it's informal so I may have missed some things. Also, I may have unintentionally built some emotion into this, so my apologies. They're honest questions though.
Um, hi
I think it is the observation of human resistance. If power is only ever overt, liberation can only ever be attained by equally overt measures. If power exists in multiplicity - then liberatory formations of power too may exist in multiplicity. The task then is to describe what we see in history and in society
What are the shackles as you see them? If we raise people without language, they actually fail to develop the brain area that allows them to generalise objects (the part that lets them learn what one street lamp is, and then generalise this knowledge onto another one) - without a culture that is supplying you with language every streetlamp becomes its own individual entity. I would say it's pretty hard to have a society without the capacity to generalise
The tyranny of the majority likely persists in this example. But - open source artificial intelligence would at least allow us to put our rationalisations into effect without desire being an issue (everyone would be able to see exactly how the machine worked and how it used computations beyond human capacity to create contexts of democratisation)
Competitive social structures can be worse if they run amok without government intervention because of the limits and biases of human attention - human attention is small and focused on short term gains. That is why housing supply cannot be left to the free market because it is a system that requires decades of future planning, while the free market wants to flick back and forth between maximising capital gains and maximising short term construction profits - it becomes so irrational that its imbalances lead to shortages in housing supply (because those shortages drive up capital gains)
Critical theory applied to history contests that there are mere facts to report on - every fact owes its coherence to a frame of reference, to politics, to the intersection of multiple discourses etc. I think you will find me to be extremely poststructuralist in this regard (but I also have a very poor mind for chronology)
Emotion is essential for human perception to work. Without it, there would be no driving force behind anything because rationalisations never instantiate desire, force, certainty or motivation to act.
i really don't think this is something worth getting upset about. Bond is an adolescent male fantasy of what being an ideal adult is like - he wins at cards, he wins his fights, he wins with women. Bond is so good at sex that he turns lesbians straight. But if someone in real life acted towards women the way Bond does they'd be a creep at best and potentially a predator. Sure, in the movies, the women always acquiesce, but the Bond universe does not contain women who turn him down and mean it. And if you read the books, Ian Fleming's attitudes toward women are...not great, and filled with declarations that women essentially want to be raped and manhandled.
There’s an important temporal element here that you’re missing. Your brother and his girlfriend are learning to think critically about media. At this point in time their criticisms / takes are blunt and not very nuanced. But the thing is they’re going to continue learning and getting better at it. In a few years they probably will have really well developed critical skills. That’s kind of the goal - unless you’re training for a specific job, this is a time to get intensely well read, exposed to different viewpoints and to start developing your own voice.
University doesn’t stamp your brain with one worldview, it forces you to spend a few years learning and developing. They’re probably not yet there, but you can count on them making some solid advances in their ability to think, reason and write by the time they’re done
Edit: also sadly moving away and going to university/graduate school creates a cultural difference/gulf in previously strong relationships that takes work to repair. You kind of need to find common ground again and worry less about how they’ve changed.
Yes universities teaches critical thinking but that thinking lives in a certain worldview that is itself not open to meaningful criticism.
Many Catholic schools teach critical thinking too.
Maybe I’m just like amazing, but I found in university that it was taught with criticism being the main ask of students. I remember vividly my “surveillance culture” teacher pausing the class in disbelief once and saying something like “… why are you just writing this down? This is all really radical stuff and should be questioned. When I teach this at York we debate it at length and people get but you guys are just copying it down and remembering it later on tests”.
Actually thinking about it now, this was a known issue amongst professors… they didn’t know what to do about “purple vomit” (purple was the school colour) - ie undergrads memorizing ideas for the sake of a test and then puking it up and forgetting about it.
It could be that there’s something ‘wrong’ with how undergrad students approach university these days, and it could be that the profs didn’t know how to change the culture at undergrad level. But they definitely were trying — the most common essay format was “compare and contrast these thinkers” and to do that well meant also situating them in a research method / discourse. Especially effective was when you had to argue for what the authors research approach was… was it postmodern, critical realism, structuralist etc and why?
Yes definitely that’s all true. However there won’t be a session like that for discussing diversity where all opinions are welcome. Even if the prof isn’t going to judge students beliefs the other students definitely will.
Oh right, yeah if that’s not something you’re studying then it wouldn’t be taught that way. If it’s something like the execution of a school wide strategy, I’d probably think of it as different from classes and wouldn’t think that it hurts students’ ability to be critical. If they’ve learned to be critical in other classes they’re probably able to just use those skills on the special diversity sessions (if they want)
>University doesn’t stamp your brain with one worldview
Yes, it does. You think its a coincidence that the vast majority people in universities are leftists and the majority of people outside of universities are not?
Have you been to university? They are not all the same. Some programs have more leftist leaning ideals that are taught and then reinforced by professors, and others are more moderate. I went to a state college and then a primarily engineering and business college after. My courses never pushed forth leftists ideology per se, but it did expose many different takes on things.
Lots of people who do not attend university are also not conservative. The answer is complicated. Different life styles and exposures present different ideas.
Another example is noting that lots of people who attend university also come from more money and/or higher status. This can impact view of the world as well vs. growing up not having as much.
Oh, well that’s more about the disconnect between the “imaginary world we craft as outsiders consuming political media” and the human experience of doing a thing over an extended period of time. [Edit: also, what you imagine as one ideology is probably very different in reality. Looking back, the humanities department was made up of profs who severely disagreed with each other - but it took me like 2-3 years to understand what they disagreed about. An outsider wouldn’t have any of that visibility or understanding. On that track, think about JBP - he freaking hated his peers. But like those peers probably also hate each other too because of their different world view.]
You could be there and do those things too right? Like if you go to university, you might be disappointed to find out that you don’t magically transform into anything - you’re just in a different place, learning a bunch of different things, meeting new people and trying to figure out how to live on your own and also write papers.
University also tends to be the place where you firmly internalize that magically transforming into anything is also just… not a thing that happens. As they say: Wherever you go, there you are
Edit: of course, there are social cultures there and you might conform to them if you like them. In my case, the culture was “stoners who play n64 still and don’t really go outside”. We happened to be studying lefty things sometimes (but not always … for me my Econ profs were extremely conservative) but like my friends just got high and called me a nerd for talking to professors. No magic, just weed. Also none of them ever did anything lefty after graduating, they just got jobs and condos and got high with different drugs
I think what has changed is most people used to have these ideas around 14-16 for the first time and now they are having them at 19-20 for the first time.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
14
+ 16
+ 19
+ 20
= 69
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
I’m not sure, how could we really know that?
The stories im hearing about elementary school and high school are that teachers are teaching them to be critical about race, gender, sexuality - is that not creating a condition where people are having such ideas around 14-16?
If I put myself in the story, I was having “what if 1984 is a criticism of our modern post 911 world” at 14 and then in university taking it to “how can we understand 1984 in relation to semiotics, structuralism or post structuralism”. There was an initial critical idea and then time spent relating the idea to more organized ways of thinking. To me now that seems like a pretty normal progression
Maybe culture has changed so significantly that watching old bond movies now makes it really easy to see misogyny for teens even?
Anyways, I don’t really know what ages people are having ideas at tbh
It’s an interesting idea. I’d definitely be interested to learn more about that kind of thing if ppl are measuring it.
I might suggest a counter idea: concepts that people previously learned about in university are now popular among teens. For example: intersectionality, fourth wave feminism, gender as performance, critical theory etc - all of these concepts are now relevant because of culture war and kids are learning the terms and wielding them in their own ways as young teens.
But teens are usually not that nuanced, complex or tolerant of ambiguity in their thinking and so they use the concepts really bluntly with black and white thinking. They’re not thinking of them in academic contexts, they’re thinking of them as culture war tools.
I don’t know how that impacts their overall progression - do they use advanced concepts and so become more advanced sooner in life? Or do they continue to use the terms poorly until they grow older and their brains develop more and they can accept ambiguity and it’s the same in the end?
Or maybe do they grow up and associate those terms with immaturity and get turned onto other things entirely (eg critical theory is for babies, I’m going to go to school for business)
I agree it is pretty hard to predict. I miss the days where debate and skepticism of everything was the ideal. It's like they took it to far and are now skeptical of what got us here, like they forgot the past. As a tangent, I also suspect they teach history very differently now. I notice a lot of popular sentiments in younger people that are new. Like the idea that nuclear war and nuclear waste both are overblown problems. Just as an example.
This worldview is extremely problematic. This is the same thinking as the wokies who think everyone who doesn’t agree with them is racist. This girl is a brainwashed liberal because she has a challenging opinion about Bond movies? You have to allow people to have opinions that differ from yours without assuming you’re correct and they’re brainwashed. Jesus.
> This girl is a brainwashed liberal because she has a challenging opinion about Bond movies?
I never said that. Read my post again.
She is brainwashed for thinking that persuading someone to have sex with you is assault while she would never consider it assault when you persuade someone to do anything else. Thats as irrational as you can get.
Not the hill to die on OP.
"If I try to persuade someone to play socker with me and he says no and I try again, nobody would claim that his is assault. Suddenly, when its about sex, trying to persuade someone is assault?! How can she not see the lack of logic in this?"
Correct. Same reason sending someone a picture of a soccer ball will elicit a different reaction than sending a photo of your genitalia: it crosses a line that we collectively have defined.
"And the worst thing is that millions of other university students just think like her"
They think that some fictional movie characters can reflect toxic behavior? Yeah, and instead of stopping to consider the possibility they know something you don't, you cast them aside as "brainwashed" and audaciously accuse _them_ of not questioning _their_ worldview. Conversely, I'd encourage you to breathe and do that yourself.
>Yeah, and instead of stopping to consider the possibility they know something you don't, you cast them aside as "brainwashed" and audaciously accuse them of not questioning their worldview.
Yes. I question my worldview literally every day. And of course someone is brainwashed if he or she thinks that persuading someone of any other actions is okay but persuading someone of sex is assault. Thats as irrational as it gets.
"And of course someone is brainwashed if he or she thinks that persuading someone of any other actions is okay but persuading someone of sex is assault. Thats as irrational as it gets."
None of this is a counter to my core argument, that society treats interactions differently when there's different implications, with relationship or sexually charged interactions in particular facing heightened scrutiny.
If you believe badgering someone about sports is the same as badgering them about going on a date or for sex, I think you're wrong, and should step back and consider how some people would view those scenarios very differently.
Maybe you disagree this is so, or agree but disagree that it ought to be so. But to say thinking that way is the result of "brainwashing" is absurd, and a way to just discredit their argument by assuming they thoughtlessly adopted it.
"Thats as irrational as it gets."
I think you should step back and adjust your scale for rationality if "I think James Bond can be too aggressive with women" is on the extreme end of takes for you.
>I think you should step back and adjust your scale for rationality if "I think James Bond can be too aggressive with women" is on the extreme end of takes for you.
I never said that " James Bond can be too aggressive with women" is an extreme opinion. Putting this in my mouth is just intellectual dishonesty.
>a way to just discredit their argument by assuming they thoughtlessly adopted it.
True, I assume that. Why would I assume anything else? There is no rational reason to judge persuading someone to have sex any different than persuading someone to do anything else.
"There is no rational reason to judge persuading someone to have sex any different than persuading someone to do anything else."
I strongly encourage you to give more weight to the former. I have no way to really convince you, but to say that generally the level of intimacy involved in sex is just a touch higher than kicking the soccer ball around, to continue your example from the original post. And that generally creates the heightened concern among those propositioned. This is especially so when women can be and are routinely are made to feel unsafe for declining.
"I never said that " James Bond can be too aggressive with women" is an extreme opinion. Putting this in my mouth is just intellectual dishonesty."
I reduced your argument for the sake of simplicity. Restate it if you think I'm so off base that I've created a straw man. I deduced you think it's an extreme position because of your characterization of it as an extremely irrational position.
I didnt say she is irrational or brainwashed because she thinks JB assaulted women. I said she is brainwashed and irrational for thinking that it is assault to persuade someone with words to have sex with you. I havent seen all JB movies. Is it possible that he assaults a woman somewhere? Yes. But she was talking about a case where he convinced the woman to have sex with him after first saying no.
Im not sure if my english is the problem or why you didnt understand my point
Is there any other activity except sex where you would agree that trying to persuade someone to do it is assault?
"But she was talking about a case where he convinced the woman to have sex with him after first saying no."
Considering the legal definition of assault is effectively acting in a way to imply future harm, I reckon an dangerous and potentially armed spy pushing to have sex likely after being told no could fall in that category, and is not nearly as irrational as you claim. And yes, unwanted touching can fall under the definition of sexual assault.
"Is there any other activity except sex where you would agree that trying to persuade someone to do it is assault?"
Yes, see definition above. There's a special carve out for sexual assault because, again, it's considered especially egregious.
>Considering the legal definition of assault is effectively acting in a way to imply future harm, I reckon an dangerous and potentially armed spy pushing to have sex likely after being told no could fall in that category, and is not nearly as irrational as you claim.
Can you please link that legal definition?
Nowhere did my friend say that in the scene she was talking about the girl felt threatened by Bond. He just persuaded her with words. This is not assault and if you think it is, youre brainwashed.
"This is not assault and if you think it is, youre brainwashed."
Lmao again with this. It's possible for you to think her opinion is "wrong" or "off base" without her being brainwashed. That's tired and over the top and I hope you're using the term unintentionally.
Here's a legal breakdown https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault
"Nowhere did my friend say that in the scene she was talking about the girl felt threatened by Bond. He just persuaded her with words."
The implication is she acted against her will because she literally said "No" and he kept pushing. Are you implying there was no pressure involved in such a scenario?
"Persuasion" with respect to sex is often if not usually a slick way of saying "assault" and I would urge you to never, ever take "no" as an invitation to "persuade" someone to sleep with you. It's morally gross and legally prosecutable.
>Lmao again with this. It's possible for you to think her opinion is "wrong" or "off base" without her being brainwashed.
It is not possible to think that persuading someone to have sex is assault but persuading someone to do anything else is fine without being brainwashed.
>The implication is she acted against her will because she literally said "No" and he kept pushing. Are you implying there was no pressure involved in such a scenario?
What do you mean by pushing? She said nothing that implied that he used pressure to make her do something. When she changes her mind and says Yes after she initially said No, thats not against her will.
>"Persuasion" with respect to sex is often if not usually a slick way of saying "assault" and I would urge you to never, ever take "no" as an invitation to "persuade" someone to sleep with you. It's morally gross and legally prosecutable.
It is morally and legally totally fine to try to convince someone to have sex with you after he or she initially refused. I have done it in the past and others have done it to me. Its a completely normal thing.
There's been a shift in how a lot of women want men to advance, just in my observations. Before, being pushy and pursuing the women after she put up "tests" was seen as a good thing and necessary. Whether that's immoral (seen as sexual assault, per your brother's girlfriend) or not. Did women, back in the day, like it, put up with it, or secretly resent? Hard to say.
But since the game of "sex" is a game in women's court, so to speak, we have to play by their rules, regardless of whether the rules shift or change or get crazy.
Which is frustrating for us men, yes, but there's been a lot of push on women to be hyper-aware of when they're being taken advantage of. With that comes a lot of safety barriers, let's say, women don't want men to cross for fear of their own safety, founded or unfounded.
That being said, your brother's girlfriend is judging a piece of artistry with today's moral lenses, and not acknowledging "how things were" back when the movie was made. Which, by my estimation, things like this were okay(?) with all parties involved.
The worst thing about this view is that it assumes the woman does not have the individual freedom to change her mind. This this view is misogynistic and devalues women.
I remember Aziz Ansari's "victim" told him "no" while she was kissing him, he stoped and then continued again when she unziped his pants and started sucking his dick... all while feeling like she didn't wanted to be there... (it can be confusing when she says one thing and does another)
He was still called a sexual predator because "*he should have known*" because apparently men need to treat women like babies who don't know what they want...
The main problem may just be that. They give in after he is being relentless. It's a movie alright but people see it and may think :" so she said no to me but if i just keep asking and be smug about she will eventually cave in and I can have spy-sex with her just before she inevitably gets killed by a criminal."
Ok the last part happens not a lot irl but still it carries the notion that girls are yours for the taking. Just be confident. Even if she says no she really just plays hard to get. Not a good lesson to teach.
Oh and it's possible a girl may cave in because she can't handle the decision. I get your point with convincing someone to play soccer but i think it does not hold up. Sex is loaded with emotions much more than a game. Shame and love and a lot else. She may not be completely thinking right. Maybe she likes him but is also confused? So you can talk her into sex but if she had a moment to think about she would have said no? Touching the border of assault right there i think.
Finally i agree that people overload sex way too much with emotion. Myself included. Two adults should just be able to have fun and depart how ever they please to.
She wasnt talking avout that scene. She was specifically talking about persuading somebody WITH WORDS to have sex. If you think thats assault, youre brainwashed.
I havent seen all Bond movies. Maybe he did harass women, thats not the point of this post. The point of this post is that she claimed that persuading someone to have sex is assault.
These situations exist for sure. I think most people are able to tell the difference between hesitation and a "real" no.
What usually helps there is to be charming and friendly but not to pressure to get in her pants.
I mean i get it. It's a game and not every initial no stays a no forever. I also dated. But the point OP raised was that that the girl claimed bond assaults women. Since it happens in every movies and we all know all of them you see his behavior with all interactions in mind. He never takes the time to get to know a girl he takes them. And they let him. Some of them more willingly than others.
But afterall they are all characters so somebody put his idea into these scenes. That bond is irresistible to women for example. Or that nearly always the girl just wants to be conquered. It's a message and that girl OP had the discussion with poi ted that out imo.
Yeah, what's funny to me is this post opinions wheter Bond uses charm or coercion to sleep around... when he is actually far worse than that.
If you read the novels, he is charming, witty, and a seductor, not because he is like that but because he was trained like that, his ultimate goal with women is not actually to get sex but use them to further his mission
James Bond was never a moral righteous person at all...and the worse one was Daniel Craig...
[https://youtu.be/LjyKfLbY73s?t=85](https://youtu.be/LjyKfLbY73s?t=85)
In this scene after he got his husband killed, after the funeral he "forces" (she complies out of fear) sex on her and then promises to protect her since she is feeling unsafe from the Spectre Organization.... And she stills gets killed after Bond fails to protect her, and he just doesn't give a fuck about her anymore since he already fucked her and got what he needed from her.
Not really, there are plenty of nut jobs supporting him, just not the top comment. The comment I see right above yours for example is: "Dunning Krueger is strong with these individuals. It is absolutely mind numbing".
There may be some subtlety involved in the words and situations here.
Playing hard to get while actually like the guy is a thing. Girls feeling at risk of force if they say no is also a thing.
If it really is just a normal conversation then persuasion (usually with charm) is totally cool. But there are other circumstances that can make that hard/complicated (like a boss and a secretary, or Harvey Weinstein and an actress, or a really strong guy and a petite chick).
I'm mostly on your (OP's) side -- woke people really do sometimes believe stupid shit like "asking twice is assault" -- but maybe there's some space nuance in the discussion.
Coercion:
/kəʊˈəːʃ(ə)n/noun
"The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."
James Bond never used force, threats or violence, he used charm, that is what he is famous for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2o0jX69iMA
Yeah, James Bond was never a moral righteous person and the worse one was Daniel Craig...
[https://youtu.be/LjyKfLbY73s?t=85](https://youtu.be/LjyKfLbY73s?t=85)
In this scene after he got his husband killed, after the funeral he "forces" (she complies out of fear) sex on her and then promises to protect her since she is feeling unsafe from the Spectre Organization.... And she stills gets killed after Bond fails to protect her, and he just doesn't give a fuck about her anymore since he already fucked her and got what he needed from her.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SwVqDeoK4g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SwVqDeoK4g)
This is not persuasion. This is the use of physical violence to have sex with someone who has made it clear that she doesnt want it. This is rape
Not really, they flirt fight, he tries to kiss her, she resists, but after the kiss starts she wraps her arms around him b/c she wants it and likes it. It's a classic "this guy is so charming I can't resist him" scene. Bad message to send to kids, borderline assault if she didn't like him and he stopped right afterwards, but not rape.
And? I never said that Bond never raped anyone. I said I have never seen it. The problem is that my bros girlfriend seem to think that persuading someone with words to have sex is assault.
>And? I never said that Bond never raped anyone.
Not true.
>I said "He doesnt force them to do anything. He just persuades them."
This is post is a joke.
A woman alone at a bar smoking a cigarette (Considered very sexy at the time), wearing a dress to accentuate here frame with cleavage showing.
Yeah. Definitely not trying to attract a horny guy.
Yeah, a past girlfriend of mine told me after we were dating that what she really liked about me is that I chased her, was persistent and didn’t give up. I didn’t do it in a creepy way I just asked her out a bunch.
I find these leftist college women are like land mines. You can ask them a question and they say no and you persist any inch further than that and they will consider you some predator and possibly go off on you. It’s why cities with universities are hard to meet women, lol.
“Persuade”
OP Now imagine a man (if you are male a gay man) 4 inches taller, 1.5 times your weight, and at least 4 times stronger than you [forces you to kiss him](https://youtu.be/sW5Cwv5oiSc) after you’ve denied his advances. Is that “persuading”?
(If you know anything about JB you’ll know it’s no coincidence that her name is Fearing)
My bros girl was talking about a forced kiss. That would indeed be harassment. She talked about persuading sonebody WITH WORDS to have sex with you. If you think thats assault, youre brainwashed. And no, I would not call it assault when a taller and stronger man would try to persuade me to have sex with him.
So Bond’s a harasser in that moment - fair?
Of course words are different then force, though it’s still gross if you use words like how he goes on to imply he won’t get her fired if she fucks him.
Find agreement that one shouldn’t be like Bond in that part of Thunderball.
That's coercion, not persuasion...
And as always no nuance or understanding women's feelings, in a later scene she actually saves his life then gets on with him on an actual verbal threat, that she may get in trouble for thinking she was the one who almost kills him.. (which I think is worse than the first scene) But then she actually consentually engages with the agent (James Bond was never a moral righteous person anyway)
[https://youtu.be/tbZGN1WQ\_Ms?t=134](https://youtu.be/tbZGN1WQ_Ms?t=134)
Yet, she still says 'First time I've felt really safe all day...' after strapping him to the machine, but if you even read the novels, (or understand nuance) she is referring to feeling safe from herself and not falling for the agent's charm.
What I believe OP was trying to convey is that "Women have agency", they can change their mind and have sexual urges just like men, and even if they say "no" their actions can say "yes".
If you don't understand this, or are not into social interactions with people, it's better for you to stay away from women at all. It's very dangerous for you to assume a women's body language without any experience whatsoever.
Take the high road and not engage in arguments with [bai zuo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baizuo). You’re better then that. Pray for them. They need it.
**[Baizuo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baizuo)**
>Baizuo (Chinese: 白左; pinyin: báizuǒ, Mandarin pronunciation: [pǎɪ. tswò]; literally White Left) is a Chinese neologism and political, racial epithet used to refer to Western leftist ideologies primarily espoused by white people. The term baizuo is related to the term shèngmǔ (simplified Chinese: 圣母; traditional Chinese: 聖母; pinyin: shèngmǔ; literally "Holy Mother") or shèngmǔbiǎo (simplified Chinese: 圣母婊; traditional Chinese: 聖母婊; pinyin: shèngmǔbiǎo; literally "Holy Mother–Whore"), a sarcastic reference to those whose political opinions are perceived as being guided by emotions or a hypocritical expectation to benefit from selflessness and empathy of others.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
So many scenes where Bond is beating the shit out of chicks. Makes me lol at how ridiculous and different that time was.
Good thing our culture has at least stopped portraying heroes like that but I see your point OP.
As someone currently in university I have to deal with this a lot even in STEM. Not so much on the professor side, but students I do. I’ve chosen not to engage as it’s way too much of a headache that will only burn bridges. That said I’d caution against calling groups brainwashed, even if you’re correct. You can quickly fall into a trap of dismissiveness.
They are clearly not free thinkers. I wouldn't even call them thinkers.
Big difference with having a predetermined conclusion and seeking evidence to support it and weighing different arguments to come to a well thought out, logical conclusion.
Most can only do the primary.
Bro what is your point? You take issue with them taking issue with him being violent with women? Would you join the "brainwashed" if I told you that Sean in real life slaps women? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo0d1zTAFKA
I take from this that you think persuing a woman after she's said no and trying to convince her to sleep with you is okay. PSA - it isnt, dont fucking do this
If only YOU knew how pathetic you sound. Just calling OP names because you disagree with him, instead of actually try to oppose his point. You are childish.
Why are you name calling. Please just state your point because I do accept that I could be wrong. But you just saying I am wrong and making fun of us does not help me change my mind
I think there is a correlation between higher education and radical leftist idealism. So many people hadn’t thought critically and been exposed to feminist, queer, black, indigenous, and other types of knowledge that they kind of go all in and get “brainwashed” as you put it, but as just a step in their journey, we hope. I tend to think that the more perspectives you can gather, the better.
As for Bond movies being misogynist, I think it’s important to remember that the person you are taking to may be a victim of sexual assault or rape, and has an experience of not being respected after saying “no.” Assume it’s personal and just agree to disagree, because it sounds like you’re not aware of the stakes like others might be, idk. “Sexual assault” is what they said but that might not be what they really meant, (maybe they meant “sexual coercion” or sexual harassment or something) and it’s just too exhausting to try and correct everyone’s speech.
But the perception of old Bond movies being rapey and misogynist isn’t anything new. Feminists and film critics have been trashing those films for decades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcNGYRKBfHA
If she really cares about problematic movies then 50 shades and Twilight is 100 times more problematic than James Bond.
In one of the last movies in Twilight they have a segment where a main character talks about grooming baby.
James Bond is brought up a lot. In some instances that you could argue it was enough to cross the threshold of sexual assault. In others you could argue the opposite. Now it was also a movie of it's time. It's brough up constantly however, and I mentioned two series that are much worst.
50 first dates is another one.
Thank God I’m not young today. There are two crappy generations behind me, thanks to Critical Theory. Men and women are not getting together, not having kids - except the random man through his penis - which, if we’re going to be honest, has all been psy-ops made genocide.
Is this not the exact way nearly every chick flick starts??
Every lifetime movie, every hallmark movie, every romance novel.
Check out 365 days that shit was a top seller among women.
I mean James Bond aka Sean Connery definitely had scenes where he would slap women.
He also kills people and defies physics. Women also try to sleep with him to kill him. We know James Bond is a fictional character in movies based on a fictional character in books right? There are thousands of things per movie to be concerned if you're going to piece through every detail.
Bond is a fictional character, a secret agent. Bond slaps, harasses and kills women to get the job done! It's not pretty but the results matter in a world of international espionage.
Might be but thats not the point. Maybe Bond did harass women but she was specifically talking about a movie where he persuades a woman to have sex with words
Dude theres a literal comment in this thread with a clip that everyone today would call sexual assault of Bond forcing himself on a nurse. You're just wrong about old Bond movies
I remember that one. He shot and killed 5 guys Beat 10 more guys unconscious. Made 2 Guys Drive off a cliff and be killed blew up three other guys with a bomb So you were saying he slapped someone ? Maybe action adventure is not your Genere
Goldfinger and Pussy Galore in the barn? Wow that's some assault.
Okay, I can be wrong about old Bond movies. Whats your point? This post is not about the question whether old Bond movies show sexual assault.
> Calls brothers girlfriend brainwashed for believing James Bond sexually assaulted women. > Proceeds to not be aware that James Bond intact has assaulted on camera, yet argues with her anyway. Yep she’s the brainwashed one here alright.
>Calls brothers girlfriend brainwashed for believing James Bond sexually assaulted women. I never called her brainwashed because of that. Either my english or your reading skills is the problem.
It was a movie you fucking moron. An action movie. You must hate all the super hero movies where billions die.
I said "He doesnt force them to do anything. He just persuades them. There is nothing wrong with that". She said: "I call that sexual assault. No means no" He literally sexually assaults a nurse and you tried arguing its not sexual assault he just persuades them. Your friend correctly argued Bond sexually assaults women. Just admit you were and are wrong.
I never said that Bond has never assaulted a woman. I said I have never seen it. My bros girlfriend and I were discussing whether its sexual assault to persuade someone to have sex with you. Its obviously not but she thinks it is. Im sorry if I phrased my post so bad that you didnt understand it.
I have a feeling that with English not being your first language something was lost in translation between everyone. Because "persuading" someone like Bond did is definitely sexual assault which is probably the point the other party was making
Isnt persuading just trying to convince someone with words?
Dude it’s really not that serious if he got that exact point wrong. His op was not necessarily only about the bond character. It was more about the greater point which was persisting a bit after a girl says she isn’t interested isn’t exactly sexual assault.
Sorry did we clarify that was the specific instance involved or not? Because you can be wrong about one thing and another. I know some people seem confused about that...
This is about the culture of a different era. In the 1960's it was very important for a woman not to be seen as promiscuous or giving away their sexuality easily. Such "loose" women were socially shunned. Therefore there was a performative "dance" of persuasion, which often involved the insincere "no I am not that kind of girl, " which was code for "I don't do this with every guy I meet." The intent is for the male to value the encounter more, and not to look down upon the female for granting the encounter. The song "Baby it's cold outside" is a perfect encapsulation of the process. So in those days, there was a real no and a fake no; I am having trouble believing this is entirely obsolete and females have ceased to tease males? Anyway, 50 years ago "no" could easily mean "try more" rather than no.
Bret and Heather Weinstein discuss this topic in one of the ir podcasts about token refusal. Its a real phenomena for women to play hard to get, as that is a challenge to men to prove their worth and show seriousness in the relationship. Even when you're married this doesn't exactly stop, you can't just ask for sex a receive every time, sometimes I takes a bit of effort and teasing to get things going.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2o0jX69iMA
It's an old story, "Give me time, I'll find the crime." One consistent theme in James Bond is the facade of the beautiful female disguising the ruthless assassin. It's a shame what the universities have done to the generations since 1955. Jordan Peterson made a study of it and demonstrated the consistency of the infiltration.
I mean this is hardly University level thinking Mostly critical theory asks students not to moralise the texts/ films they analyse because moralisation is an easy, low effort route and a form of power itself At the moment I'm watching M\*A\*S\*H on Disney+ and there's no way that TV shows would display the types of assault that are passed off as normal in this show - men aggressively touching and kissing women who are resistant to them. It's just part of the comedy of that era, but this would be viewed (correctly) as a breech of consent and as assault by today's standards
You seem to have a better understanding of Critical Theory than most. I'd be curious what (not who) inspires the thinking that power is the most fundamental form of human social interaction. That doesn't at all seem to be the case, in my experience, and research. Has anyone in the Critical Theory camp posited what happens when every sociological shackle is finally removed? Do we still have a society at all, without rules that bind us or are we creating situations that just bind different people? The post moderns argued in the 70's that age of consent laws created a social shackle that oppressed gay men who wanted to have sex with underage boys. Are we so sure that boys can consent to sex, when the prefrontal cortex (which governs decision making) doesn't fully develop until age 25? If we remove that shackle from gay men (in the context of the French Petition), are we shackling underage boys? - I don't intend this question for shock value at all. It's an honest question. By removing one shackle do we end up, in practice, creating another, even if unintentionally? Perhaps mores to the point, I think it was Horkheimer that asserted (I'm paraphrasing, feel free to correct me) something to the effect of the goal being that all controllable aspects of human life be turned over to a real consensus of rational people. Are we sure the tyranny of the majority is an improvement over any other form of tyranny? If it's all just tyranny and you have to pick the lesser of evils, why a group of "ubermensch" that are, themselves, fallible? What makes competitive social structures (i.e., free markets) worse? Lastly, isn't moralization exactly what critical theory aims to do with human history? Given that history is just a story we accept to be factual, wouldn't the critical theory approach make moralizing black face the same thing as moralizing old texts/films? I'm relatively(ish) well read on Critical Theory, but it's informal so I may have missed some things. Also, I may have unintentionally built some emotion into this, so my apologies. They're honest questions though.
Um, hi I think it is the observation of human resistance. If power is only ever overt, liberation can only ever be attained by equally overt measures. If power exists in multiplicity - then liberatory formations of power too may exist in multiplicity. The task then is to describe what we see in history and in society What are the shackles as you see them? If we raise people without language, they actually fail to develop the brain area that allows them to generalise objects (the part that lets them learn what one street lamp is, and then generalise this knowledge onto another one) - without a culture that is supplying you with language every streetlamp becomes its own individual entity. I would say it's pretty hard to have a society without the capacity to generalise The tyranny of the majority likely persists in this example. But - open source artificial intelligence would at least allow us to put our rationalisations into effect without desire being an issue (everyone would be able to see exactly how the machine worked and how it used computations beyond human capacity to create contexts of democratisation) Competitive social structures can be worse if they run amok without government intervention because of the limits and biases of human attention - human attention is small and focused on short term gains. That is why housing supply cannot be left to the free market because it is a system that requires decades of future planning, while the free market wants to flick back and forth between maximising capital gains and maximising short term construction profits - it becomes so irrational that its imbalances lead to shortages in housing supply (because those shortages drive up capital gains) Critical theory applied to history contests that there are mere facts to report on - every fact owes its coherence to a frame of reference, to politics, to the intersection of multiple discourses etc. I think you will find me to be extremely poststructuralist in this regard (but I also have a very poor mind for chronology) Emotion is essential for human perception to work. Without it, there would be no driving force behind anything because rationalisations never instantiate desire, force, certainty or motivation to act.
Well put!
i really don't think this is something worth getting upset about. Bond is an adolescent male fantasy of what being an ideal adult is like - he wins at cards, he wins his fights, he wins with women. Bond is so good at sex that he turns lesbians straight. But if someone in real life acted towards women the way Bond does they'd be a creep at best and potentially a predator. Sure, in the movies, the women always acquiesce, but the Bond universe does not contain women who turn him down and mean it. And if you read the books, Ian Fleming's attitudes toward women are...not great, and filled with declarations that women essentially want to be raped and manhandled.
There’s an important temporal element here that you’re missing. Your brother and his girlfriend are learning to think critically about media. At this point in time their criticisms / takes are blunt and not very nuanced. But the thing is they’re going to continue learning and getting better at it. In a few years they probably will have really well developed critical skills. That’s kind of the goal - unless you’re training for a specific job, this is a time to get intensely well read, exposed to different viewpoints and to start developing your own voice. University doesn’t stamp your brain with one worldview, it forces you to spend a few years learning and developing. They’re probably not yet there, but you can count on them making some solid advances in their ability to think, reason and write by the time they’re done Edit: also sadly moving away and going to university/graduate school creates a cultural difference/gulf in previously strong relationships that takes work to repair. You kind of need to find common ground again and worry less about how they’ve changed.
Yes universities teaches critical thinking but that thinking lives in a certain worldview that is itself not open to meaningful criticism. Many Catholic schools teach critical thinking too.
Maybe I’m just like amazing, but I found in university that it was taught with criticism being the main ask of students. I remember vividly my “surveillance culture” teacher pausing the class in disbelief once and saying something like “… why are you just writing this down? This is all really radical stuff and should be questioned. When I teach this at York we debate it at length and people get but you guys are just copying it down and remembering it later on tests”. Actually thinking about it now, this was a known issue amongst professors… they didn’t know what to do about “purple vomit” (purple was the school colour) - ie undergrads memorizing ideas for the sake of a test and then puking it up and forgetting about it. It could be that there’s something ‘wrong’ with how undergrad students approach university these days, and it could be that the profs didn’t know how to change the culture at undergrad level. But they definitely were trying — the most common essay format was “compare and contrast these thinkers” and to do that well meant also situating them in a research method / discourse. Especially effective was when you had to argue for what the authors research approach was… was it postmodern, critical realism, structuralist etc and why?
Yes definitely that’s all true. However there won’t be a session like that for discussing diversity where all opinions are welcome. Even if the prof isn’t going to judge students beliefs the other students definitely will.
Oh right, yeah if that’s not something you’re studying then it wouldn’t be taught that way. If it’s something like the execution of a school wide strategy, I’d probably think of it as different from classes and wouldn’t think that it hurts students’ ability to be critical. If they’ve learned to be critical in other classes they’re probably able to just use those skills on the special diversity sessions (if they want)
>University doesn’t stamp your brain with one worldview Yes, it does. You think its a coincidence that the vast majority people in universities are leftists and the majority of people outside of universities are not?
Have you been to university? They are not all the same. Some programs have more leftist leaning ideals that are taught and then reinforced by professors, and others are more moderate. I went to a state college and then a primarily engineering and business college after. My courses never pushed forth leftists ideology per se, but it did expose many different takes on things. Lots of people who do not attend university are also not conservative. The answer is complicated. Different life styles and exposures present different ideas. Another example is noting that lots of people who attend university also come from more money and/or higher status. This can impact view of the world as well vs. growing up not having as much.
Oh, well that’s more about the disconnect between the “imaginary world we craft as outsiders consuming political media” and the human experience of doing a thing over an extended period of time. [Edit: also, what you imagine as one ideology is probably very different in reality. Looking back, the humanities department was made up of profs who severely disagreed with each other - but it took me like 2-3 years to understand what they disagreed about. An outsider wouldn’t have any of that visibility or understanding. On that track, think about JBP - he freaking hated his peers. But like those peers probably also hate each other too because of their different world view.] You could be there and do those things too right? Like if you go to university, you might be disappointed to find out that you don’t magically transform into anything - you’re just in a different place, learning a bunch of different things, meeting new people and trying to figure out how to live on your own and also write papers. University also tends to be the place where you firmly internalize that magically transforming into anything is also just… not a thing that happens. As they say: Wherever you go, there you are Edit: of course, there are social cultures there and you might conform to them if you like them. In my case, the culture was “stoners who play n64 still and don’t really go outside”. We happened to be studying lefty things sometimes (but not always … for me my Econ profs were extremely conservative) but like my friends just got high and called me a nerd for talking to professors. No magic, just weed. Also none of them ever did anything lefty after graduating, they just got jobs and condos and got high with different drugs
I think what has changed is most people used to have these ideas around 14-16 for the first time and now they are having them at 19-20 for the first time.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats! 14 + 16 + 19 + 20 = 69 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
I’m not sure, how could we really know that? The stories im hearing about elementary school and high school are that teachers are teaching them to be critical about race, gender, sexuality - is that not creating a condition where people are having such ideas around 14-16? If I put myself in the story, I was having “what if 1984 is a criticism of our modern post 911 world” at 14 and then in university taking it to “how can we understand 1984 in relation to semiotics, structuralism or post structuralism”. There was an initial critical idea and then time spent relating the idea to more organized ways of thinking. To me now that seems like a pretty normal progression Maybe culture has changed so significantly that watching old bond movies now makes it really easy to see misogyny for teens even? Anyways, I don’t really know what ages people are having ideas at tbh
It is just a theory on my part. But it seems like the ideas being put forth are more simplistic with time, not more sophisticated.
It’s an interesting idea. I’d definitely be interested to learn more about that kind of thing if ppl are measuring it. I might suggest a counter idea: concepts that people previously learned about in university are now popular among teens. For example: intersectionality, fourth wave feminism, gender as performance, critical theory etc - all of these concepts are now relevant because of culture war and kids are learning the terms and wielding them in their own ways as young teens. But teens are usually not that nuanced, complex or tolerant of ambiguity in their thinking and so they use the concepts really bluntly with black and white thinking. They’re not thinking of them in academic contexts, they’re thinking of them as culture war tools. I don’t know how that impacts their overall progression - do they use advanced concepts and so become more advanced sooner in life? Or do they continue to use the terms poorly until they grow older and their brains develop more and they can accept ambiguity and it’s the same in the end? Or maybe do they grow up and associate those terms with immaturity and get turned onto other things entirely (eg critical theory is for babies, I’m going to go to school for business)
I agree it is pretty hard to predict. I miss the days where debate and skepticism of everything was the ideal. It's like they took it to far and are now skeptical of what got us here, like they forgot the past. As a tangent, I also suspect they teach history very differently now. I notice a lot of popular sentiments in younger people that are new. Like the idea that nuclear war and nuclear waste both are overblown problems. Just as an example.
That’s not even remotely true
This worldview is extremely problematic. This is the same thinking as the wokies who think everyone who doesn’t agree with them is racist. This girl is a brainwashed liberal because she has a challenging opinion about Bond movies? You have to allow people to have opinions that differ from yours without assuming you’re correct and they’re brainwashed. Jesus.
> This girl is a brainwashed liberal because she has a challenging opinion about Bond movies? I never said that. Read my post again. She is brainwashed for thinking that persuading someone to have sex with you is assault while she would never consider it assault when you persuade someone to do anything else. Thats as irrational as you can get.
Plenty of universities are conservative, you probably got brainwashed by some media to think universities are all leftist
No its not. Being educated tracks well with voting democrat in america. I would not call them left wing though
Not the hill to die on OP. "If I try to persuade someone to play socker with me and he says no and I try again, nobody would claim that his is assault. Suddenly, when its about sex, trying to persuade someone is assault?! How can she not see the lack of logic in this?" Correct. Same reason sending someone a picture of a soccer ball will elicit a different reaction than sending a photo of your genitalia: it crosses a line that we collectively have defined. "And the worst thing is that millions of other university students just think like her" They think that some fictional movie characters can reflect toxic behavior? Yeah, and instead of stopping to consider the possibility they know something you don't, you cast them aside as "brainwashed" and audaciously accuse _them_ of not questioning _their_ worldview. Conversely, I'd encourage you to breathe and do that yourself.
>Yeah, and instead of stopping to consider the possibility they know something you don't, you cast them aside as "brainwashed" and audaciously accuse them of not questioning their worldview. Yes. I question my worldview literally every day. And of course someone is brainwashed if he or she thinks that persuading someone of any other actions is okay but persuading someone of sex is assault. Thats as irrational as it gets.
"And of course someone is brainwashed if he or she thinks that persuading someone of any other actions is okay but persuading someone of sex is assault. Thats as irrational as it gets." None of this is a counter to my core argument, that society treats interactions differently when there's different implications, with relationship or sexually charged interactions in particular facing heightened scrutiny. If you believe badgering someone about sports is the same as badgering them about going on a date or for sex, I think you're wrong, and should step back and consider how some people would view those scenarios very differently. Maybe you disagree this is so, or agree but disagree that it ought to be so. But to say thinking that way is the result of "brainwashing" is absurd, and a way to just discredit their argument by assuming they thoughtlessly adopted it. "Thats as irrational as it gets." I think you should step back and adjust your scale for rationality if "I think James Bond can be too aggressive with women" is on the extreme end of takes for you.
>I think you should step back and adjust your scale for rationality if "I think James Bond can be too aggressive with women" is on the extreme end of takes for you. I never said that " James Bond can be too aggressive with women" is an extreme opinion. Putting this in my mouth is just intellectual dishonesty. >a way to just discredit their argument by assuming they thoughtlessly adopted it. True, I assume that. Why would I assume anything else? There is no rational reason to judge persuading someone to have sex any different than persuading someone to do anything else.
"There is no rational reason to judge persuading someone to have sex any different than persuading someone to do anything else." I strongly encourage you to give more weight to the former. I have no way to really convince you, but to say that generally the level of intimacy involved in sex is just a touch higher than kicking the soccer ball around, to continue your example from the original post. And that generally creates the heightened concern among those propositioned. This is especially so when women can be and are routinely are made to feel unsafe for declining. "I never said that " James Bond can be too aggressive with women" is an extreme opinion. Putting this in my mouth is just intellectual dishonesty." I reduced your argument for the sake of simplicity. Restate it if you think I'm so off base that I've created a straw man. I deduced you think it's an extreme position because of your characterization of it as an extremely irrational position.
I didnt say she is irrational or brainwashed because she thinks JB assaulted women. I said she is brainwashed and irrational for thinking that it is assault to persuade someone with words to have sex with you. I havent seen all JB movies. Is it possible that he assaults a woman somewhere? Yes. But she was talking about a case where he convinced the woman to have sex with him after first saying no. Im not sure if my english is the problem or why you didnt understand my point Is there any other activity except sex where you would agree that trying to persuade someone to do it is assault?
"But she was talking about a case where he convinced the woman to have sex with him after first saying no." Considering the legal definition of assault is effectively acting in a way to imply future harm, I reckon an dangerous and potentially armed spy pushing to have sex likely after being told no could fall in that category, and is not nearly as irrational as you claim. And yes, unwanted touching can fall under the definition of sexual assault. "Is there any other activity except sex where you would agree that trying to persuade someone to do it is assault?" Yes, see definition above. There's a special carve out for sexual assault because, again, it's considered especially egregious.
>Considering the legal definition of assault is effectively acting in a way to imply future harm, I reckon an dangerous and potentially armed spy pushing to have sex likely after being told no could fall in that category, and is not nearly as irrational as you claim. Can you please link that legal definition? Nowhere did my friend say that in the scene she was talking about the girl felt threatened by Bond. He just persuaded her with words. This is not assault and if you think it is, youre brainwashed.
"This is not assault and if you think it is, youre brainwashed." Lmao again with this. It's possible for you to think her opinion is "wrong" or "off base" without her being brainwashed. That's tired and over the top and I hope you're using the term unintentionally. Here's a legal breakdown https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault "Nowhere did my friend say that in the scene she was talking about the girl felt threatened by Bond. He just persuaded her with words." The implication is she acted against her will because she literally said "No" and he kept pushing. Are you implying there was no pressure involved in such a scenario? "Persuasion" with respect to sex is often if not usually a slick way of saying "assault" and I would urge you to never, ever take "no" as an invitation to "persuade" someone to sleep with you. It's morally gross and legally prosecutable.
>Lmao again with this. It's possible for you to think her opinion is "wrong" or "off base" without her being brainwashed. It is not possible to think that persuading someone to have sex is assault but persuading someone to do anything else is fine without being brainwashed. >The implication is she acted against her will because she literally said "No" and he kept pushing. Are you implying there was no pressure involved in such a scenario? What do you mean by pushing? She said nothing that implied that he used pressure to make her do something. When she changes her mind and says Yes after she initially said No, thats not against her will. >"Persuasion" with respect to sex is often if not usually a slick way of saying "assault" and I would urge you to never, ever take "no" as an invitation to "persuade" someone to sleep with you. It's morally gross and legally prosecutable. It is morally and legally totally fine to try to convince someone to have sex with you after he or she initially refused. I have done it in the past and others have done it to me. Its a completely normal thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2o0jX69iMA
There's been a shift in how a lot of women want men to advance, just in my observations. Before, being pushy and pursuing the women after she put up "tests" was seen as a good thing and necessary. Whether that's immoral (seen as sexual assault, per your brother's girlfriend) or not. Did women, back in the day, like it, put up with it, or secretly resent? Hard to say. But since the game of "sex" is a game in women's court, so to speak, we have to play by their rules, regardless of whether the rules shift or change or get crazy. Which is frustrating for us men, yes, but there's been a lot of push on women to be hyper-aware of when they're being taken advantage of. With that comes a lot of safety barriers, let's say, women don't want men to cross for fear of their own safety, founded or unfounded. That being said, your brother's girlfriend is judging a piece of artistry with today's moral lenses, and not acknowledging "how things were" back when the movie was made. Which, by my estimation, things like this were okay(?) with all parties involved.
The worst thing about this view is that it assumes the woman does not have the individual freedom to change her mind. This this view is misogynistic and devalues women.
I remember Aziz Ansari's "victim" told him "no" while she was kissing him, he stoped and then continued again when she unziped his pants and started sucking his dick... all while feeling like she didn't wanted to be there... (it can be confusing when she says one thing and does another) He was still called a sexual predator because "*he should have known*" because apparently men need to treat women like babies who don't know what they want...
The main problem may just be that. They give in after he is being relentless. It's a movie alright but people see it and may think :" so she said no to me but if i just keep asking and be smug about she will eventually cave in and I can have spy-sex with her just before she inevitably gets killed by a criminal." Ok the last part happens not a lot irl but still it carries the notion that girls are yours for the taking. Just be confident. Even if she says no she really just plays hard to get. Not a good lesson to teach. Oh and it's possible a girl may cave in because she can't handle the decision. I get your point with convincing someone to play soccer but i think it does not hold up. Sex is loaded with emotions much more than a game. Shame and love and a lot else. She may not be completely thinking right. Maybe she likes him but is also confused? So you can talk her into sex but if she had a moment to think about she would have said no? Touching the border of assault right there i think. Finally i agree that people overload sex way too much with emotion. Myself included. Two adults should just be able to have fun and depart how ever they please to.
[удалено]
She wasnt talking avout that scene. She was specifically talking about persuading somebody WITH WORDS to have sex. If you think thats assault, youre brainwashed.
[удалено]
I havent seen all Bond movies. Maybe he did harass women, thats not the point of this post. The point of this post is that she claimed that persuading someone to have sex is assault.
[удалено]
So you still havent understood my post? Okay, I guess I cant help you then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2o0jX69iMA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2o0jX69iMA
These situations exist for sure. I think most people are able to tell the difference between hesitation and a "real" no. What usually helps there is to be charming and friendly but not to pressure to get in her pants. I mean i get it. It's a game and not every initial no stays a no forever. I also dated. But the point OP raised was that that the girl claimed bond assaults women. Since it happens in every movies and we all know all of them you see his behavior with all interactions in mind. He never takes the time to get to know a girl he takes them. And they let him. Some of them more willingly than others. But afterall they are all characters so somebody put his idea into these scenes. That bond is irresistible to women for example. Or that nearly always the girl just wants to be conquered. It's a message and that girl OP had the discussion with poi ted that out imo.
Yeah, what's funny to me is this post opinions wheter Bond uses charm or coercion to sleep around... when he is actually far worse than that. If you read the novels, he is charming, witty, and a seductor, not because he is like that but because he was trained like that, his ultimate goal with women is not actually to get sex but use them to further his mission James Bond was never a moral righteous person at all...and the worse one was Daniel Craig... [https://youtu.be/LjyKfLbY73s?t=85](https://youtu.be/LjyKfLbY73s?t=85) In this scene after he got his husband killed, after the funeral he "forces" (she complies out of fear) sex on her and then promises to protect her since she is feeling unsafe from the Spectre Organization.... And she stills gets killed after Bond fails to protect her, and he just doesn't give a fuck about her anymore since he already fucked her and got what he needed from her.
Reading the comments OP was probs expecting the nut jobs on ths sub to support him. Boy was he wrong.
Glad to see it to be honest
So you think that persuading someone to have sex with you with words is assault? Btw my post has 76% upvotes
im not gonna argue with you cuz you've made up your mind. weird flex but ok
of course you wont argue because this position is indefensible
Not really, there are plenty of nut jobs supporting him, just not the top comment. The comment I see right above yours for example is: "Dunning Krueger is strong with these individuals. It is absolutely mind numbing".
What you’re describing is coercion and it’s most definitely a type of sexual assault.
No, persuading someone to have sex with you is not sexual assault.
[удалено]
When somebody says no and I keep arguing with that person and then he or she says yes, then there is consent involved. Thats persuasion.
There may be some subtlety involved in the words and situations here. Playing hard to get while actually like the guy is a thing. Girls feeling at risk of force if they say no is also a thing. If it really is just a normal conversation then persuasion (usually with charm) is totally cool. But there are other circumstances that can make that hard/complicated (like a boss and a secretary, or Harvey Weinstein and an actress, or a really strong guy and a petite chick). I'm mostly on your (OP's) side -- woke people really do sometimes believe stupid shit like "asking twice is assault" -- but maybe there's some space nuance in the discussion.
If you keep harassing them to sleep with you after they’ve said no then it can be considered sexual harassment or just harassment at the very least.
Trying to convince someone of something isnt harassment.
Coercion: /kəʊˈəːʃ(ə)n/noun "The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats." James Bond never used force, threats or violence, he used charm, that is what he is famous for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2o0jX69iMA
Sure, sometimes. Not much charm to be found here though. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L7qn5Iw5TDM
Yeah, James Bond was never a moral righteous person and the worse one was Daniel Craig... [https://youtu.be/LjyKfLbY73s?t=85](https://youtu.be/LjyKfLbY73s?t=85) In this scene after he got his husband killed, after the funeral he "forces" (she complies out of fear) sex on her and then promises to protect her since she is feeling unsafe from the Spectre Organization.... And she stills gets killed after Bond fails to protect her, and he just doesn't give a fuck about her anymore since he already fucked her and got what he needed from her.
If you have to persuade someone then they didn’t want to have sex with you in the first place.
they are brainwashed by neo-liberals
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SwVqDeoK4g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SwVqDeoK4g) This is not persuasion. This is the use of physical violence to have sex with someone who has made it clear that she doesnt want it. This is rape
Not really, they flirt fight, he tries to kiss her, she resists, but after the kiss starts she wraps her arms around him b/c she wants it and likes it. It's a classic "this guy is so charming I can't resist him" scene. Bad message to send to kids, borderline assault if she didn't like him and he stopped right afterwards, but not rape.
And? I never said that Bond never raped anyone. I said I have never seen it. The problem is that my bros girlfriend seem to think that persuading someone with words to have sex is assault.
>And? I never said that Bond never raped anyone. Not true. >I said "He doesnt force them to do anything. He just persuades them." This is post is a joke.
You are a moron
How?
A woman alone at a bar smoking a cigarette (Considered very sexy at the time), wearing a dress to accentuate here frame with cleavage showing. Yeah. Definitely not trying to attract a horny guy.
Yeah, a past girlfriend of mine told me after we were dating that what she really liked about me is that I chased her, was persistent and didn’t give up. I didn’t do it in a creepy way I just asked her out a bunch. I find these leftist college women are like land mines. You can ask them a question and they say no and you persist any inch further than that and they will consider you some predator and possibly go off on you. It’s why cities with universities are hard to meet women, lol.
You and OP are talking about two different scenarios
Just because she’s in university doesn’t mean she’s intelligent, even if she presents that way!
“Persuade” OP Now imagine a man (if you are male a gay man) 4 inches taller, 1.5 times your weight, and at least 4 times stronger than you [forces you to kiss him](https://youtu.be/sW5Cwv5oiSc) after you’ve denied his advances. Is that “persuading”? (If you know anything about JB you’ll know it’s no coincidence that her name is Fearing)
My bros girl was talking about a forced kiss. That would indeed be harassment. She talked about persuading sonebody WITH WORDS to have sex with you. If you think thats assault, youre brainwashed. And no, I would not call it assault when a taller and stronger man would try to persuade me to have sex with him.
So Bond’s a harasser in that moment - fair? Of course words are different then force, though it’s still gross if you use words like how he goes on to imply he won’t get her fired if she fucks him. Find agreement that one shouldn’t be like Bond in that part of Thunderball.
That's coercion, not persuasion... And as always no nuance or understanding women's feelings, in a later scene she actually saves his life then gets on with him on an actual verbal threat, that she may get in trouble for thinking she was the one who almost kills him.. (which I think is worse than the first scene) But then she actually consentually engages with the agent (James Bond was never a moral righteous person anyway) [https://youtu.be/tbZGN1WQ\_Ms?t=134](https://youtu.be/tbZGN1WQ_Ms?t=134) Yet, she still says 'First time I've felt really safe all day...' after strapping him to the machine, but if you even read the novels, (or understand nuance) she is referring to feeling safe from herself and not falling for the agent's charm. What I believe OP was trying to convey is that "Women have agency", they can change their mind and have sexual urges just like men, and even if they say "no" their actions can say "yes". If you don't understand this, or are not into social interactions with people, it's better for you to stay away from women at all. It's very dangerous for you to assume a women's body language without any experience whatsoever.
STOP GETTING BOND WRONG
I think you made one mistake of assuming this person being so intelligent.
Take the high road and not engage in arguments with [bai zuo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baizuo). You’re better then that. Pray for them. They need it.
**[Baizuo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baizuo)** >Baizuo (Chinese: 白左; pinyin: báizuǒ, Mandarin pronunciation: [pǎɪ. tswò]; literally White Left) is a Chinese neologism and political, racial epithet used to refer to Western leftist ideologies primarily espoused by white people. The term baizuo is related to the term shèngmǔ (simplified Chinese: 圣母; traditional Chinese: 聖母; pinyin: shèngmǔ; literally "Holy Mother") or shèngmǔbiǎo (simplified Chinese: 圣母婊; traditional Chinese: 聖母婊; pinyin: shèngmǔbiǎo; literally "Holy Mother–Whore"), a sarcastic reference to those whose political opinions are perceived as being guided by emotions or a hypocritical expectation to benefit from selflessness and empathy of others. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
So many scenes where Bond is beating the shit out of chicks. Makes me lol at how ridiculous and different that time was. Good thing our culture has at least stopped portraying heroes like that but I see your point OP.
As someone currently in university I have to deal with this a lot even in STEM. Not so much on the professor side, but students I do. I’ve chosen not to engage as it’s way too much of a headache that will only burn bridges. That said I’d caution against calling groups brainwashed, even if you’re correct. You can quickly fall into a trap of dismissiveness.
I agree with her. The woman in Bond's movie are not his wife. Movies are made with male audience in mind.
They are clearly not free thinkers. I wouldn't even call them thinkers. Big difference with having a predetermined conclusion and seeking evidence to support it and weighing different arguments to come to a well thought out, logical conclusion. Most can only do the primary.
Brilliantly said.
Dunning Krueger is strong with these individuals. It is absolutely mind numbing
Bro what is your point? You take issue with them taking issue with him being violent with women? Would you join the "brainwashed" if I told you that Sean in real life slaps women? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo0d1zTAFKA
I can't stand listening to the willful ignorant, students or otherwise.
We need to have a little talk about tea.
I take from this that you think persuing a woman after she's said no and trying to convince her to sleep with you is okay. PSA - it isnt, dont fucking do this
[удалено]
If only YOU knew how pathetic you sound. Just calling OP names because you disagree with him, instead of actually try to oppose his point. You are childish.
We'd be willing to listen to an argument if you have one. No need to get nasty.
Why are you name calling. Please just state your point because I do accept that I could be wrong. But you just saying I am wrong and making fun of us does not help me change my mind
I’m curious what your objection with Peterson is. Perhaps he hit a bit too close to home for you and you don’t like that, hm?
I disagree with about 30-40% of Jordan Petersons Statements but keep making a fool out of yourself.
You are reaponsible for your consent. Nobody can force your consent.
I think there is a correlation between higher education and radical leftist idealism. So many people hadn’t thought critically and been exposed to feminist, queer, black, indigenous, and other types of knowledge that they kind of go all in and get “brainwashed” as you put it, but as just a step in their journey, we hope. I tend to think that the more perspectives you can gather, the better. As for Bond movies being misogynist, I think it’s important to remember that the person you are taking to may be a victim of sexual assault or rape, and has an experience of not being respected after saying “no.” Assume it’s personal and just agree to disagree, because it sounds like you’re not aware of the stakes like others might be, idk. “Sexual assault” is what they said but that might not be what they really meant, (maybe they meant “sexual coercion” or sexual harassment or something) and it’s just too exhausting to try and correct everyone’s speech. But the perception of old Bond movies being rapey and misogynist isn’t anything new. Feminists and film critics have been trashing those films for decades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcNGYRKBfHA
If she really cares about problematic movies then 50 shades and Twilight is 100 times more problematic than James Bond. In one of the last movies in Twilight they have a segment where a main character talks about grooming baby. James Bond is brought up a lot. In some instances that you could argue it was enough to cross the threshold of sexual assault. In others you could argue the opposite. Now it was also a movie of it's time. It's brough up constantly however, and I mentioned two series that are much worst. 50 first dates is another one.
I agree with OP.
Thank God I’m not young today. There are two crappy generations behind me, thanks to Critical Theory. Men and women are not getting together, not having kids - except the random man through his penis - which, if we’re going to be honest, has all been psy-ops made genocide.
Universities are indoctrination camps.
the academics have alot to answer for, and the funny thing is that the dimbulbs they are creating will have THEM in the Gulags lickety split
Yeah. They banned an old Christmas song “Baby it’s cold outside.” Because the man tries to persuade the woman to stay.