In Bond 26, what is the appropriate sexual ethic between Bond and the Bond girl (and maybe there needs to a new name for female leads in Bond movies, as Bond girl makes it sound as if she is a masculine possession/prerogative):
Bond seduces/is aggressive
Bond is seduced/is passive
Mutual seduction
No seduction/erotic encounter
Mod note: This was split from the This or That game.
This would entirely depend on the story, its characters and requirements. I can imagine a storyline where Bond needs to actually get close to a character - even without a classic seduction or sexual encounter - or one where heâs both seducing and being seduced at times, ideally when heâs still trying to work out a mystery element. The Silva/Severine element of SKYFALL would lend itself to turning the tables with Severine seducing Bond and work out with the same result.
The basic question about the appropriate sexual ethic between Bond and heroine is flawed though in my view. Appropriate would be whatever the story calls for. And weâve seen them used in various iterations before. So the conclusion would be - as far as the sexual ethics of the hero may differ from his general ethics - that it depends.
Is what BB has run with since she took a major role in production, so, Iâd imagine, that will be the starting point with the script before the director and his/her âscript polisherâ come in with their unique idea of (say it with me) âA Bond girl who is unlike any youâve seen beforeâŚsheâs really Bondâs equalâ
My preference would be that a woman will not immediately fall for Bond. Too many films have him enter a room and the woman just fawns over him.
I want him to actually have to endear himself to her.
And I don´t mean the usual trope of the Brosnan/Craig eras which had the woman sneer at him first but then inexplicably fall for him anyway (the dreaded âsheâs mean to him but inside she really likes himâ trope).
I like the Bond/Kara-relationship in TLD. Although Kara was more of a naive, submissive character, Bond did not force himself on her but tried to get to know her. More of that, please!
The one thing the original series (meaning the films until LICENCE TO KILL/with some reservation perhaps until DIE ANOTHER DAY) had going for it was the presence of Moneypenny as a woman who flirted with Bond but was not approachable in a sexual way. A colleague and fellow SIS member*. This at least hinted at the possibility of âordinaryâ human relationships between the genders in the Bond world.
Breaking that rule with the satirical scene in DIE ANOTHER DAY was perhaps not adding to that filmâs appeal. Doing it once more in SKYFALL straight-faced - even if itâs only alluded - didnât make it a better idea.
I would welcome a glimpse of a Bond interaction with the opposite sex that didnât involve sexual elements. A reason Della Leiter came across creepy in LICENCE TO KILL - and the countless fawning bit player actresses from the Moore years donât make that trope more endearing. Itâs on par with the same idea in TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY where (hopelessly) yearning secretaries lust after an unmoved Cumberbatch because his role has been changed for no relatable reason - a satirical element that falls flat.
*Amis called Moneypenny the sister role in the Bondverse.
First, thanks for setting this thread up Dustin.
I want to expand on this notion. A story-in the sense of narrative/plotâdoes not call for an ethicsâor rather, it calls for it secondarily. The creator first provides her story world with an ethics, which his story then follows.
Where I disagree with you is here:
Why would a characterâs (or a personâs for that matter) ethics vary from category to category? Admittedly, I come to this question as a Buddhist: I follow the Noble Eightfold Path, and, e.g., right attention is required in all situationsâwhether general or sexual. Individual manifestations of right attention may differ, but the ethic is constant. In my own life, this is why I tell people that as the pandemic recedes (we hope), I am not experiencing a new normal, since for almost four decades my normal has been the Eightfold Pathâsituations and circumstances change, but the ethic I bring to them is constant.
This was not how I was raised. I was taught that in business (for example) rules might be bent/changed, and actions permitted that in other areas would not be allowed. That was a world of âThou Shallâ and âThou Shall Not,â with the caveat that in some cases a âShall Notâ can become a âShallâ (just war theory for example). This was a world where intrinsic natures and instincts were allowed to take over, e.g., âWell, thatâs just how men areâ or âThatâs just the way things are.â [A much longer conversation is how such thinking emerged when Aristotleâs notion of telos was incorporated into Christian thought]
It was a world where a person possessed a general ethic, which could be modified situationally, sometimes to the point where it was contravened (though it seemed that while the general ethic was binding on all, the situational ethic was sui generis to the moment andâespeciallyâthe person).
Does this sound like something MrKiddWInt has thought and read about a lot? LOL. Aesthetics and ethics have been the two main occupations of my career as a writer and essayist.
A vulgar way to present the difference as I currently understand it would be to say that in Buddhism, the ethical imperative is to act always with compassion, i.e., manifesting compassion is the guiding ethic. In Western Abrahamic ethicsâa rules-based system (with the rules set/propounded by a higher authority, sometimes of supernatural/transcendent origin)âthe rules can be modified/suspended depending on circumstances. Societal rifts/friction occur when the modifications are not universally agreed upon:
Rule: marriage is between one man and one woman.
Rule: wives obey their husband.
Historically, both of these rules were justified by appeals to human nature: a human beingâs telos is to reproduce, so same-sex desires and behaviors are intrinsically disordered, and should be prohibited. Does that cause suffering for queers? Sure, but ethics are ethics. Rules need to be obeyed in order for there not to be chaos.
Back to Bond: what are proper sexual ethics between men and women? Are women created/designed to be submissive to menâs desires? Is sexual aggression a natural/innate characteristic of menâs natures? If yes, then women submitting/acquiescing to Bond in a film is merely a correct narrative representation of human natureâin other wordsâauthentic.
They inevitably fall because it is womenâs nature to do so vis-Ă -vis a man. The inevitability is in-built.
Sorry for the raggedness of this post. But so glad to have the conversation, since I truly believe that we are witnessing in the world today (and, of course, in its art) a battle between two different conceptions of human anthropology.
Systems of belief, systems of philosophy offer us a way to view the world and find our place in it. Human nature needs these to observe, comprehend and lead our own lives. Thus, we find such in every human civilisation. And where they are absent or lacking because they no longer serve their purpose the human mind seeks to alter its system of values and coordinates as required.
Away from the general orientation we seek, usually along the lines of good/bad, there is the fact that real live comes in heavily compartmentalised doses. Life happens in concrete situations, indeed constantly changing as you pointed out. Our roles, our moods change. Ethics as an absolute set of ideals seems to offer stability. Life in the concrete moment though is often anything but stable.
Sexuality is a field where a lot of it happens in the mind, the one place where the mind can and does free itself from its own inhibition. Where ethics isnât the first and last and far from an absolute quality. To the contrary, the motif of âslipping from godâs (societyâs) observant eyeâ and behave âbadâ is a powerful fetish for many and resonates throughout pop culture in countless forms and disguises.
Thatâs why I think for the requirements of a work of fiction itâs possible - necessary? - to differentiate the ethics along categories and situations. Itâs where conflict is rooted, where characters are questioned. Bond killing for the purpose of a greater picture is already a good example. Bond as the holy Saint George dragonslayer, but behaving ordinarily, questionably even, thatâs the source of his appeal. Heâs allowed to do what weâre not.
To clear up my point: just as Bond should really have to work to conquer his nemesis he should have to be challenged by the female protagonist he romances. Anything else would make it too easy and therefore uninvolving.
But his ethics are always pragmatic: to achieve his goals he will use his wits, his weapons and his physical prowess, always (we assume) for the greater good.
As for his sexual ethics: he is not a nice guy who questions bedding traumatized women in order to turn them against their villainous captors. He is ready to even sacrifice them. Should that behavior change now?
I donât think so since it would change Bondâs character. Yes, he can be the knight in shining armour, and he probably sees himself as one if itâs possible. But he has an objective which obligates him to be ruthless with everyone. Still, we see him suffer for this, and thatâs what separates him from the dumb brutes.
Not necessarily in the right thread - but maybe it is:
Not so much a touch on the âsexual ethicsâ part of this topic, but more feminist film theory - which I guess goes hand in hand.
Generally speaking often a female character has no real importance herself, it is how she makes the male feel or act that is important. The female only exists in relation to the male, and this could not be more true of the Bond franchise.
Bond is and always will be the protagonist, therefore any character, plot, location, scene etc. Will only exist as a motivation/reactionary element pushing Bond and the story along. Itâs hard to argue that the role of a secondary female character has two functions; 1. An erotic object for the characters within the narrative to view and 2. An erotic object for the audience to view.
Despite our female characters gradually becoming more dominant and a match for Bond we still cannot escape that the female character, more often than not, has been âcodedâ by our beloved franchise. An example, Jinx in Die Another Day. Ultimately she held the same position as Bond, she was strong, worked in a male dominated environment, could look after herself etc. But our first introduction of her was from a masculine voyeuristic position - bikini and binoculars 
I donât think much will ever change between Bond and his female counterparts because the essence of the films are built around a male gaze. Which, in turn, will always place the female in a subservient role.
If it wasnât this way, I donât think I would enjoy it as much - ha!
I do think that is really at forefront of
BBâs mind - no doubt why Craig is often shirtless. Lea Seydoux and PWB were talking about this very topic during (I think) the first PR push for No Time To Die.