P u s s y Galore?

[Pronounceable]

Honey Rider I can accept but... Now really, just what sort of a name P u s s y Galore is? (got into Bond after bouts of NOLF and Evil Genius)

It sounds beyond stupid. Has English changed so much in 40 years that it was an acceptable name for a woman back then? Or did it sound that stupid but filmmakers kept the name anyway? Skimming thru Wiki shows stupid Bondgirl names are a trend, but... P U S S Y GALORE??

Seriously, WTF?


EDIT: Even the boards doesn't like the name.

[Indon]

Bond girl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_girl) names were commonly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_Goodhead) sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_Onatopp#Xenia_Onatopp) puns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopussy_%28character%29).

It's a Bond franchise thing.

[RandomLogic]

Here read this http://www.cracked.com/article_15785_15-most-cringe-worthy-james-bond-puns.html

Its fantastic. I never really realized how bad the James Bond girls names were.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

For what it's worth, Ian Fleming is actually the one who thought up the names, as they were the characters in the novels. It was not the movie writers who thought it would be fun to do such. They just worked with what they were given. In fact, go wiki the novel Goldfinger, and you'll see that the novel has a a far more sexual connotation to it than the movie.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I thought everyone had already realised that Ian Fleming was a misogynist prick. May he rest in peace.

[Talya]

It should be noted that "Horney Pervert" != "Misogynist."

[ZeroNumerous]

Except for the part where only female characters received these names. And lets not forget how every Bond-girl was either having sex with Bond, completely useless in almost every sense, or died horribly.

[stm177]

The weird thing about "p u s s y", is that the meaning did change over time. In Agatha Christie mysteries, it's strange to see Miss Marple talking about "those two old p u s s i e s" when she's referring to two old women.

[Swordguy]

Yes, the English language has changed that much. The "misogynism" people are stuck on was simply part of the culture. They'd have acted the exact same way if they lived in that time and place. You're also getting some of the effect of English English vs American English. For example:

Would you like a fa g?





(protip: fa g =cigarette, not what you're thinking)

[Ominous]

The director told Ian Fleming that they couldn't use the name P u s s y Galore and Ian responded with "We're going to use it, and we're going to get away with it."

[Mr. Scaly]

Except for the part where only female characters received these names. And lets not forget how every Bond-girl was either having sex with Bond, completely useless in almost every sense, or died horribly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektra_King

The sole exception to the rule...

[North]

Yeah Im always kind of shocked by what they could get away with.

[Raider]

Hey, the man can pick 'um

[Green Bean]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektra_King

The sole exception to the rule...

Heh. I like that pun. It's a little more subtle. :smallamused:

[FoE]

What about Holly Goodhead? Or Xenia Onatopp? :smallbiggrin:

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektra_King

The sole exception to the rule...

That's not true. Tatiana Romanova in From Russia with love, and Melina Havelock from For Your Eyes Only aren't puns of anything. Vesper Lynd from Casino Royale is a pun of communist Germany/Berlin. I could go on, but you get the idea.

[Argent]

Yes, it's a sophomoric and stupid name. But really, is it worth getting so riled up about it?

Also, as much as I like Bond movies, there was definitely a very strong misogynistic trend there -- most every woman either being a useless love interest (who presumably got dumped ten minutes after the credits started rolling) or a villain in their own right who Bond converts to the side of good by sleeping with them. The trend started changing in later movies and featuring Bond girls who had a stronger role and actually contributed something.

When you look at the Bond mythology, though, you can see why he's such a commitment-phobe -- every time he really commits and falls in love with someone, they end up getting whacked, so I can see why he wouldn't be all about giving his heart to someone else, y'know?

[Tengu]

That's not true. Tatiana Romanova in From Russia with love, and Melina Havelock from For Your Eyes Only aren't puns of anything. Vesper Lynd from Casino Royale is a pun of communist Germany/Berlin. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Tatiana Romanova is such a stereotypical Russian name that it hurts.

By the way, am I the only one who thought, when watching the Bond movies as a kid, that Bond is stupid to always bed enemy female agents when he basically could get any girl? I always laughed a bit on the inside each time they betrayed him after that (though that didn't happen as often as it should, unfortunately).

[Ominous]

Tatiana Romanova is such a stereotypical Russian name that it hurts.

By the way, am I the only one who thought, when watching the Bond movies as a kid, that Bond is stupid to always bed enemy female agents when he basically could get any girl? I always laughed a bit on the inside each time they betrayed him after that (though that didn't happen as often as it should, unfortunately).

No, he's showing how awesome he is. "I know you're an enemy agent and that you're probably going to betray me, but I'm going sleep with you anyway and manage to get out of whatever trap you're planning."

[Pronounceable]

I'm not against sexual puns. Actually, I endorse such puns. Xenia or Holly I can live with. I even like Holly Goodhead. I really liked women's names in Leisure Suit Larry...

But PG is so blatantly stupid it makes neurons ache.

[SurlySeraph]

And lets not forget how every Bond-girl was either having sex with Bond, completely useless in almost every sense, or died horribly.

Or all of the above.

[Mr. Scaly]

That's not true. Tatiana Romanova in From Russia with love, and Melina Havelock from For Your Eyes Only aren't puns of anything. Vesper Lynd from Casino Royale is a pun of communist Germany/Berlin. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Actually, I was showing how not all the Bond girls were useless idiot who had sex with him or died. Ms. King was actually the main villain.

[kpenguin]

Actually, I was showing how not all the Bond girls were useless idiot who had sex with him or died. Ms. King was actually the main villain.

She also had sex with him and died.

[Innis Cabal]

it just amazes me how the slightest bit of amusement can be wrung dry from a topic merely because "its sexest" or "makes people feel bad"

[Tengu]

Well, truth to be told, those names might be a result of the whole Bond universe not treating itself really seriously. Because it doesn't, right?

[stm177]

Heh. I like that pun. It's a little more subtle. :smallamused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektra_King

She's a vibrating hotel mattress?

[Mr. Scaly]

She also had sex with him and died.

Minor Details. :-P

[Paragon Badger]

At least Ian Flemming never invented any Hawaiin islands...

Bond would be travelling to such exotic places as 'ComeonIwannalayya' or 'Immakindakinky'

...Heh.

[Lord_Asmodeus]

Heh. I like that pun. It's a little more subtle. :smallamused:

I hope I don't look stupid for not getting it, but I'm tired and pre-occupied. :smallconfused:

[Talya]

I'm something of a sex-positive feminist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism), myself, and I have no issues with Bond stories.

[Paragon Badger]

I'm something of a sex-positive feminist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism), myself, and I have no issues with Bond stories.

Well as long as you're not a anti-maneminist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto)

(Why don't my side-bar smilies work? Boohoo. )

[Irenaeus]

I must admit that when I read Flemming, it was not the bad puns that caused me to believe he was quite the misogynist, it was the numerous "sex that she didn't know she wanted" parts. It has been a while, and I don't feel like re-reading them anytime soon.

[Green Bean]

I hope I don't look stupid for not getting it, but I'm tired and pre-occupied. :smallconfused:

Well, Electra had daddy issues.

Hint: Electra Complex

[Closet_Skeleton]

According to Wikipedia, ***** Galore is also a lesbian who turns straight after she sleeps with Bond. If that isn't an offensive and outdated cliche (it goes back as far as Chivalric poetry) I don't know what is.

[Vaire]

The man wrote books in the 60's and 70's. In England. And yes, he dislike women, obviously, but so did Hemmingway. And Flemming is a much more interesting and entertaining read than anything Hemmingway ever put out.

And you're not supposed to like Bond. Honestly, when you think about the kind of man it would take to do this job, who would honestly find him likable. The story is not his character, or the women he sleeps with. It's the adventure. The plots. This doesn't always come through in the movies. The latest Casino Royale was much more in line with what I thought Bond's character should be. Less likable. More ruthless. More like a secret agent would be. This is not a nice man. And he's not nice to men too. He just doesn't sleep with them first.

[Irenaeus]

The man wrote books in the 60's and 70's. In England. And yes, he dislike women, obviously, but so did Hemmingway. And Flemming is a much more interesting and entertaining read than anything Hemmingway ever put out.

And you're not supposed to like Bond. Honestly, when you think about the kind of man it would take to do this job, who would honestly find him likable. The story is not his character, or the women he sleeps with. It's the adventure. The plots. This doesn't always come through in the movies. The latest Casino Royale was much more in line with what I thought Bond's character should be. Less likable. More ruthless. More like a secret agent would be. This is not a nice man. And he's not nice to men too. He just doesn't sleep with them first.First of all, comparing Hemmingway to Flemming is completely off. Both their misogyny and authorships are completely different. Suffice to say that I disagree strongly to any notion that Flemming as an author has any advantage in any field over Hemmingway.

Secondly, his portrayal of Bond as a bastard is not the problem in itself, the problem is how he portrays the women around him reacting to what can often be called mistreatment. He might not be particularly nice to the men as well, but at least they don't throw themselves at his feet for more of the same.

Personally, I dont have a problem with unsympathetic main characters as long as it don't shine through that the author adores them and whish he could kick ass as much as they do. This is not really relevant to the misogyny question, though. Only another thing that irks me about Flemming.

I quite like the new Casino Royale. It's flawed, but good.

[MightyIgoo]

Flemming is a much more interesting and entertaining read than anything Hemmingway ever put out.

...Every American Lit teacher in America would like to have a word with you.

[MightyIgoo]

I quite like the new Casino Royale. It's flawed, but good.

I agree. It was more of a spy film than a sci-fi gadget film. And the puns were bad, but seemed more off-the-cuff and realistic. Like, Bond wasn't just a jerk, he was a jerk who rubbed sand in the wound.

[Glawackus]

That's not true. Tatiana Romanova in From Russia with love, and Melina Havelock from For Your Eyes Only aren't puns of anything. Vesper Lynd from Casino Royale is a pun of communist Germany/Berlin. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Totally off-topic: I never realized this until I read this post. I had to say it out loud, too, because even after reading it I still didn't get it. :smallredface:

[BURNhollywoodBURN]

Except for the part where only female characters received these names. And lets not forget how every Bond-girl was either having sex with Bond, completely useless in almost every sense, or died horribly.
Let's also not forget the ones that were a mix of two of them. Those who had sex with Bond, and then later turned evil and die horribly.:smallbiggrin:

[Bandededed]

At least Ian Flemming never invented any Hawaiin islands...

Bond would be travelling to such exotic places as 'ComeonIwannalayya' or 'Immakindakinky'

...Heh.

[off topic]I'm surprised no one else seems to have gotten this...
(Grumpy old men!)[/off topic]

And honestly, Bond was created to kill bad guys and sleep with anything that moved. That's just the way he is.

That said, I saw an interview with one of the writers or the director or something, with him saying: "I can barely believe some of the stuff we did," in specific reference to PG.

[Swordguy]

[off topic]I'm surprised no one else seems to have gotten this...
(Grumpy old men!)[/off topic]

And honestly, Bond was created to kill bad guys and sleep with anything that moved. That's just the way he is.

That said, I saw an interview with one of the writers or the director or something, with him saying: "I can barely believe some of the stuff we did," in specific reference to PG.

Exactly. If you can't get past that, stop watching and/or reading Bond stuff. You don't have the right not to be offended.

[Paragon Badger]

Exactly. If you can't get past that, stop watching and/or reading Bond stuff. You don't have the right not to be offended.

Wai- what?

Double negative! Either you're saying that we have the right to be offended (which is the literal translation of your last sentence... >.<) or we don't have the right to be offended.

In the latter case...why not!? :smalltongue:

People have the 'right' to feel anything, including offense. I say this because you cannot control your feelings. You can control your actions, however.

I mean, sure, I have the right to be offended and to feel that videogames glorify violence and killing, but that doesn't give me the right to become an activist and make blatantly ignorant claims that Doom caused Columbine, or that hollywood films corrupted my children and it's completely and totally not my fault that they've turned out as little jerks. :smallamused:

[Irenaeus]

And honestly, Bond was created to kill bad guys and sleep with anything that moved. That's just the way he is.You are not really making an argument in favour of Flemming here, or if you are, I don't see it. Also, Bond is not my main problem, Flemming's other characters' reactions to his behavior are.

(Snip)I would further claim that:
-if I actually believed that violent videogames created violent children I would most definately have the right to make substantiated claims related to this

and

-complaining about my issues with mr. Flemming's works in a thread started to complain about some other elements of exactly those is absolutely within my right. If this was some sort of Bond-appreciation thread, a case could be made that I was just trolling, but this is not the case here.

Speaking for myself in this issue in particular, I have to point out that my main problem is with Flemming and his books, and seldom with the films loosely based on those books.

P.S. I am honestly really confused by the double negative. I assume that it is a simple mistake, but I feel a bit to unsure about idioms of American English to be sure.

[Cuddly]

it just amazes me how the slightest bit of amusement can be wrung dry from a topic merely because "its sexest" or "makes people feel bad"

I thought it was the other way around.

[Innis Cabal]

Deprecating humor is funny, Insult comics are living proof. Funny how they make millions by being cruder then a sex joke

[Cuddly]

Things that make people feel bad are generally hilarious.

[Paragon Badger]

Things that make people feel bad are generally hilarious.

Well, aren't you a misnomer! :smalltongue:

[Tengu]

And honestly, Bond was created to kill bad guys and sleep with anything that moved. That's just the way he is.


You mean, anything female, human, willing, and in legal age. Because otherwise... bad mental image.

[Swordguy]

You mean, anything female, human, willing, and in legal age. Because otherwise... bad mental image.

Legal age where? OZ or the UK (16)? The US (anywhere from 14 to 18)? The Netherlands (12)? What about Saudi Arabia, where there is no "legal age", but you must be married (so Bond sleeping with a 3yo he's married to is completely legal)?

I would have just ended it after "human" to be safe. Remember, in Fleming's books, there are characters who only become willing after the...commencement of activities.

For that matter, those people exist in real life too. :smallamused:

[Project_Mayhem]

Legal age where? OZ or the UK (16)? The US (anywhere from 14 to 18)? The Netherlands (12)? What about Saudi Arabia, where there is no "legal age", but you must be married (so Bond sleeping with a 3yo he's married to is completely legal)?

Wait, hold on, theres places in the US where the legal age is 14??? That's the last time I let my American mate take the mick out of our 16. :smallannoyed:

[Redpieper]

Legal age where? OZ or the UK (16)? The US (anywhere from 14 to 18)? The Netherlands (12)? What about Saudi Arabia, where there is no "legal age", but you must be married (so Bond sleeping with a 3yo he's married to is completely legal)?

I would have just ended it after "human" to be safe. Remember, in Fleming's books, there are characters who only become willing after the...commencement of activities.

For that matter, those people exist in real life too. :smallamused:

I'm curious, how did you get the notion that the legal age is 12 in the netherlands?
It's 16 to my knowledge, though one political party did try to get it down to 12.

Also Casino royale was entertaining, I liked it

[Irenaeus]

I'm curious, how did you get the notion that the legal age is 12 in the netherlands?
It's 16 to my knowledge, though one political party did try to get it down to 12. It is 12 if both the participants are within four years of age of each other. Over 16, and any age difference does not legaly matter. Many places operate with such laws.


(in the Bond-novels) there are characters who only become willing after the...commencement of activities.Exactly. Are you still claiming I don't have a right to be offended and complain a little?

[Swordguy]

Exactly. Are you still claiming I don't have a right to be offended and complain a little?

Yes. Many of today's societal problems would be averted if people would just not make a stink about things that they personally didn't like, and let other people make their own choices.

I don't like children under the age of about 16 (at best). They annoy me. Therefore, whenever possible, I attempt to avoid them. I realize it's not always possible, but in those time it isn't, I don't go around saying that these little brats offend me and that I think children should be outlawed (note for the pedantic among you - I'm aware that nobody has actually called for 007 to be outlawed, but I'm making a point), I just suck it up when I can't avoid them.

In a similar vein, if you don't like 007, don't watch the movies or read the books. If for some reason it's not possible to avoid them (say, there's a forum topic on James Bond), suck it it up and let other people enjoy themselves. You may certainly be offended, but you don't have to try and kill everyone else's fun.

As for the age of consent laws: www.ageofconsent.com

[Tengu]

"If you don't like it, shut up" is a stance that kills any discussions pretty quickly. Not to mention that we live in a free world, and people have the right to criticize what they don't like, as long as it's constructive criticism and not personal attacks.

Also, there's no discrimination in the existence of kids, but there is a lot of discrimination in misogynistic books/movies. People have the right to complain.

I personally also dislike children and I think they should be outlawed, but that's just me.

[BlackStaticWolf]

Double negative! Either you're saying that we have the right to be offended (which is the literal translation of your last sentence... >.<) or we don't have the right to be offended.

In the latter case...why not!? :smalltongue:


You're wrong. The phrase is a litote, not a double negative and it most certainly does not "translate" to "the right to be offended."

The phrase "right to not be offended" is synonymous with the "right to be free from offense."

If you're going to make smartass grammar comments... be right. :smalltongue:

The point of the phrase is that, while you do have the right to be offended by anything you please, if anyone else is to have meaningful freedom of speech, you can't possibly have the right to be free from offense such speech might cause.

[estradling]

Yes. Many of today's societal problems would be averted if people would just not make a stink about things that they personally didn't like, and let other people make their own choices.


Isn't that what you are trying to do here? Everything would be just great if everyone would do things 'my' way

[Pronounceable]

I personally also dislike children and I think they should be outlawed, but that's just me.


That's not just you. I know many people who don't like kids, myself included. I didn't like kids even when I was one. For years I have been telling everyone kids should be outlawed all over the world. Maybe if we all gathered and made a petition to UN, that might happen...

People should be born at the age of 16, MINIMUM. 20 might be even better.


On other news, I've been watching Bond movies one by one. I'm at Her Majesty's Secret Service now. And I've discovered the formula:

Bond gets an appointment with M, flirts with Moneypenny (another stupid name, but nothing close to PS), maybe sees Q, goes to a new country, scores with every moderately beautiful woman in the movie (with very few exceptions), approximately all but one of them dies, he uses some weird gadgets, beats up bad guys and scores with the surviving woman as the credits roll.

Probably the formula will change in a few movies (at least I hope so). The only reason Bond got famous in the first place must've been Sean Connery. He rocks.

[Swordguy]

The point of the phrase is that, while you do have the right to be offended by anything you please, if anyone else is to have meaningful freedom of speech, you can't possibly have the right to be free from offense such speech might cause.

Thank you.

[Mewtarthio]

On other news, I've been watching Bond movies one by one. I'm at Her Majesty's Secret Service now. And I've discovered the formula:

Bond gets an appointment with M, flirts with Moneypenny (another stupid name, but nothing close to PS), maybe sees Q, goes to a new country, scores with every moderately beautiful woman in the movie (with very few exceptions), approximately all but one of them dies, he uses some weird gadgets, beats up bad guys and scores with the surviving woman as the credits roll.

Probably the formula will change in a few movies (at least I hope so). The only reason Bond got famous in the first place must've been Sean Connery. He rocks.

You forgot all about the miscellaneous explosions and the creative ways Bond kills people! How could you watch six Bond films and miss all that?

As a side note, if you do intend to go through all the Bond films in order, I recommend that you skip everything with Roger Moore. They're only good for camp (Bond with lasers IN SPACE, anyone?), and the Dalton films are pretty good.

Hm... on second thought, you can go ahead and watch the first two Moore films. The camp doesn't really kick in until The Spy Who Loved Me.

"You killed my brother! Now I shall avenge his death!"
"Fair enough. But wouldn't you rather have sex with your brother's killer instead? You know, to honor his memory?"
"Well, I'm pretty ambivalent, but seeing as I'm already holding the gun..."
"Yes, but you'll have to take your clothes off eventually, and there's no guarantee you'll have access to bullets when you need them most."
"Oh. Good point."

[Irenaeus]

First, thanks to BlackStaticWolf for explaining the litote. I wish someone had done that earlier as phrase types are quite difficult to identify and look up if you do not know of them already.

I do fail to see how this phrase applies to this situation. Nobody has claimed that one should be shielded from things one finds offensive, but I still very much would like to be able to voice my discontent with different forms of media without anybody implying that this is some form of censorship on my part. Which I think you do with statements like this:
Many of today's societal problems would be averted if people would just not make a stink about things that they personally didn't like, and let other people make their own choices.(My emphasis) How on earth am I stopping people from making their own choices? It is you who are trying to force the thread to only include positive opinions of Flemming.

If for some reason it's not possible to avoid them (say, there's a forum topic on James Bond), suck it it up and let other people enjoy themselves. You may certainly be offended, but you don't have to try and kill everyone else's fun.
I don’t like Flemming so I don’t read his books any more.

You are not seeing this discussion in context here at all. I have not been trolling around on Bond fansites, I have not spammed any fan mailing lists with my views nor have I been protesting outside bookshops selling Bond novels or harassing people at a Bond convention. I have not been criticising the newest movie after seeing it with friends who liked it or even written a harsh post in a Bond-appreciation thread on GitP.

This thread started with a clear irritation with an aspect of the Bondiverse, which thereafter branched onto the subject of Flemming’s misogyny. Then people defended him, saying that he was simply a product of his time, and then I posted a reply. I claimed that he was far worse than most of his contemporaries, and that this was not in any way because of bad punning.

This was not a fan boy thread to begin with and even then I waited to “raise a stink” until the specific theme (misogyny) was debated. If you don’t like my posts, stop reading them, or at least replying to them. That way we can talk exclusively to people who agree with us and I am sure everybody will be happy.

Btw: I find it interesting that we have both the same general opinion of children, and the same way of dealing with them. It does not easily apply to this case, however, as criticising a broad group of people and a narrow group of a specific type of media is quite different.

[Paragon Badger]

You're wrong. The phrase is a litote, not a double negative and it most certainly does not "translate" to "the right to be offended."

The phrase "right to not be offended" is synonymous with the "right to be free from offense."

If you're going to make smartass grammar comments... be right. :smalltongue:

The point of the phrase is that, while you do have the right to be offended by anything you please, if anyone else is to have meaningful freedom of speech, you can't possibly have the right to be free from offense such speech might cause.

*top-down view, zooming out dramatically*

GRAAAMMAAAAAAAAARRR!

"If you can't explain something to a six-year-old, you really don't understand it yourself."

Wait, that doesn't apply to grammar.

Uhhh...

KISS! Keep it simple, stupid! :smalltongue:

[Vaire]

...Every American Lit teacher in America would like to have a word with you.

No, not every American Lit teacher. There are a few out there who can still appreciate a good read despite the fact that it is not a "great novel". While Hemmingway's technical ability probably does surpass Flemming, it doesn't negate the fact that Flemming wrote a better story. Which is why people still read him outside of a high school and college lit class. Thank God I had a high school lit teacher who understood and appreciated the need for entertainment in literature, rather than simply cramming the old classics down our throats. Although she did that too. Darn curriculum.

And I do understand that it is my preference. But then, isn't expressing opinions the point of a forum? I have mine. You have yours.

Its just that mine are right. =)
(In case anyone takes that too seriously, I'm laughing as I write this)

[Vaire]

[Q If you don’t like my posts, stop reading them, or at least replying to them. That way we can talk exclusively to people who agree with us and I am sure everybody will be happy..[/QUOTE]

Isn't the point of a forum to discuss differing points of view? I mean, if you only want to talk to people who agree with you, don't post your point of view in a public place where anyone can respond.

On the same front, when reading a differing opinion, don't take it as a threat to yours. No one can force you to think the way they do.

Obviously if we could the world would be a place free from turmoil. Until, of course, the machines took over.

[Midnight Son]

Obviously if we could the world would be a place free from turmoil. Until, of course, the machines took over.But if it was free from turmoil, we'd have no knowledge of how to deal with it when the machines do take over. I say we should all get in a fight at least weekly so that when that day comes, we are ready to kick Twiki's metal ass into a pile of spare parts.

[Vaire]

But if it was free from turmoil, we'd have no knowledge of how to deal with it when the machines do take over. I say we should all get in a fight at least weekly so that when that day comes, we are ready to kick Twiki's metal ass into a pile of spare parts.


Ahhh. Someone's read his Dune.