The lack of gay James Bond movies proves Hollywood is homophobic!

originally posted by: secretboss


you sound like a homophobe.

Why?

Because I say gay is not straight?

What is the logic, in identifying homophobic comments?

originally posted by: mamabeth
The gays' have already had the Bible rewritten to be gay friendly.

I would love to see some examples.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Well, I already have Muslim in there so I can't put Atheist also. I could maybe put Vegan but Animal Rights Activist sort of implies that but not exactly.

Now you are just being a big exclusionary meanie.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: mamabeth
The gays' have already had the Bible rewritten to be gay friendly.

I would love to see some examples.

"And moses came down from the mountin and he looked fabulous! And he did sing and dance the ten commandments out to the isralites in musical form."

a reply to: crazyewok

"And they didst behave in such fierce ways as to causeth the Egyptians much worry as the Israelites didst redecorate the Pyramids whilst performing Show Tunes. And Pharaoh saideth, 'Verily, this plague is far worseth than that of locusts and frogs, I feelth the desire to get a mani/pedi and wearth assless chaps. So shall all men of my Kingdon. So let it be written, so let it be done.' And their was much perversion and unnatural acts in Egypt and the Lord did smileth as they Gay Agenda hadeth been accomplished.' The Book and Lawrence 6:9

James Bond.

The Ultimate LADIES man.

With a bed post as tall as the empire state building of 'mission accomplished'.

And their names ?

Right people make James Bond 'gay' because too many people just have to push American politics!

Hell why not make Dr. WHO LGBT while your at it.

There are some things that are not meant to be messed with.

ETA:

IF Ian Fleming wanted it that way. Pretty sure he would have wrote it that way.

Mindless pandering.. a symptom of the attempt to relativise everything. This is a top down social engineering agenda, they're not doing this because they're great humanists and people buying into it are acting the role of unconscious paws for the puppet masters. It's starting to look like a stepping stone to solipsism more and more. (By the way, are we even allowed to wander into conspiracy territory here on BTS? Just an explanatory comment.. I don't want to get into a huge discussion here.)

a reply to: ManFromEurope

We know about his sexual orientation because he's a notorious womaniser, nowhere in the movies or the books does he ever have sex with a man. I think it's safe to say that he's a raging heterosexual. We also know a great deal about his looks and his ethnicity: Bond is a white man that does not sport a beard. These descriptions are not irrelevant to the story, how could they be? A number of his women are integral to the story so his sexual orientation is definitely not irrelevant or unknown.

Further, I don't know how you could have the opinion that clearly defining a character makes the story suck? Really? This is actually the norm in fiction, are you really unaware of this? How could you even come to have such a bizarre opinion in the first place?

And that part in one of the latest movies was probably added just to pander to similar sentiments as the ones expressed in the OP. Let's make everything gay. I heard it being called "virtue signalling" the other day and I agree with that.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Well, what you see him as doesn't really matter.

It's the same Bond.

Lazenby still has Connery-era gadgets, such as the watch.

Moore visits the grave site of Lazenby Bond's wife, Tracy Bond.

Dalton's Bond is known by Felix Leiter to have an abrupt marriage.

Brosnas's Bond references the death of his wife in The World is Not Enough.

If "James Bond" is a codename, why does Tracy have a last name "Bond" on her gravestone?

Moore was recognized by a friend from his Cambridge days (set way before Dr. No).

Dalton was still called "James Bond" after he went rogue and they've never set a replacement "James Bond" for him.

fantheories.wikia.com...

If they actually make Bond black in the future I'll start demanding a white Black Panther and a Chinese Blade..

This nonsense is poisoning reality, stop it please.

a reply to: secretboss

Really? Brokeback Mountain. Will and Grace. Modern Family. I could go on all day. James IS a straight womanizer. I don't get the beef.

I think this was especially pertinent:

Another general attitude and prejudice of Fleming's that Bond gives voice to includes his approach to homosexuality. While Fleming had a number of gay friends, including Noël Coward and his editor, William Plomer, he said that his books were "written for warm-blooded heterosexuals". His attitude went further, with Bond opining that homosexuals were "a herd of unhappy sexual misfits – barren and full of frustrations, the women wanting to dominate and the men to be nannied", adding that "he was sorry for them, but he had no time for them."

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

That's not unusual for the context in which Fleming was writing.

Having read a lot of gay testimony from Britain in the 1950's and early 1960's, gays were really treated badly and felt betrayed.
Strangely, despite the horrors of World War II the narratives about this were rather positive and jolly, also because of the entertainment (like drag shows) that gay soldiers provided.
But after the war, liberation didn't come.
Gay men liberated from Nazi concentration camps risked going back to prison, and in the Cold War paranoia gays became a subversive security risk.
I mean, let's recall what happened to Alan Turing at this stage.
Even to be associated with gays could have been seen as treasonous.
And yeah, due to the shabby treatment they received in public schools, some upper class gays did become Soviet agents and defectors (the implied theme of Another Country).

I recall having a book from the 1990's on the CIA, and even then known homosexuals were banned.
They had similar invective.
Yet, if some blogs and so forth are to be believed there was still a lot of homosexuality going on.

But typically Fleming describes gays and lesbians as types of persons, or the categorized, pathological Other.
That can also be seen as a distancing device, or projection.
And with the psychological theories at that time the "homosexual" could be cured.
Of course that resulted in torture and didn't work.
I'm sure Flemming was as heterosexual as one could get (but even heterosexuals have some intense same-sex moments), but generally homophobic discourse actually signals there's a lot of homosexual action behind the scenes.
One just shouldn't become addicted to it, or approve of it as an ideology.

Nevertheless, whatever the author thought, there were always gays in the entertainment industry, whether open or closeted, and movies can have queer signals for those in the know.

But then one should read the discourse on male masturbation at the time to be flabbergasted.
Supposedly it turned young men with fire their eyes into passive mollycoddles.
But I doubt the people who wrote that nonsense actually believed it.
It was all so harsh and ridiculous that society increasingly turned against that hysteria, and apart from religious cults, it lost the fight for the public mind.

I'm offended that James Bond isn't a transvestite, vegetarian, liberal, Muslim who smears peanut butter on his nipples. And how dare he carry guns, too! Ugh, the AUDACITY of the producer!

Yeah...

Why are you offended that James Bond is straight? Heterophobic much?