56 replies to this topic

[Four Aces]

1. Worthwhile pursuit?...or...

2. Disposable pleasure?

I just saw the movie again, and this question asked by Vesper caught my attention. This brings me to subject of the varieties of womanizers. The overwhelming majority these days would select the second option, as I opine they are classless. The sophisticated and discriminating playboy would select the first option.

[FullMetalJacket]

Well, I think we've seen plenty of both from Bond. Some women are obviously very worthwhile pursuits for him (i.e. Vesper and Tracy, for whom he confesses his love). I don't know about him considering any women to be "disposable" (except maybe for Rosie Carver; he threatens to kill her himself, and is totally unmoved by her death), but he has certainly used women to obtain what he wants. Heck, in FRWL he is essentially ordered by M to bed Tanya in order to get the Lektor. In CR, I'd say he uses Solange to find out more about Dimitrios and Ellipsis; he has no problem leaving her behind when he goes to the Miami airport, and doesn't seem particularly moved by her death.

[Athena007]

Bond treats all women as if they are disposable pleasures. Disposable pleasures doesn't have to mean he's using the women to get something. Disposable pleasures means that he has no intention of ever considering committing to them -- he's just enjoying the pleasure of being with them.

The only two he treated as if they were worthwhile pursuits where Tracy and Vesper.

[Four Aces]

Bond treats all women as if they are disposable pleasures. Disposable pleasures doesn't have to mean he's using the women to get something. Disposable pleasures means that he has no intention of ever considering committing to them -- he's just enjoying the pleasure of being with them.

The only two he treated as if they were worthwhile pursuits where Tracy and Vesper.

Hmmm. I think I disagree.

Wortwhile pursuit does not connote a commitment. To me it means a hunt that is worthwhile. It's something to pursue, a worthy trophy only sought by classy hunters, not necessarily a trophy to keep afterwards.

Disposable pleasure, OTOH, connotes any woman will do for sex, regardless of the class of the trophy, or the class of the hunter. As most men will probably admit, the worse sex they ever had was still pretty damned good . Hence the second option, as queried by Vesper, would be for the classless playboy (of which I think are in the majorty).

Her question to Bond is to signal to him that she is a prime trophy, and that he has to have class to bag her

Edited by Four Aces, 12 January 2007 - 11:39 PM.

[Athena007]

Bond treats all women as if they are disposable pleasures. Disposable pleasures doesn't have to mean he's using the women to get something. Disposable pleasures means that he has no intention of ever considering committing to them -- he's just enjoying the pleasure of being with them.

The only two he treated as if they were worthwhile pursuits where Tracy and Vesper.

Hmmm. I think I disagree.

Wortwhile pursuit does not connote a commitment. To me it means a hunt that is worthwhile. It's something to pursue, a worthy trophy only sought by classy hunters, not necessarily a trophy to keep afterwards.

That's a contradiction though. You don't just throw away a "trophy" or a "prize catch" ...you keep it. If you throw it away you're just saying, a "oh that was fun onto the next thing" (a disposable pleasure you just tossed aside).

[Four Aces]

Bond treats all women as if they are disposable pleasures. Disposable pleasures doesn't have to mean he's using the women to get something. Disposable pleasures means that he has no intention of ever considering committing to them -- he's just enjoying the pleasure of being with them.

The only two he treated as if they were worthwhile pursuits where Tracy and Vesper.

Hmmm. I think I disagree.

Wortwhile pursuit does not connote a commitment. To me it means a hunt that is worthwhile. It's something to pursue, a worthy trophy only sought by classy hunters, not necessarily a trophy to keep afterwards.

That's a contradiction though. You don't just throw away a "trophy" or a "prize catch" ...you keep it. If you throw it away you're just saying, a "oh that was fun onto the next thing" (a disposable pleasure you just tossed aside).

Oh, but that's not true from many male perspectives. The trophy is the fine catch. Whereas one with low standards will take any catch. As for keeping them, that's a different matter entirely, which is why we have Catch & Release programs

In the case of Bond, who generally releases them, I still think he would be in the first category, in that he only goes after worthwhile pursuits, i.e., classy women

[mccartney007]

1. Worthwhile pursuit?...or...

2. Disposable pleasure?

They can be both at times.

[Bryce (003)]

*nods to Sir Paul*

What he said.

[Stephenson]

Well, I think we've seen plenty of both from Bond.
In CR, I'd say he uses Solange to find out more about Dimitrios and Ellipsis; he has no problem leaving her behind when he goes to the Miami airport, and doesn't seem particularly moved by her death.

I agree completely with the first part of your post. Ironically, I think the woman we see briefly at the start of many a film fall into the "worthy pursuits" category. Since Bond hasn't started his mission, we can probably assume he has been spending some time "hunting" (to 4Aces' analogy), likely bored to tears by endless paperwork in the office. So the woman at the start of the film are most likely the ones he has invested the most time in. I would include Sylvia Trench, the ski cabin woman at the start of TSWLM and Prof. Inga in this category.

The woman Bond meets during his actual mission are probably the "disposable pleasures", used in the line of duty to gain information or for stress release. We never hear about them again, but I'm hard pressed to think of an actual female love interest (other than Tracy) who has appeared in another film other than Sylvia (a "worthy pursuit").

I think Solange was the prototypical "disposable pleasure" on a mission, and I think her death did affect Bond. Even though he was using her, he certainly didn't mean for her to die, so it may have been the first time an innocent was killed purely as a consequence of his actions and lack of forethought. He did mature after her death, as we can see in his relationship with Vesper. And (if we assume Craig's Bond is the same character as seen in the other films), 006 did mention that the death of these "pleasures" had an impact on Bond. Now to speculate way beyond the bounds of reason: many have mentioned how Vesper's death impacted Bond (one post I read recently talked about his reaction to drowning women); maybe whenever Bond looks at the body of a Jill Masterson, etc, he sees Solange?

[zencat]

I'm not going near this one.

[Turn]

How do classify somebody like Pussy, whom he practically date rapes. She's not necessarily a disposable pleasure nor a worthwhile pursuit, but more of a means to an end. The same could be said of Tanya and Domino and several others.

[Dr. Noah]

1. Worthwhile pursuit?...or...

2. Disposable pleasure?

They can be both at times.

LOL

They can be both at the same time.

[Four Aces]

I'm not going near this one.

Hee-hee But you must admit it's an interesting question on how Vesper is sizing up Bond during their first meeting. Funny that she would ask such a question. She is obviously intrigued by him.

[bond_girl_double07]

This is one of those areas where the novels really differ IMO.. Fleming (purposely or not) seems to have Bond falling in love (or at least very interested in) almost all of the main bond girls of the novels.. I noticed on rereading, that he always ends up with the girl at the end (Pussy, Domino, Solitaire etc.. after the big fight, each girl survives and she and Bond are together at the last page). Obviously Bond doesn't stay with any of them, but he clearly has enough of an attachment to care if they live or die, and often puts his own life in danger to protect them (if they need protecting.. which isn't always true in the novels )

The films do tend to make the girls more disposable because obviously nobody expects Bond to settle down, and if the films left the bond girl thread dangling like the novels, viewers would be furious..

Anyway, just my two cents, but I generally feel like the bond girls of the novels are represented as worthwhile pursuits (albeit temporary worthwhile pursuits as Athena points out) and the girls of the films (other than Tracy and Vesper) are disposable pleasures (intriguing to Bond as they may be)..

[Four Aces]

... I noticed on rereading, that he always ends up with the girl at the end...

Not in Moonraker. He gets no girl. He gets nothing.

Generally you are correct in that he does seem to be a bit more of a hopeless romantic in the novels.

[Dr00d]

What's appealing about Bond is that he is no ordinary man. He's a top assassin/killer who is actually a bit psychotic. He basically has a suicidal tendancy that makes him put his life on the line again and again for a government that would turn its back on him if he is in trouble. So he has to rely on himself with no attachments and can't afford to have any strings attached that could jeapordize him and anyone he comes in contact with.

So he lives life in the fast lane, and if there's anyone that deserves one night stands/disposible pleasures, it's him, because he's not your average joe and he takes pleasure in things that are beautiful since he's always one heartbeat away from death/torture .

And he is not a turnoff for the women audience because the women he beds usually UNDERSTAND who he is and knows there's no way he's looking for commitment so they will take that one night with Bond, I mean, what girl wouldn't want to have a taste of a man like that because he's so cool and protective while he's with them ? I'm sure they wish they could have a long-term relationship with Bond, but at the same time prolly wouldn't if they really thought about it. He's more of a dangerous/exciting fantasy for the women who are not Vesper/Tracy.

Bond also almost ALWAYS goes out of his way to SAVE the women he's with, which means he's not totally a cold hearted bastard. At least he tries wholeheartedly which is more than the average man would prolly do . That's why after he saves them, defeats the badguy, etc, the women are virtually begging for Bond, "Oh James", because they're dying to have that one night stand, he's that cool .

And whoever said he wasn't disturbed by Solange's death, I think it was subtle but his expression showed a bit of remorse, sadness, resolve that it's part of his job, etc. Solange also knew she was playing with fire.

So he might look cold to the average person but with an understanding of the character of Bond, that's just how he is and, really, it's kind of a sad character.

Edited by Dr00d, 13 January 2007 - 07:10 PM.

[bond_girl_double07]

... I noticed on rereading, that he always ends up with the girl at the end...

Not in Moonraker. He gets no girl. He gets nothing.

Generally you are correct in that he does seem to be a bit more of a hopeless romantic in the novels.

Forgot about Moonraker

[Athena007]

So he lives life in the fast lane, and if there's anyone that deserves one night stands/disposible pleasures, it's him, because he's not your average joe and he takes pleasure in things that are beautiful since he's always one heartbeat away from death/torture .

And he is not a turnoff for the women audience because the women he beds usually UNDERSTAND who he is and knows there's no way he's looking for commitment so they will take that one night with Bond, I mean, what girl wouldn't want to have a taste of a man like that because he's so cool and protective while he's with them ? I'm sure they wish they could have a long-term relationship with Bond, but at the same time prolly wouldn't if they really thought about it. He's more of a dangerous/exciting fantasy for the women who are not Vesper/Tracy.

You hit the nail on the head there, Dr00d!

[Four Aces]

What's appealing about Bond is that he is no ordinary man. He's a top assassin/killer who is actually a bit psychotic. He basically has a suicidal tendancy that makes him put his life on the line again and again for a government that would turn its back on him if he is in trouble. So he has to rely on himself with no attachments and can't afford to have any strings attached that could jeapordize him and anyone he comes in contact with.

So he lives life in the fast lane, and if there's anyone that deserves one night stands/disposible pleasures, it's him, because he's not your average joe and he takes pleasure in things that are beautiful since he's always one heartbeat away from death/torture .

And he is not a turnoff for the women audience because the women he beds usually UNDERSTAND who he is and knows there's no way he's looking for commitment so they will take that one night with Bond, I mean, what girl wouldn't want to have a taste of a man like that because he's so cool and protective while he's with them ? I'm sure they wish they could have a long-term relationship with Bond, but at the same time prolly wouldn't if they really thought about it. He's more of a dangerous/exciting fantasy for the women who are not Vesper/Tracy.

Bond also almost ALWAYS goes out of his way to SAVE the women he's with, which means he's not totally a cold hearted bastard. At least he tries wholeheartedly which is more than the average man would prolly do . That's why after he saves them, defeats the badguy, etc, the women are virtually begging for Bond, "Oh James", because they're dying to have that one night stand, he's that cool .

And whoever said he wasn't disturbed by Solange's death, I think it was subtle but his expression showed a bit of remorse, sadness, resolve that it's part of his job, etc. Solange also knew she was playing with fire.

So he might look cold to the average person but with an understanding of the character of Bond, that's just how he is and, really, it's kind of a sad character.

Well said!

You hit the nail on the head there, Dr00d!

Yes, he is describing me perfectly Except for the psycho part

[Emma]

In CR, I'd say he uses Solange to find out more about Dimitrios and Ellipsis; he has no problem leaving her behind when he goes to the Miami airport,

and doesn't seem particularly moved by her death.

I don't see it that way. I think that if that were the case, he would have kicked her out of his hotel room. Instead of ordering her a bottle of champagne and caviar. Before running off in persuit of her husband.

and doesn't seem particularly moved by her death.

You really didn't expect to see him start crying did you? Especially in front of his boss (M)? Of course he had no emotional attachment to her. But I saw nothing in his behaviour to show that he was flippant about her death. I just think that he was being stoic.

[mccartney007]

Wortwhile pursuit does not connote a commitment. To me it means a hunt that is worthwhile. It's something to pursue, a worthy trophy only sought by classy hunters, not necessarily a trophy to keep afterwards.

Disposable pleasure, OTOH, connotes any woman will do for sex, regardless of the class of the trophy, or the class of the hunter. As most men will probably admit, the worse sex they ever had was still pretty damned good . Hence the second option, as queried by Vesper, would be for the classless playboy (of which I think are in the majorty).

Her question to Bond is to signal to him that she is a prime trophy, and that he has to have class to bag her

I don't see how a disposable pleasure gleams "any woman will do for sex." I have had my fair share of "disposable pleasure" relationships in the past and I still managed to be with women who still met with my expectations. (which are by no means low, mind you) You can still have standards when it comes to a disposable pleasure, and I know I did and would if I was still as dumb and as single.

Your post does raise one interesting question however. Would a "classy playboy" refer to women as property to be won, such as a trophy? Personally, I'd expect to get a drink thrown in my face over that one.

[mrsbonds_ppk]

Well, I think we've seen plenty of both from Bond. Some women are obviously very worthwhile pursuits for him (i.e. Vesper and Tracy, for whom he confesses his love). I don't know about him considering any women to be "disposable" (except maybe for Rosie Carver; he threatens to kill her himself, and is totally unmoved by her death), but he has certainly used women to obtain what he wants. Heck, in FRWL he is essentially ordered by M to bed Tanya in order to get the Lektor. In CR, I'd say he uses Solange to find out more about Dimitrios and Ellipsis; he has no problem leaving her behind when he goes to the Miami airport, and doesn't seem particularly moved by her death.

I think he has done a little of both, but he's not totally careless. I don't agree with you about Rosie or Solonge. I don't think he was going to really kill Rosie. Rosie got so terrified she fled when she could've stayed with him and told him the truth she would've lived. And Solonge, he felt something about her death he just told M he didn't, but deep down he felt something. That's my opinion though

[TortillaFactory]

Can't it be both?

Seriously, though. For Bond I think it is. Or he tries to make it such. He's into the hunt while the hunt still interests him, and when his interest wanes he disposes of the prey. How successfully he manages to do the latter tends to vary. Sometimes it doesn't appear his intentions are to dispose, but it always seems to end that way.

[Four Aces]

I don't see how a disposable pleasure gleams "any woman will do for sex." I have had my fair share of "disposable pleasure" relationships in the past and I still managed to be with women who still met with my expectations. (which are by no means low, mind you) You can still have standards when it comes to a disposable pleasure, and I know I did and would if I was still as dumb and as single.

Your post does raise one interesting question however. Would a "classy playboy" refer to women as property to be won, such as a trophy? Personally, I'd expect to get a drink thrown in my face over that one.

Well one wouldn't get the drink thrown in the face unless one was dumb enough to say it directly to the prospective lady However, in your case Sir Paul, you are dapper and sophisticated enough to get away with it, since I am sure you would use the word trophy in the most complimentary of manners Some women would indeed take it as a compliment, if put the right way, with the correct dressing, or maybe even undressing

"Disposable pleasure" was Vesper's words, not mine. In the context that she used these words in the train scene, I believe connoted "any woman will do" or a similar connotation. I believe that was the purpose of her question to Bond.

If you don't agree, then what do you think was the purpose of her question other than to get an idea of how Bond respects women?

Edited by Four Aces, 14 January 2007 - 01:08 PM.

[erniecureo]

There's a theme running through this thread that bothers me, which is the acceptance of certain "givens" regarding the definition of "class," "respect," etc.

For me, a "disposable pleasure" is no less a pleasure. Equating "disposable pleasure" and "any woman will do" is like saying there's no difference between cordon bleu cuisine and McDonald's--because the food at each has a shelf life. Huh?

This whole "disposable pleasure" vs. "worthwhile pursuit" discussion points out, to me, the frustrating double standard women have to work with.

Some people, it seems, equate casual sex with a lack of respect, or class. Huh? I say that if two consenting adults wish to engage in sexual congress, no one has the right to define that liaison. How is the sex magically more acceptable if the two are married to each other? Or in a committed relationship?

What's interesting to me is that the woman is perceived as losing something if she engages in a one-night stand. The cause-and-effect of this (at least in the US) is that women are taught that sex somehow demeans them unless it has meaning other than simple pleasure (i.e., commitment, a future, etc.) As a result, they assign a higher value to their "virtue," and resolve not to "give it up" easily.

What happens? Men regard this as a challenge. The result is that the "virtue" becomes the sole point of the chase, and the woman is objectified--exactly the result that women were trying to avoid in the first place.

As for Bond, he doesn't strike me as a "player." Even in his short-term liaisons, he thinks well of the women he's with. There is none of the loathing or disgust that we see so much of in today's society. (Look at the college cretins in Borat: They epitomize this sexual loathing in its most virulent form.)

Bond likes women, they like him, they have sex. Who cares?

I'll close by saying that the thing that drives me crazy about US culture is its obsession with (and categorization of) sex. Everybody does it, folks. And everybody likes it. So what's the big deal?

[Santa]

Well said, Ernie, but don't let DaddyBond read about your lax morals, he'll have a coronary

[erniecureo]

Who, me? I was tlaking about Bond. Me, I'm saving myself until I'm married!

[Four Aces]

Back on topic, so what do the erudite here opine as to Vesper's intent in asking this question?

[erniecureo]

I think Vesper's purpose in asking this is simply to find out how Bond views women--and speculating about the nature of their relationship--if they were to have one. Where we differ, I think, is in the interpretation. You seem to think that viewing a woman as a disposable pleasure is "classless," whereas treating them as a worthwhile pursuit is the mark of a "sophisticated playboy."

I disagree, but you probably knew that.

[Four Aces]

... but you probably knew that.

Figured that out did ya?