And that suggestion is why he is the worst. Bond. Ever.
James Bond is James Bond, and James Bond is not gay. I'm all for equal rights and acceptance in today's cultures and societies for homosexuals, but James Bond just. is. not. gay.
Actually, if you think about it, having sex with another man wouldn't necessarily indicate that Bond was gay. He has sex with all sorts of very questionable types, including villains of every stripe. Doesn't make him a villain. Bond doesn't have sex because of an emotional connection or attraction. I mean, the whole point of Casino Royale (apparantly the book as well as the film) is to create a man whose sexuality is an emotional void. Bond has sex for the purposes of conquest, of infiltration, of penetration of the other without allowing himself to be penetrated. This actually coincides with definitions of hetero/homosexuality in many cultures (especially S. American ones), where a man is only considered to be "gay" if he bottoms. A man can still embody the concept of "machismo" even when he's fucking another man, as long as he's on top. As long as he's in control. As long as it's just fucking.
So, yeah. I could actually totally see an emotionally devoid Bond topping some supervillain in order to infiltrate or gain information as being entirely in keeping with his character.
I think you're absolutely spot on. While the FILM portrayals of Bond tend to be exclusively the hetero-normative chauvinist super-spy (blame Sean Connery), you've just described Fleming's Bond perfectly -- and so I don't think it would be out of character in that context at all.
I have been reading Fleming's Bond novels for the last two years, we own the complete set. In reading Casino Royale I did not find the point to be creating Bond as "a man whose sexuality is an emotional void." The novel established the character and introduced him, as it is the first of the series. In the novels I have so far read, he doesn't really have sex with the villains. He has sex with the female characters, some of whom work for the villains but each invariably ends up falling for Bond and thus aren't really bad guys/villains. But then again, I haven't read the novel that has Pussy Galore as a major character, yet. She's a minor character in "Goldfinger" with whom Bond does not have sex. You wrote "Bond doesn't have to have sex because of an emotional connection or attraction." I agree with that, and the Fleming novels support this idea. He often has sex with a woman because he finds her attractive and has decided that he will have her, no emotional connection or attraction even considered.
The reason he would not have sex with another man is because Fleming's Bond is a racist, sexist, judgemental man. He's not homophobic, it is more that he is disdainful of and has no respect for homosexuals. Its like he considers homosexuality a weakness of character and spirit, a flaw in that person's psyche. He doesn't hate homosexuals, he has contempt for them. He has contempt and disdain for anyone who has any kind of weakness, and he doesn't tolerate any weakness in himself (often explored in the narration of his inner thoughts throughout the series). As he views homosexuality to be a flaw and a weakness, he wouldn't engage in a homosexual act. Not even to infilitrate the villain's organization/plan.
I love me some James Bond. As I've been reading the novels I (not surprisingly) find I enjoy them more than the movies, partly because he's more than the super-spy. The movies have to take out his prejudices and other less politically correct (in today's society) aspects to be accepted, but the character Fleming wrote wouldn't engage in a homosexual encounter. Bond isn't emotionally void, he often becomes angry or sentimental. In For Your Eyes Only he goes on a vengeance mission to kill someone who killed friends of M, because the bad guys hurt his boss who Bond genuinely cares for. In Goldfinger he vows vengeance on Auric Goldfinger because he killed a woman Bond had slept with and been genuinely fond of out of spite. Bond is passionate, devoted, and most certainly is not an emotional void. He's just not an open emotional book.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-05 09:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-05 11:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 02:28 am (UTC)James Bond is James Bond, and James Bond is not gay. I'm all for equal rights and acceptance in today's cultures and societies for homosexuals, but James Bond just. is. not. gay.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 06:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 03:05 pm (UTC)So, yeah. I could actually totally see an emotionally devoid Bond topping some supervillain in order to infiltrate or gain information as being entirely in keeping with his character.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 04:35 pm (UTC)Kitsune, for the win!
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 02:07 pm (UTC)I have been reading Fleming's Bond novels for the last two years, we own the complete set. In reading Casino Royale I did not find the point to be creating Bond as "a man whose sexuality is an emotional void." The novel established the character and introduced him, as it is the first of the series. In the novels I have so far read, he doesn't really have sex with the villains. He has sex with the female characters, some of whom work for the villains but each invariably ends up falling for Bond and thus aren't really bad guys/villains. But then again, I haven't read the novel that has Pussy Galore as a major character, yet. She's a minor character in "Goldfinger" with whom Bond does not have sex. You wrote "Bond doesn't have to have sex because of an emotional connection or attraction." I agree with that, and the Fleming novels support this idea. He often has sex with a woman because he finds her attractive and has decided that he will have her, no emotional connection or attraction even considered.
The reason he would not have sex with another man is because Fleming's Bond is a racist, sexist, judgemental man. He's not homophobic, it is more that he is disdainful of and has no respect for homosexuals. Its like he considers homosexuality a weakness of character and spirit, a flaw in that person's psyche. He doesn't hate homosexuals, he has contempt for them. He has contempt and disdain for anyone who has any kind of weakness, and he doesn't tolerate any weakness in himself (often explored in the narration of his inner thoughts throughout the series). As he views homosexuality to be a flaw and a weakness, he wouldn't engage in a homosexual act. Not even to infilitrate the villain's organization/plan.
I love me some James Bond. As I've been reading the novels I (not surprisingly) find I enjoy them more than the movies, partly because he's more than the super-spy. The movies have to take out his prejudices and other less politically correct (in today's society) aspects to be accepted, but the character Fleming wrote wouldn't engage in a homosexual encounter. Bond isn't emotionally void, he often becomes angry or sentimental. In For Your Eyes Only he goes on a vengeance mission to kill someone who killed friends of M, because the bad guys hurt his boss who Bond genuinely cares for. In Goldfinger he vows vengeance on Auric Goldfinger because he killed a woman Bond had slept with and been genuinely fond of out of spite. Bond is passionate, devoted, and most certainly is not an emotional void. He's just not an open emotional book.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 06:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 07:48 pm (UTC)And he understands, as other have posted, that Bond is devoid of emotional connection so it would make total sense.
And hey, I WOULD SO TOTALLY WATCH OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!
So A., when the flick comes out let's buy a day's worth of popcorn and buckets of ice and go watch!
And then drool for the DVD. ;)