Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

"That is your first problem, that you think of princesses as being "Disney Princesses" who are asexual or at least virgins until their wedding night. And, after that, you can only envision them having sex for procreation. You should read some history as to the debauchery of royalty throughout history."

Excuse me, what makes you think that I do not know history? Generally, the kings and lords were entitled to be sexually active, while the royal ladies did not indulge so wantonly, doing so discreetly and at great cost if discovered, especially with the fear of pregnancy, which the males did not have to dread. Even in modern times, future consorts might be vetted for their virginity, as was Diana Spencer. We all know about Horny Hal VIII, but what happened to Anne Boleyn, accused of adultery, and Catherine Howard, who had more than one lover? Whilst Charles II, with his Barbara Villiers and Nell Gwyn and Louise de Kerouailles and countless others, was known as "the father of his country, or at least half of it," queen Catherine remained chaste. Queens Mary and Anne were notorious lesbians, but was Charlotte, queen of of George III, a wanton trollop? The Duke of Windsor was captivated by Wallis' expertise in Fang Chung, his brother prince George was homosexual, the latter's wife, princess Marina had an affair with bisexual Danny Kaye but she was married and had no fear for being checked for virginity or getting pregnant... I could go on and on, shall we go to France, with the affairs of Henri II, la tour de Nesle (Marguerite et Blanche), Isabeau et Mortimer, etc etc, la reine Margot, Louis XIV notorious for his harem whilst Marie Therese was the soul of purity... After 40 years of teaching in university, history, Latin and languages, I do not merit such an insult from some stranger who thinks that my knowledge of princesses is derived from Walt Disney cartoons. The point is that princesses are not supposed to behave as the men. What happened to Diana? Did she not have to finally divorce Charles and then become prey to paparazzi and be accused even after her death by a bishop of indecent conduct and adultery? So my "and a princess at that?" is meant to be sarcastically outraged. On the other hand, it goes beyond absurdity to imagine that a high born lady would immediately offer her nether parts to a stranger in such a bizarre situation. She would want to get out of her cell first, bathe, maybe have a drink, then arrange whatever... (Of course the princess offered anal sex to avoid a possible pregnancy, which was most prudent) I still maintain that these scenes were too contrived and too forced in an attempt to sensationalize, which is a cheap trick to the discriminating viewer. By the way, please do not think me some puritanical zealot. Have you ever seen the film "Travolti da un insolito destino nell'azzurro mare d'agosto" by Lina Wertmüller and starring Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato? The rich northern Italian lady and
the Neapolitan shiphand whom she despises are cast away on an island and eventually become lovers. In one scene, she turns to him and says passionately: "Sodomiza me, mi amore." Oh, the look on his face is priceless! I laughed heartily. Now that was an appropriate anal penetration scene. Just my aesthetics in play here.

As to Eggsy's being a thug, allow me to form my opinion of him as a sort of diamond in the rough, which is what prompts Harry to recruit him, especially with his history with Eggsy's father, Lancelot. I quote: "Harry Hart: [Quoting William Horman] "Manners maketh man." Do you know what that means? Then let me teach you a lesson." Harry-Galahad, is going to make Lancelot out of Eggsy. What do those Arthurian names signify? Loyalty, generosity, bravery, respect, aiding the helpless, etc., you know, read some Arthurian literature, like "Le cycle arthurien" or "Le Mort d'Arthur." Eggsy himself says that this is like "My Fair Lady." He is at heart a good person, a smart person and a brave man. He refuses to shoot the dog. A thug would probably have done so. He does not make advances to Roxie, but treats her like a fellow comrade in arms. He rescues his mother from her vile husband, who is a thug, and offers her a home. And--he brings a bottle of champagne to the cell, which implies that he is not going to lower his britches forthwith and pound a pulsing penis into the princess' exposed bottom--at least I hope not, since I would love to have a drink myself and a little chitchat before indulging in such an exercise. I still maintain that the hyperbolic flavour of these scenes belays the willing suspension of disbelief.

"How is this any different than the sex James Bond has in his movies? Because of the ratings of the movies we only see kissing and some skin, but do you think the only sex he has is "gentle love making?" Do you think none of the women in the movies, some of which were really violent and aggressive, wanted him to pound the h$ll out of them in the sack? "

Yes, this is different, because Bond has interaction with his women. The sex which we do not see might be rough, anal, oral, sadistic, but at least he knows the woman and we do not hear any details announced about the intended performance, so we can imagine what we want, whereas hearing some crude invitation made to a stranger is totally unpleasant to those of us who prefer civility. By the way, there are plenty of pornographic films with anal penetration, double penetration, oral high-jinks, all sorts of stuff for all sorts of tastes, so we do not really need it in a regular film. Again, you brand me as some idiot and simpleton, which I hope is not your intent.

"There are movies and shows on TV at all times of the day showing these acts of violence, yet if a show has a person's butt-crack on it, they have to blur it out because people will freak out over it.
It is idiotic that people accept violence in their shows but go crazy over nudity or sexual comments. One director said that if he shows a breast in his movie, it will get an R rating. If he cuts off a breast in his movie, it will get a PG-13."

Where did I say that I object to nudity in films? Again, that is not my point. Films should not be censored for nudity, frontal or dorsal. I wear a tiny bikini and have gone to nude beaches. I also dislike excessive violence, especially with children or animals being killed, or a helpless person being tortured. However, comparing criticism of sex scenes to non-criticism of violence is an invalid argument. Simple as that. You can be as enraged as you want about it, but that does not change the non-logic of such a juxtaposition.

"If they showed those bodily functions, you might have a point. But, all they did was TALK about anal sex and people freaked out. "

Another miscomprehension. They did show Valentine vomiting. And there are plenty of films where men are "urinating"or someone is seated on a privy defecating. Of course, there are some who urinate and defecate in the presence of others but I find it unpleasant and prefer to avoid such proximity. Whilst it is true that they did not show an anal sex scene, which would not have been allowed in the first place, it was still not pleasant within the context. I would have preferred Eggsy to have been a bit more gallant and choosy in his love life. So sue me. In summary, my comments have been misunderstood and I am refraining from feeling insulted because I am sure that you are too well bred to have meant to hurt a fellow commentator.

"That is your first problem, that you think of princesses as being "Disney Princesses" who are asexual or at least virgins until their wedding night. And, after that, you can only envision them having sex for procreation. You should read some history as to the debauchery of royalty throughout history."

Excuse me, what makes you think that I do not know history? Generally, the kings and lords were entitled to be sexually active, while the royal ladies did not indulge so wantonly, doing so discreetly and at great cost if discovered, especially with the fear of pregnancy, which the males did not have to dread. Even in modern times, future consorts might be vetted for their virginity, as was Diana Spencer. We all know about Horny Hal VIII, but what happened to Anne Boleyn, accused of adultery, and Catherine Howard, who had more than one lover? Whilst Charles II, with his Barbara Villiers and Nell Gwyn and Louise de Kerouailles and countless others, was known as "the father of his country, or at least half of it," queen Catherine remained chaste. Queens Mary and Anne were notorious lesbians, but was Charlotte, queen of of George III, a wanton trollop? The Duke of Windsor was captivated by Wallis' expertise in Fang Chung, his brother prince George was homosexual, the latter's wife, princess Marina had an affair with bisexual Danny Kaye but she was married and had no fear for being checked for virginity or getting pregnant... I could go on and on, shall we go to France, with the affairs of Henri II, la tour de Nesle (Marguerite et Blanche), Isabeau et Mortimer, etc etc, la reine Margot, Louis XIV notorious for his harem whilst Marie Therese was the soul of purity... After 40 years of teaching in university, history, Latin and languages, I do not merit such an insult from some stranger who thinks that my knowledge of princesses is derived from Walt Disney cartoons. The point is that princesses are not supposed to behave as the men. What happened to Diana? Did she not have to finally divorce Charles and then become prey to paparazzi and be accused even after her death by a bishop of indecent conduct and adultery? So my "and a princess at that?" is meant to be sarcastically outraged. On the other hand, it goes beyond absurdity to imagine that a high born lady would immediately offer her nether parts to a stranger in such a bizarre situation. She would want to get out of her cell first, bathe, maybe have a drink, then arrange whatever... (Of course the princess offered anal sex to avoid a possible pregnancy, which was most prudent) I still maintain that these scenes were too contrived and too forced in an attempt to sensationalize, which is a cheap trick to the discriminating viewer. By the way, please do not think me some puritanical zealot. Have you ever seen the film "Travolti da un insolito destino nell'azzurro mare d'agosto" by Lina Wertmüller and starring Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato? The rich northern Italian lady and
the Neapolitan shiphand whom she despises are cast away on an island and eventually become lovers. In one scene, she turns to him and says passionately: "Sodomiza me, mi amore." Oh, the look on his face is priceless! I laughed heartily. Now that was an appropriate anal penetration scene. Just my aesthetics in play here.

As to Eggsy's being a thug, allow me to form my opinion of him as a sort of diamond in the rough, which is what prompts Harry to recruit him, especially with his history with Eggsy's father, Lancelot. I quote: "Harry Hart: [Quoting William Horman] "Manners maketh man." Do you know what that means? Then let me teach you a lesson." Harry-Galahad, is going to make Lancelot out of Eggsy. What do those Arthurian names signify? Loyalty, generosity, bravery, respect, aiding the helpless, etc., you know, read some Arthurian literature, like "Le cycle arthurien" or "Le Mort d'Arthur." Eggsy himself says that this is like "My Fair Lady." He is at heart a good person, a smart person and a brave man. He refuses to shoot the dog. A thug would probably have done so. He does not make advances to Roxie, but treats her like a fellow comrade in arms. He rescues his mother from her vile husband, who is a thug, and offers her a home. And--he brings a bottle of champagne to the cell, which implies that he is not going to lower his britches forthwith and pound a pulsing penis into the princess' exposed bottom--at least I hope not, since I would love to have a drink myself and a little chitchat before indulging in such an exercise. I still maintain that the hyperbolic flavour of these scenes belays the willing suspension of disbelief.

"How is this any different than the sex James Bond has in his movies? Because of the ratings of the movies we only see kissing and some skin, but do you think the only sex he has is "gentle love making?" Do you think none of the women in the movies, some of which were really violent and aggressive, wanted him to pound the h$ll out of them in the sack? "

Yes, this is different, because Bond has interaction with his women. The sex which we do not see might be rough, anal, oral, sadistic, but at least he knows the woman and we do not hear any details announced about the intended performance, so we can imagine what we want, whereas hearing some crude invitation made to a stranger is totally unpleasant to those of us who prefer civility. By the way, there are plenty of pornographic films with anal penetration, double penetration, oral high-jinks, all sorts of stuff for all sorts of tastes, so we do not really need it in a regular film. Again, you brand me as some idiot and simpleton, which I hope is not your intent.

"There are movies and shows on TV at all times of the day showing these acts of violence, yet if a show has a person's butt-crack on it, they have to blur it out because people will freak out over it.
It is idiotic that people accept violence in their shows but go crazy over nudity or sexual comments. One director said that if he shows a breast in his movie, it will get an R rating. If he cuts off a breast in his movie, it will get a PG-13."

Where did I say that I object to nudity in films? Again, that is not my point. Films should not be censored for nudity, frontal or dorsal. I wear a tiny bikini and have gone to nude beaches. I also dislike excessive violence, especially with children or animals being killed, or a helpless person being tortured. However, comparing criticism of sex scenes to non-criticism of violence is an invalid argument. Simple as that. You can be as enraged as you want about it, but that does not change the non-logic of such a juxtaposition.

"If they showed those bodily functions, you might have a point. But, all they did was TALK about anal sex and people freaked out. "

Another miscomprehension. They did show Valentine vomiting. And there are plenty of films where men are "urinating"or someone is seated on a privy defecating. Of course, there are some who urinate and defecate in the presence of others but I find it unpleasant and prefer to avoid such proximity. Whilst it is true that they did not show an anal sex scene, which would not have been allowed in the first place, it was still not pleasant within the context. I would have preferred Eggsy to have been a bit more gallant and choosy in his love life. So sue me. In summary, my comments have been misunderstood and I am refraining from feeling insulted because I am sure that you are too well bred to have meant to hurt a fellow commentator.

"That is your first problem, that you think of princesses as being "Disney Princesses" who are asexual or at least virgins until their wedding night. And, after that, you can only envision them having sex for procreation. You should read some history as to the debauchery of royalty throughout history."

Excuse me, what makes you think that I do not know history? Generally, the kings and lords were entitled to be sexually active, while the royal ladies did not indulge so wantonly, doing so discreetly and at great cost if discovered, especially with the fear of pregnancy, which the males did not have to dread. Even in modern times, future consorts might be vetted for their virginity, as was Diana Spencer. We all know about Horny Hal VIII, but what happened to Anne Boleyn, accused of adultery, and Catherine Howard, who had more than one lover? Whilst Charles II, with his Barbara Villiers and Nell Gwyn and Louise de Kerouailles and countless others, was known as "the father of his country, or at least half of it," queen Catherine remained chaste. Queens Mary and Anne were notorious lesbians, but was Charlotte, queen of of George III, a wanton trollop? The Duke of Windsor was captivated by Wallis' expertise in Fang Chung, his brother prince George was homosexual, the latter's wife, princess Marina had an affair with bisexual Danny Kaye but she was married and had no fear for being checked for virginity or getting pregnant... I could go on and on, shall we go to France, with the affairs of Henri II, la tour de Nesle (Marguerite et Blanche), Isabeau et Mortimer, etc etc, la reine Margot, Louis XIV notorious for his harem whilst Marie Therese was the soul of purity... After 40 years of teaching in university, history, Latin and languages, I do not merit such an insult from some stranger who thinks that my knowledge of princesses is derived from Walt Disney cartoons. The point is that princesses are not supposed to behave as the men. What happened to Diana? Did she not have to finally divorce Charles and then become prey to paparazzi and be accused even after her death by a bishop of indecent conduct and adultery? So my "and a princess at that?" is meant to be sarcastically outraged. On the other hand, it goes beyond absurdity to imagine that a high born lady would immediately offer her nether parts to a stranger in such a bizarre situation. She would want to get out of her cell first, bathe, maybe have a drink, then arrange whatever... (Of course the princess offered anal sex to avoid a possible pregnancy, which was most prudent) I still maintain that these scenes were too contrived and too forced in an attempt to sensationalize, which is a cheap trick to the discriminating viewer. By the way, please do not think me some puritanical zealot. Have you ever seen the film "Travolti da un insolito destino nell'azzurro mare d'agosto" by Lina Wertmüller and starring Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato? The rich northern Italian lady and
the Neapolitan shiphand whom she despises are cast away on an island and eventually become lovers. In one scene, she turns to him and says passionately: "Sodomiza me, mi amore." Oh, the look on his face is priceless! I laughed heartily. Now that was an appropriate anal penetration scene. Just my aesthetics in play here.

As to Eggsy's being a thug, allow me to form my opinion of him as a sort of diamond in the rough, which is what prompts Harry to recruit him, especially with his history with Eggsy's father, Lancelot. I quote: "Harry Hart: [Quoting William Horman] "Manners maketh man." Do you know what that means? Then let me teach you a lesson." Harry-Galahad, is going to make Lancelot out of Eggsy. What do those Arthurian names signify? Loyalty, generosity, bravery, respect, aiding the helpless, etc., you know, read some Arthurian literature, like "Le cycle arthurien" or "Le Mort d'Arthur." Eggsy himself says that this is like "My Fair Lady." He is at heart a good person, a smart person and a brave man. He refuses to shoot the dog. A thug would probably have done so. He does not make advances to Roxie, but treats her like a fellow comrade in arms. He rescues his mother from her vile husband, who is a thug, and offers her a home. And--he brings a bottle of champagne to the cell, which implies that he is not going to lower his britches forthwith and pound a pulsing penis into the princess' exposed bottom--at least I hope not, since I would love to have a drink myself and a little chitchat before indulging in such an exercise. I still maintain that the hyperbolic flavour of these scenes impedes the willing suspension of disbelief.

"How is this any different than the sex James Bond has in his movies? Because of the ratings of the movies we only see kissing and some skin, but do you think the only sex he has is "gentle love making?" Do you think none of the women in the movies, some of which were really violent and aggressive, wanted him to pound the h$ll out of them in the sack? "

Yes, this is different, because Bond has interaction with his women. The sex which we do not see might be rough, anal, oral, sadistic, but at least he knows the woman and we do not hear any details announced about the intended performance, so we can imagine what we want, whereas hearing some crude invitation made to a stranger is totally unpleasant to those of us who prefer civility. By the way, there are plenty of pornographic films with anal penetration, double penetration, oral high-jinks, all sorts of stuff for all sorts of tastes, so we do not really need it in a regular film. Again, you brand me as some idiot and simpleton, which I hope is not your intent.

"There are movies and shows on TV at all times of the day showing these acts of violence, yet if a show has a person's butt-crack on it, they have to blur it out because people will freak out over it.
It is idiotic that people accept violence in their shows but go crazy over nudity or sexual comments. One director said that if he shows a breast in his movie, it will get an R rating. If he cuts off a breast in his movie, it will get a PG-13."

Where did I say that I object to nudity in films? Again, that is not my point. Films should not be censored for nudity, frontal or dorsal. I wear a tiny bikini and have gone to nude beaches. I also dislike excessive violence, especially with children or animals being killed, or a helpless person being tortured. However, comparing criticism of sex scenes to non-criticism of violence is an invalid argument. Simple as that. You can be as enraged as you want about it, but that does not change the non-logic of such a juxtaposition.

"If they showed those bodily functions, you might have a point. But, all they did was TALK about anal sex and people freaked out. "

Another miscomprehension. They did show Valentine vomiting. And there are plenty of films where men are "urinating"or someone is seated on a privy defecating. Of course, there are some who urinate and defecate in the presence of others but I find it unpleasant and prefer to avoid such proximity. Whilst it is true that they did not show an anal sex scene, which would not have been allowed in the first place, it was still not pleasant within the context. I would have preferred Eggsy to have been a bit more gallant and choosy in his love life. So sue me. In summary, my comments have been misunderstood and I am refraining from feeling insulted because I am sure that you are too well bred to have meant to hurt a fellow commentator.