Kingsman: The Secret Service : Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

I found the 2 scenes completely unnecessary and out of character for the whole movie. In fact now I have to prevent my children from watching this movie because of these 2 two second scenes.
I cant understand why these 2 scenes were put in the movie?

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

But bloody violence is OK for the fruit of your loins?

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

You have got a point there. But don't you think that if we go further down this road then may be actual penetration should also have been shown! Why stop only at peekaboo at her ass!

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

Get the stick out of your ass.
This Movie was for Sixteen's and Above. Moan about your children not being able to watch something somewhere else. And I'd think the Massive Massacres and swearing in the film would be more of a concern than two seconds of nudity. Talk about a warped perspective.

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

The movie was rated R for a reason, so no idea why you thought it was a good idea for your children to be watching the movie. More like bad parenting.

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

And you thought the church scene was family friendly? Or the first kingsman getting cut in half? i bet children love things like that.

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

Your children are 35 aren't they?

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

Read the trivia section to explain why director put this in. In short, an r rated version of all the bond gets the girl at end of film endings

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

Pay no attention to the vicious replies you get in this forum - they seem to forget that this is a discussion, not a lynching opportunity. Everyone is entitled to an opinion without being insulted and castigated for it. Personally I found the anal scenes childish and crude. The whole film came across as a movie for teenagers made by teenagers. The action scenes were good fun but it was a waste of the talents of a good cast (excluding the young lead actor who didn't seem to fit the role of troubled teenager of budding Bond and was quite an expressionless actor in my opinion) Still, I expect Michael Caine paid for another bathroom with it.

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

Best comment by strangebedfellows! There is nothing objectionable to an opinion. And there are many who would agree that the anal sex business is grossly unnecessary. I was amused by the James Bond sexual proclivity aspect, which was always treated with humour and taste. The crude invitation to anal penetrationmade by a princess at that!struck me as clumsily contrived, as if to show that James Bond is being outbonded, a reductio ad absurdumm showing us that sex is an impersonal, crude, stinky bodily function. It also made me think badly of our hero, who agreed so readily to such an incongruous proposition. So maybe I missed the jest. I also do not comprehend the observation that those who do not object to scenes of carnage and humans getting cut in half should not complain about some raunchy sex scenes. Just how are the two related? The comparison is disingenuous. I also dislike scenes of urinating, defecating, vomiting and nose picking. I suspect that I can dismiss the scenes of violence as being obviously orchestrated whereas the intimate bodily functions hit too close to my sensibilities. Well, at least our hero brought a bottle of champagne to uncork the festivities.

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes


The crude invitation to anal penetrationmade by a princess at that!struck me as clumsily contrived, as if to show that James Bond is being outbonded, a reductio ad absurdumm showing us that sex is an impersonal, crude, stinky bodily function.


So, somehow a princess would never do anything like that?

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.

You also see this character as being "James Bond." He's not. You completely missed it that he's barely above a street thug. You saw what he was like earlier in the movie and he's still not a full, proper British gentleman.

This ENTIRE movie was about him being an anti-James Bond.


showing us that sex is an impersonal, crude, stinky bodily function



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?


It also made me think badly of our hero, who agreed so readily to such an incongruous proposition. So maybe I missed the jest.


Yes you did completely.


I also do not comprehend the observation that those who do not object to scenes of carnage and humans getting cut in half should not complain about some raunchy sex scenes. Just how are the two related?



That is just it. The AREN'T related. Unless a person is blind, everyone sees themselves naked. Most people see other people naked. Most people have sex.

Relatively speaking, not many people see a head being chopped off. Or violent fights. Or any of the other gratuitous violent actions shown in movies.

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.

How effed up are people that they are bothered by seeing a beautiful woman's rear-end and her talking about having anal sex than they are by seeing head's getting blown off, mass murders or a man beating his wife?


I also dislike scenes of urinating, defecating, vomiting and nose picking. I suspect that I can dismiss the scenes of violence as being obviously orchestrated whereas the intimate bodily functions hit too close to my sensibilities


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

Re: 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 Wertmller 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. Andhe 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 bottomat 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.

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes


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,


Your statement right there proves you don't know history. Queens had their lovers and often times would only engage with them when they were already pregnant. In addition, this isn't ancient times. Prince William and Kate lived together prior to marriage, we have birth control and abortions readily available.

Again, you are stuck on the idea of her being a "Disney Princess", and therefore asexual.


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,


Which is exactly what I said. He's barely above a street thug.


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


Yes, because we all know that alcohol never leads to raunchy sex.


I would love to have a drink myself and a little chitchat before indulging in such an exercise.


Who gives a *beep* what you would like? We're talking about a young man who is barely a above a street-thug and the princess WHO OFFERED UP ANAL SEX WILLINGLY.


I still maintain that the hyperbolic flavour of these scenes belays the willing suspension of disbelief.


And yet you are perfectly fine with the pretty, rainbow colors exploding heads made.


Yes, this is different, because Bond has interaction with his women.


Want to go through all of the women Bond has banged over the years and see how many of them he had any real interaction with? More than a few movies have started with him in bed or hopping into bed with a woman he has just met, or we at least saw no prior interaction between the two.

You can imagine all that you want, but it doesn't make it so.


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.


If they would have shown anal sex, I would have agreed with you. Had they shown penetration or genitals up close, I would have agreed with you. All we saw was a woman rolling over and showing her rear end - and uptight morons freaked out about it.

And, again, there are plenty of films which show actual gore and carnage, so why do we need to see it in "a regular film?" That has been my point all along. People are ok with death and destruction, but sex is taboo!!!!


However, comparing criticism of sex scenes to non-criticism of violence is an invalid argument.


Again, if it were a sex scene, I'd agree with you. It wasn't. It was just a woman's bare azz that you are freaking out about.


They did show Valentine vomiting. And there are plenty of films where men are "urinating"or someone is seated on a privy defecating.


Whoop-de-frigging-do. We know that the vomit is fake and the overwhelming number of main-stream films don't actually show urination or defecating.



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


Again, that is because you didn't understand the movie. Eggsy is a young man, barely above a street thug. Stuff like that would be appealing to him. And, again, he's and anti-James Bond. He's not the type of guy who is going to woo a woman he just met with Champagne and caviar and dance a romantic dance with after looking at expensive art. He'll get her some alcohol and try to get into her pants and screw her fast as many times as she'll let him without really caring about her pleasure.


my comments have been misunderstood


No they weren't. Your comments are immature and stupid. Your perception of how people should be (instead of understanding how they actually are) combined with your immaturity about anal sex kept you from enjoying this movie.

Re: 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 Wertmller 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. Andhe 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 bottomat 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.

Re: 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 Wertmller 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. Andhe 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 bottomat 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.

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

How dare you sir! The phrase 'unnecessary anal scenes' is an affront to god.

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

Eh, I guess it was just taking the piss out of posh girl stereotypesharmless in the grand scheme of things, really. Funny with the song(<3), but yeahbe cautious who you view it around!

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

uh, your children shouldn't be watching r rated movies if you can't let them watch an anal sex scene that actually never happens but is just talked about.

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

Oh I say! If you had paid close attention, Mr. Neeraj, you would have realized there were NO anal sex scenes. There was only the mention of anal sex. That's quite a difference. However
I also found that a bit distasteful, the only thing I didn't like about this film.

Other than that I thought it was bloody marvelous!







Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

You have to prevent your children from watching because of a reference to sex but you have no problem with the violence?

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

Surely you're joking. Killing animals(despite what they found out after the fact), violent killing scenes set in a church albeit supremacist one, heads exploding and a baby being violently pursued to be killed isn't a deterrent for keeping this from your children but consensual anal sex is deal breaker. How utterly ridiculous.

Daddy! He's killed Steve and he's jamming the door with him!

Re: Completely unnecessary anal sex scenes

Halfway through these posts I gave up. Abra-ca-blab-ra!





"'Extremely High Voltage.' Well, I don't need safety gloves, because I'm Homer SimpsonZZZzzz" - Frank Grimes
Top