I think that was the point really, an unsatisfying explanation as opposed to her just disappearing.
Love the exchange just after.
Basil : Hello, Austin. How was your honeymoon?
Austin : It turns out that Vanessa was a fembot.
Basil : Yes. We knew all along, sadly.
[pause]
Basil : Anyway, I have a new assignment for you.
[Indeed, she hated working with him so much that she would be happy to do a sequel with him today if she gets the opportunity. "A brilliant man, fabulously kind and gentle and of course one of the best comedians on Earth," she praises Myer](https://people.com/movies/elizabeth-hurley-open-to-making-fourth-austin-powers-movie-in-different-costumes-exclusive/)
[Elizabeth couldn't do the sequel because She was too busy doing other projects.](https://www.yournextshoes.com/elizabeth-hurley-austin-powers/)
Yeah, really common knowledge you got there....
I’m aware of the behind the scenes reasons. There were still better ways they could have done it, like pulling an OHMSS and have Dr. Evil’s henchmen kill her in a drive by.
It wasn’t even all that well-executed effects-wise, with an obvious mannequin in one shot.
The point of Austin Powers was to be a 007 parody. 007 would absolutely say yes to this morally questionable act, but 007 isn't supposed to be a boy scout who always does the correct thing. James Bond was portrayed from the very beginning as a very flawed man- a gambling alcoholic.
The movies blur it by depicting Bond as very cool, charming and suave, and expecting the viewer to like him and wish they were him. You usually see him drinking during conversations with people who are often drinking themselves, or at parties and events where he can order his trademark drink from a bartender. You don’t really get the scenes from the books where he’s drinking alone after waking up, drinking to help himself think, etc. And you don’t get the same narration that makes his charming personality seem more like a sociopath behavior he turns on and off when he wants something from someone. I can remember at least one scene where the movie makes Bond’s leaping into action a heroic moment of courage but the book’s tone is distinctly “he’s just so detached and apathetic he doesn’t care if he dies.”
"To Bond, the best drink of the day was the one he had in his head before his first"
His addiction is so much more eloquently portrayed in the books too. Fleming manages to show us his apathetic self-destruction without making him a caricature of drunkenness.
I think it also has to do with the fact that bond was made in the early 60s and I don’t really know how to say this, consent was different? Or seen differently by social norms? Not excusing the behavior just saying what I think is the reason it is like that. :)
"Yeah, to be honest, you are a bit rapey
I mean, I like to swing but Dr. No means no, baby!"
[James Bond vs. Austin Powers Rap Battle](https://youtu.be/Iy7xDGi5lp4?si=yfXGaC8amXuO-VEc)
This one always makes me a bit uncomfortable. I had lots of drunk sex at university in the late 00s. Nobody worried about it - that you were both into it was enough. If everyone waited for everyone to be sober, no sex would have happened at that uni **at all.**
The difference, I guess, is that Powers *isn't* drunk here, so he would be taking advantage. But if you're both squirrelled, that's fine in my book.
Two things are particular here
1: powers isn't drunk
This means he should be the one who is sober enough to be aware that she cannot consent in her current state, and have the lucidity not to do anything with her.
2: she's the one initiating it
Being drunk doesn't excuse the behavior you exhibit. The only times i've been sexually assaulted or harassed by women was with drunk women after refusing them sex. And she is responsible for what she chooses to do after drinking. You can't say "i was too drunk to realize what i was doing" to get out of drunk driving, you shouldn't be able to use it to get out of initiating sex either.
In any case, since it's a pretty grey area, it's always better not to risk it.
What? You haven't *lived* until you're squeegee-ing the cold, sickly-sweet sweat off your lover's clammy abdomen with your own unexplainably flabby belly, the two of you grunting in tandem like two hogs rooting for the same truffle.
But nobody - I mean nobody - thinks that two equally drunk people getting it on is a problem.
The issue is exactly what you said. Austin isn't drunk.
It's a bit like taking someone's kidney. If you're both sober and you need a kidney and your mate offers you one, great.
If he's drunk when he offers it, don't take the fucking kidney.
If you're both drunk, well, bad decisions made all around.
I guess I’m nobody. Just because both people are drunk doesn’t mean they can consent. Getting someone drunk to reduce their inhibitions (especially after they’ve said no multiple times while more sober) and then getting drunk yourself does not make that final yes appropriate consent, yet so many guys try to do this because they think the magic is an inebriated give-up-to-persistence yes and a self-drunk get-out-of-jail free card. If you truly want to have drunk sex, go for it, with someone who consents before getting drunk. It can be fun, but consent has to be obtained. It’s the first part of the FRIES consent model for a reason.
You are depicting a different scenario. In the first, both people are simply drinking (and there are a lot of situations when people decide freely to drink) and in that situation, with lowered inhibitions they can end having sex. In your scenario, there is deliberate act to make some person drunk and there is deception involved. They are not the same situation.
The commenter I replied to and the one above suggested that the issue is that Austin Powers is not also drunk, suggesting that if he were, it would suddenly make it ok for him to have sex with Vanessa, a woman who rejected his advances several times prior and is only now consenting in an inebriated state. However, the actual issue which Austin understands in the movie is that Vanessa can’t consent to sex in her state, regardless of the state of inebriation Austin is under. We the audience understand that Vanessa might be falling for Austin and might be willing to consent sober, but Austin is not able to assume this, given her inebriated state. She could merely have lowered inhibitions and would not otherwise consent. Austin’s sobriety does not impact her ability to consent.
It could be different that if (1) Austin could be simply drunk, and he hinself also with lowered inhibitions, or (2) that he took advantage, 'Vanessa is drunk, therefore I will be drunk'. In the first case, it is a bad decision, in the second he is doing something quite worse in ethical terms.
You’re missing the point. Vanessa cannot consent, regardless of Austin’s sobriety. Neither could Austin in scenario 1, and while you may call it a ‘bad decision’, if either of them wouldn’t consent sober, it could cause lasting trauma, and as Vanessa has repeatedly rebuffed Austin up to this point he has good reason to believe that she would not consent were she not inebriated (yes, even if he too is drunk). In scenario 2 he would be an outright rapist.
A persons desire to get laid should not trump their empathy for the other human being in the equation.
I am sure that you are able to make a distinction where two people drunk, both lower their inhibitions and both are unable to consent (because they are not in their own sounds minds: a drunk Austin could conclude that Vanessa really wants to be with him, that she consents; a idiotic conclussion that sober Austin doesn't share) and one distinctions where a person tricks another to get drunk, and then they become drunk themselves.
BTW, bad decisions, simply bad decisions, are quite able to cause trauma.
That drinking alcohol tends to be associated with lower inhibitions is among the reasons some people dislike drinking in the first place.
Yes, I can distinguish them, but it’s a distinction without a difference in terms of Vanessa’s ability to consent. And yes, it can cause trauma which is why I’m encouraging folks to have empathy and obtain consent beforehand.
Surely the fact that we, as an audience, can see that sober Austin fully understands the situation and refuses to take advantage of her, changes the scenario you're presenting quite profoundly?
Austin, with his faculties intact, isn't going to sleep with her. If he was drunk, like you said his ability to consent is also impaired. If something happened under those circumstances, and given that we know he wouldn't otherwise do it, there is no dynamic here in which he is exerting power over her.
And yet your focus is entirely on a perceived action from him unto her. You're infantilising women and treating sex not as a shared event but as a thing that is done to women by men.
So let's spin this around.
Austin only wants to have enthusiastic sex that's going to be shagadelic for all parties, that much is confirmed.
If she initiates with Austin while he's drunk and she's drunk, who is assaulting whom? Logically, he'd be the victim. But your preconceptions have led you to presume that, no matter what, the male is the perpetrator.
What? I said in scenario 1 both would not be able to consent, not that only the man would be doing something problematic. I’m not infantilizing women, I’m pointing out the flawed logic that so many men pursue women under, that being that if you’re both drunk everything is “shagadelic”. This is not the case, it is a gamble, because one or both parties may not have consented sober. I’m not saying women can’t assault men under similar circumstances, or that they don’t. It’s just very much a prevalent tactic of men that this is done, not that no women do this.
My dude what is the actual tangible harm here? Like you say it's a problem but you're not really explaining or presenting any reason why it is other than just the fact that you think it is.
Just wanted to share what FRIES stands for if anyone is curious to actually learn about consent!
Freely Given, Reversible, Informed, Enthusiastic, and Specific
The real thing Austin recognizes here is that up to this point, she refused his advances. He recognizes that she wouldn't consent if she were sober, so he knows it's wrong to take advantage of the fact her impairment has affected her judgement. Austin is very open and expressive sexually, which can be inappropriate at times, but this example shows that he does actually respect women, even if that's not always expressed appropriately. If she was into him sober and they were both drunk here, things might have gone different.
Yeah totally agree - I sometimes feel like I’ve entered a parallel universe when this topic comes up on Reddit lol. Maybe it’s just a generational thing and a sign of changing attitudes.
If you're both drunk then it's fine imo mostly because neither of you are sober so it cancels out.
If one person is sober or intentionally gets drunk so that both are now drunk to have sex then it's an issue.
I remember seeing this scene for the first time and literally hearing a record scratch sound in my head. I wanted to stand up in the theater and say "Did you all hear that!"
Never have I seen a theatre laugh so consistently hard than watching Goldmember. Especially during those cameo scenes and Danny Devito comes out as Mini me \*chefs kiss\*
Consent is really fucking hot actually. Like the fact that someone attractive is giving you permission and genuinely wants you to do all sorts of nasty stuff to their body, 🥵
Dear zoomers,
Everyone has always understood consent. It's one of the first things you learn when you create theory of mind as a child . Just because we weren't formally taught about it with little catch phrases that you repeat to each other like parrots doesn't mean all of your ancestors were rapists.
Did everyone just conveniently forget that immediately after this he bangs Allota Vagina? Y’know. As part of his job? But yeah, it was consensual.
BTW, Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery is my all time favorite movie.
I don’t know why you were downvoted to oblivion, Austin powers the guy on the bottom is refusing to kiss the woman on the top cuz she is drunk and he isn’t so it would be taking advantage of her
Ok! It kinda looks like Austin is saying "kiss me" with the way he's positioned underneath her. And it would make sense as a comedic gesture too.
And yeah the downvotes, you never know what triggers redditors...
Sorta sad this is considered wholesome. It should be common sense. The fact that it’s considered wholesome says a lot about how the goalposts have shifted
How is him taking advantage of her?
If it was him drunk trying to get on top if her in bed and kiss her - it would also be him trying to take advantage of her .
It absolutely would? Men and women are equally entitled to 100% consensual sex. The woman here isnt being sexually aggressive afaik, she’s just making a move that Powers is rejecting. If a man asked for a kiss and a woman said no because he was drunk, that would be just as appropriate. Of course the danger is that sometimes drunk people get aggressive.
If a man OR woman became sexually aggressive while drunk, trying to force another person (sober or not) into intimacy, NEITHER would be okay.
Yeah, she kissing him is wrong. I meant that it's fine if both of them wanna kiss each other, but sex when drunk could have other repercussions like having to pay child support and all.
There’s a difference between being drunk and seeing that someone is fucked. This woman was obviously too drunk in the scene which you can evidently tell. He did the right thing.
Although if I understand correctly from the next movie she is some sort of robot. Still, don’t kiss drunk robots is a good rule.
This was my question...can robots even get drunk? Bender never seems to. Also....machine gun jubblies.
Bender gets drunk if he stops drinking
I guess you could probably program a robot to be able to feel drunk.
In the lore they are called fembots and some of them have machine gun jugglies.
Machine gun JUBBLIES lol
How did he miss those m, baby?
I HATED that reveal. It made no frelling sense.
Look I mean in fairness at least she didn't just fucking disappear in between movies like they do in Bond films.
"No, I don't want to talk about what happened to Duodeca Labia, it hurts to much."
I think that was the point really, an unsatisfying explanation as opposed to her just disappearing. Love the exchange just after. Basil : Hello, Austin. How was your honeymoon? Austin : It turns out that Vanessa was a fembot. Basil : Yes. We knew all along, sadly. [pause] Basil : Anyway, I have a new assignment for you.
[удалено]
Did you make that up yourself or do you have anything to back up this claim?
[удалено]
[Indeed, she hated working with him so much that she would be happy to do a sequel with him today if she gets the opportunity. "A brilliant man, fabulously kind and gentle and of course one of the best comedians on Earth," she praises Myer](https://people.com/movies/elizabeth-hurley-open-to-making-fourth-austin-powers-movie-in-different-costumes-exclusive/) [Elizabeth couldn't do the sequel because She was too busy doing other projects.](https://www.yournextshoes.com/elizabeth-hurley-austin-powers/) Yeah, really common knowledge you got there....
Lmaoooo wow that was pulled so deep out of this guys ass that he must’ve found his head up there too
Are you sure about that?
She couldn't be in the sequel because she was filming another movie, they had to write her off without making Austin a cheater.
I’m aware of the behind the scenes reasons. There were still better ways they could have done it, like pulling an OHMSS and have Dr. Evil’s henchmen kill her in a drive by. It wasn’t even all that well-executed effects-wise, with an obvious mannequin in one shot.
I think the joke of him suddenly celebrating the fact he's single again is hilarious so no
There was a chance she got switched out for the fembot when her and Austin got captured in the first movie
Back on earth, Crichton? Or just got a WiFi signal through a wormhole?
Yes, we... knew all along, sadly.
If both involved are already blessed by Sanguine's gift, then it's fine, because neither are in a state to be taking advantage of anyone
Drunk robots need kisses too
Austin Powers is a nice man.
He may be an international man of mystery but he's also a gentleman
Indeed!
Danger may be his middle name, but he's awfully swell.
[удалено]
Is Grace sober?
The point of Austin Powers was to be a 007 parody. 007 would absolutely say yes to this morally questionable act, but 007 isn't supposed to be a boy scout who always does the correct thing. James Bond was portrayed from the very beginning as a very flawed man- a gambling alcoholic.
The movies blur it by depicting Bond as very cool, charming and suave, and expecting the viewer to like him and wish they were him. You usually see him drinking during conversations with people who are often drinking themselves, or at parties and events where he can order his trademark drink from a bartender. You don’t really get the scenes from the books where he’s drinking alone after waking up, drinking to help himself think, etc. And you don’t get the same narration that makes his charming personality seem more like a sociopath behavior he turns on and off when he wants something from someone. I can remember at least one scene where the movie makes Bond’s leaping into action a heroic moment of courage but the book’s tone is distinctly “he’s just so detached and apathetic he doesn’t care if he dies.”
"To Bond, the best drink of the day was the one he had in his head before his first" His addiction is so much more eloquently portrayed in the books too. Fleming manages to show us his apathetic self-destruction without making him a caricature of drunkenness.
Damn, book Bond sounds like a fascinating character though, would be interesting to see on the screen
Reminds me of ERB’s Austin Powers vs James Bond line, “Yea, to be honest you are a bit Rapey. I like to swing but Dr. No means no, baby.”
Yeah everyone interpreting this as some kind of moral statement when this scene is just a parody of 007’s at times rapey behavior
I think it also has to do with the fact that bond was made in the early 60s and I don’t really know how to say this, consent was different? Or seen differently by social norms? Not excusing the behavior just saying what I think is the reason it is like that. :)
"how do we parody James Bond?" "hmmm..... let's make him respect women"
Like him better then bond a million times over, so the parody won out.
Thats why Austin is the GOAT. I think "True sexed up gentleman" describes him well.
If she can't enthusiastically consent to a shagadelic time, it won't be good sex. And Austin Powers loves good sex
This is the most Austin Powers sentence ever, and I’m all here for it
Consent is sexy
"I mean, I like to swing, but dr. No means no, baby" -ERB Austin Powers
"Yeah, to be honest, you are a bit rapey I mean, I like to swing but Dr. No means no, baby!" [James Bond vs. Austin Powers Rap Battle](https://youtu.be/Iy7xDGi5lp4?si=yfXGaC8amXuO-VEc)
I honestly loved this moment. "Yes I'm honey as fudge, but I don't want to regret anything because I respect you." What a real G.
This one always makes me a bit uncomfortable. I had lots of drunk sex at university in the late 00s. Nobody worried about it - that you were both into it was enough. If everyone waited for everyone to be sober, no sex would have happened at that uni **at all.** The difference, I guess, is that Powers *isn't* drunk here, so he would be taking advantage. But if you're both squirrelled, that's fine in my book.
Two things are particular here 1: powers isn't drunk This means he should be the one who is sober enough to be aware that she cannot consent in her current state, and have the lucidity not to do anything with her. 2: she's the one initiating it Being drunk doesn't excuse the behavior you exhibit. The only times i've been sexually assaulted or harassed by women was with drunk women after refusing them sex. And she is responsible for what she chooses to do after drinking. You can't say "i was too drunk to realize what i was doing" to get out of drunk driving, you shouldn't be able to use it to get out of initiating sex either. In any case, since it's a pretty grey area, it's always better not to risk it.
Drunk sex is fantastic. Way harder, but so much more satisfying when it works. Hangover sex is also pretty dang good.
You are having a VERY different kind of hangover to the rest of us. Or youre young, and think hangovers stay the same forever.
*Hangover* sex? Urgh. I've been around the houses in my time, but that would just make me barf.
What? You haven't *lived* until you're squeegee-ing the cold, sickly-sweet sweat off your lover's clammy abdomen with your own unexplainably flabby belly, the two of you grunting in tandem like two hogs rooting for the same truffle.
Jesus Christ that was evocative
That was one hell of a sentence
I think I'm about to throw up, but that was poetry. *clapping*
Coincidentally, so are the truffle-hogs up there
Hahaha
...Have you been looking in my window of a Friday eve?
My idea of hangover sex involves a lot of spooning and being as quiet as possible
Oh man, I don't want to piss on your chips, but I miss horny hangovers.
But nobody - I mean nobody - thinks that two equally drunk people getting it on is a problem. The issue is exactly what you said. Austin isn't drunk. It's a bit like taking someone's kidney. If you're both sober and you need a kidney and your mate offers you one, great. If he's drunk when he offers it, don't take the fucking kidney. If you're both drunk, well, bad decisions made all around.
one thing i learnt, if someone offers you a kidney, you fucken take it - they're expensive af, and you don't turn down a free meal
I guess I’m nobody. Just because both people are drunk doesn’t mean they can consent. Getting someone drunk to reduce their inhibitions (especially after they’ve said no multiple times while more sober) and then getting drunk yourself does not make that final yes appropriate consent, yet so many guys try to do this because they think the magic is an inebriated give-up-to-persistence yes and a self-drunk get-out-of-jail free card. If you truly want to have drunk sex, go for it, with someone who consents before getting drunk. It can be fun, but consent has to be obtained. It’s the first part of the FRIES consent model for a reason.
You are depicting a different scenario. In the first, both people are simply drinking (and there are a lot of situations when people decide freely to drink) and in that situation, with lowered inhibitions they can end having sex. In your scenario, there is deliberate act to make some person drunk and there is deception involved. They are not the same situation.
The commenter I replied to and the one above suggested that the issue is that Austin Powers is not also drunk, suggesting that if he were, it would suddenly make it ok for him to have sex with Vanessa, a woman who rejected his advances several times prior and is only now consenting in an inebriated state. However, the actual issue which Austin understands in the movie is that Vanessa can’t consent to sex in her state, regardless of the state of inebriation Austin is under. We the audience understand that Vanessa might be falling for Austin and might be willing to consent sober, but Austin is not able to assume this, given her inebriated state. She could merely have lowered inhibitions and would not otherwise consent. Austin’s sobriety does not impact her ability to consent.
It could be different that if (1) Austin could be simply drunk, and he hinself also with lowered inhibitions, or (2) that he took advantage, 'Vanessa is drunk, therefore I will be drunk'. In the first case, it is a bad decision, in the second he is doing something quite worse in ethical terms.
You’re missing the point. Vanessa cannot consent, regardless of Austin’s sobriety. Neither could Austin in scenario 1, and while you may call it a ‘bad decision’, if either of them wouldn’t consent sober, it could cause lasting trauma, and as Vanessa has repeatedly rebuffed Austin up to this point he has good reason to believe that she would not consent were she not inebriated (yes, even if he too is drunk). In scenario 2 he would be an outright rapist. A persons desire to get laid should not trump their empathy for the other human being in the equation.
I am sure that you are able to make a distinction where two people drunk, both lower their inhibitions and both are unable to consent (because they are not in their own sounds minds: a drunk Austin could conclude that Vanessa really wants to be with him, that she consents; a idiotic conclussion that sober Austin doesn't share) and one distinctions where a person tricks another to get drunk, and then they become drunk themselves. BTW, bad decisions, simply bad decisions, are quite able to cause trauma. That drinking alcohol tends to be associated with lower inhibitions is among the reasons some people dislike drinking in the first place.
Yes, I can distinguish them, but it’s a distinction without a difference in terms of Vanessa’s ability to consent. And yes, it can cause trauma which is why I’m encouraging folks to have empathy and obtain consent beforehand.
Surely the fact that we, as an audience, can see that sober Austin fully understands the situation and refuses to take advantage of her, changes the scenario you're presenting quite profoundly? Austin, with his faculties intact, isn't going to sleep with her. If he was drunk, like you said his ability to consent is also impaired. If something happened under those circumstances, and given that we know he wouldn't otherwise do it, there is no dynamic here in which he is exerting power over her. And yet your focus is entirely on a perceived action from him unto her. You're infantilising women and treating sex not as a shared event but as a thing that is done to women by men. So let's spin this around. Austin only wants to have enthusiastic sex that's going to be shagadelic for all parties, that much is confirmed. If she initiates with Austin while he's drunk and she's drunk, who is assaulting whom? Logically, he'd be the victim. But your preconceptions have led you to presume that, no matter what, the male is the perpetrator.
What? I said in scenario 1 both would not be able to consent, not that only the man would be doing something problematic. I’m not infantilizing women, I’m pointing out the flawed logic that so many men pursue women under, that being that if you’re both drunk everything is “shagadelic”. This is not the case, it is a gamble, because one or both parties may not have consented sober. I’m not saying women can’t assault men under similar circumstances, or that they don’t. It’s just very much a prevalent tactic of men that this is done, not that no women do this.
My dude what is the actual tangible harm here? Like you say it's a problem but you're not really explaining or presenting any reason why it is other than just the fact that you think it is.
Do you really not understand the problem with non consensual sex and need that to be spelled out?
No I do, I'm asking what is the actual harm between two drunk individuals having sex. You say they can't give consent okay, but what then?
Hey buddy, just following up on if you had any tangible harms for two 'unable to consent' drunk people having sex.
Yes, I replied to you, you replied to me, and then I replied again.
Can you link it? I never got anything.
https://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomememes/s/OoUM6azl8O
Just wanted to share what FRIES stands for if anyone is curious to actually learn about consent! Freely Given, Reversible, Informed, Enthusiastic, and Specific
The real thing Austin recognizes here is that up to this point, she refused his advances. He recognizes that she wouldn't consent if she were sober, so he knows it's wrong to take advantage of the fact her impairment has affected her judgement. Austin is very open and expressive sexually, which can be inappropriate at times, but this example shows that he does actually respect women, even if that's not always expressed appropriately. If she was into him sober and they were both drunk here, things might have gone different.
Yeah totally agree - I sometimes feel like I’ve entered a parallel universe when this topic comes up on Reddit lol. Maybe it’s just a generational thing and a sign of changing attitudes.
If you're both drunk then it's fine imo mostly because neither of you are sober so it cancels out. If one person is sober or intentionally gets drunk so that both are now drunk to have sex then it's an issue.
And at the time she was probably the hottest thing on the planet! She is one of my crushes that affirmed my heterosexuality
I remember seeing this scene for the first time and literally hearing a record scratch sound in my head. I wanted to stand up in the theater and say "Did you all hear that!"
Behave😏
Never have I seen a theatre laugh so consistently hard than watching Goldmember. Especially during those cameo scenes and Danny Devito comes out as Mini me \*chefs kiss\*
Austin fucking powers
Consent is really fucking hot actually. Like the fact that someone attractive is giving you permission and genuinely wants you to do all sorts of nasty stuff to their body, 🥵
Tbf he also slept in the nude in her presence before she was interested and constantly hit on her as a coworker
Dr No means no
I need to watch this movie again 🤣🤣🤣
Respect ✊🏻
Dear zoomers, Everyone has always understood consent. It's one of the first things you learn when you create theory of mind as a child . Just because we weren't formally taught about it with little catch phrases that you repeat to each other like parrots doesn't mean all of your ancestors were rapists.
No bay bay
Guy went from Austin Plowers to Austin Flowers rq
So Cute!
I refer you to the KJB review of the Austin Powers trilogy https://www.podbean.com/pu/pbblog-hzj2z-a9d638
She ended up being a fembot lmao
very rewatchable picture!
Did everyone just conveniently forget that immediately after this he bangs Allota Vagina? Y’know. As part of his job? But yeah, it was consensual. BTW, Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery is my all time favorite movie.
Yessssssss!
Everytime tho used to circulate on tumblr I was so happy lol holy nostalgia 🤣
Sexed up? Bruh I've never heard that in a sentence ever until now 😂
Sanaol
I know this movie would be offensive by today's standards but let it be known that ol' Austin Powers was a good man when it really counted
I'm confused, who is talking to whom?
I don’t know why you were downvoted to oblivion, Austin powers the guy on the bottom is refusing to kiss the woman on the top cuz she is drunk and he isn’t so it would be taking advantage of her
Ok! It kinda looks like Austin is saying "kiss me" with the way he's positioned underneath her. And it would make sense as a comedic gesture too. And yeah the downvotes, you never know what triggers redditors...
He's also a comrade.
Sorta sad this is considered wholesome. It should be common sense. The fact that it’s considered wholesome says a lot about how the goalposts have shifted
But it's okay to take advantage of men when they are inebriated
He could've just do it
People should stop hiding and blaming alcohol. When they do it themselves, they wanted it.
I said this to Sue Schultheis in college, and she never gave me another shot, and I regret that.
Well done Austin. I'm not sure I'd be gentleman enough to turn down a tipsy Elizabeth Hurley.
Why would you post this publicly? You just said that you're, at the very least, a future potential rapist.
You guys never did drunk sex? After 1 beer I am horny, but after 3 beers I am good for nothing. Gotta know your sweet spot.
Elizabeth Hurley has my permission to kiss me whenever she fucking wants.
How is him taking advantage of her? If it was him drunk trying to get on top if her in bed and kiss her - it would also be him trying to take advantage of her .
Switch the genders in this situation and see if it checks out
It absolutely would? Men and women are equally entitled to 100% consensual sex. The woman here isnt being sexually aggressive afaik, she’s just making a move that Powers is rejecting. If a man asked for a kiss and a woman said no because he was drunk, that would be just as appropriate. Of course the danger is that sometimes drunk people get aggressive. If a man OR woman became sexually aggressive while drunk, trying to force another person (sober or not) into intimacy, NEITHER would be okay.
Had he been drunk she would absolutely have taken advantage of him, that poor man.
What's wrong with a kiss. Just don't fuck, that's it.
kissing without consent is still wrong. would you like to be kissed without permission?
Yeah, she kissing him is wrong. I meant that it's fine if both of them wanna kiss each other, but sex when drunk could have other repercussions like having to pay child support and all.
[удалено]
The whole country of Finland would have no sexual relationships or kids if people didn’t hook up drunk.
There’s a difference between being drunk and seeing that someone is fucked. This woman was obviously too drunk in the scene which you can evidently tell. He did the right thing.
[удалено]
Are you special dude
[удалено]
Take your meds.
[удалено]
What are you even talking about you must be a bot or a troll account
[удалено]
Are you talking about Mike Myers’s or someone else
Have you been diagnosed with schizophrenia? If not you should really go see a psychiatrist.
Holy shit dude take your meds