I don't think it was considered to be rape when a dashing man popped his strawberry in an under aged girl's gob without much more encouragement than a heaving breast and some eye fluttering in them days.

All imagery of Lillies and what not. Mind you some of the dialogue in Lady Chatterly is like some of the lowest comment denominator conversation in a football pub in Derbyshire/Yorkshire. 'Cvnt is cvnt' stuff. Probably similar to some hungover conversations in the lower holmesdale, desperately getting that hair of the dog down.

COYP

I think the difference is that Bond is a generic character - originally written as white man because in 1950s Britain that's who would be working at MI6 - while Shaft is written as a culturally-specific character.

There's no reason, therefore, why a Bond updated to the 21st century can't be any race, creed, colour, gender or sexual orientation. Shaft, conversely, is locked in because his race defines a significant portion of his character. Perhaps you could make Shaft a black female with a overcharged libido, but then the name takes on a slightly looser connotation. Maybe a gay black female, because that way she could still be a sex machine to all the chicks.

Anyway, this stuff happens all the time. One of the more notable examples was in the original Alien, where Ripley was written as a man (and Sigourney Weaver was originally cast as whiny-Lambert). Now, Alien would've been fine with Ripley being male, but isn't the movie world a little brighter for having an arse-kicking lead female character like Ripley?

So, Dr. Who, being an alien taking on human form, can take on whatever form it wants; Bond can be anything that's appropriate to the time period; and Shaft is always going to be black. There is no need to try and create an equivalency between any of these things; they are driven by the innate traits of character, not superficial looks.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

I've cut out all the generic mysoginy in your post, because it lack's the credibility necessary to earn a response, and I'll focus on the movie thing.

Are you f***ing kidding? There have been 16 movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, none of which have featured a female character as the lead. There are 8 more scheduled, of which the same is true. Wonder Woman is part of the DC Comics universe which is, Catwoman aside, awash with dicks. Star Wars originally had one female lead amidst a sausage fest, and now it has a new one. It's one of the worst examples of gender equality in movie making ever; Leia had her moments but it was just her with hundreds of dudes and when the chips were down, the woman stayed at home while the men went off to fight. Ghostbusters is a remake converting male leads into female ones; which is fine, but it's hardly proof of gender equality in Hollywood when the vast majority of movies are still driven - almost exclusively - by male characters.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

I like both Chiwetel Ejiofor and Idris Elba but not as Bond.

The difference between you and me is that I want the representation of Bond to be done well; you want white first, quality second. There's a word for that.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.