American Morality

A conversation with my dad on Saturday helped clarify in my head what I disliked about the movie American Beauty. First of all, I’m sick of seeing military men in movies stereotyped as angry, emotionally stunted, violent, homophobic troglodytes who tyrannize their familes. It’s getting old, and it’s too one-dimensional to have a place in all but the most cartoonish of movies.

The bigger problem was this: Near the end, Lester is all set to make love with Angela. Both of them have clearly thought about it and want it, despite the age difference and the fact that she’s his daughter’s best friend. Then Angela admits that despite all her bragging, she’s a virgin. And Lester suddenly backs off, gets all fatherly, tells her she’ll make she’ll have a great first time with some lucky guy who isn’t him, and makes her dinner. And we are supposed to think he has done the moral, responsible thing.

Now, assuming for the sake of argument that it’s OK for this married middle-aged guy to be having sex with a teenaged girl, what made it wrong for him to take her virginity? Chances are that as an experienced man he’d make a far more considerate and gentle first time than the jock that she’d otherwise lose her virginity to. He’d probably make it a happier memory than most boys her own age would.

The only reason I can see for his change of heart is that as long as he saw her as “damaged goods”, it was fine to be just one of the many guys who had taken advantage of her; but as soon as he saw her as “pure as the driven snow”, he couldn’t bear to be the one to “defile her”. In other words, it’s a perfect example of our society’s twisted double standard when it comes to women and virginity. So long as a girl retains her virginity she’s put up on a pedestal. But once she’s deflowered, she’s fair game for anyone. After all, she has nothing left to lose.

To have made a moral decision, Lester should have either decided that he really wasn’t ok with screwing a teenager and backed off regardless of her virgin status; or gone ahead with it and given her the best first time he could. The fact that her virginity checked him shows that he has two different standards, one for “pure” girls and one for “sluts”.

View All

16 Comments

  1. …. I agree, and I thought it was atleast one of the points the movie was making….. instead of being one of the things I didn’t like about the movie, it was one of the things I *did*.

  2. I couldn’t agree with you more, although being as traditional as I am, I never would have thought about that until you pointed it out.

  3. Then Angela admits that despite all her bragging, she’s a virgin. And Lester suddenly backs off, gets all fatherly, tells her she’ll make she’ll have a great first time with some lucky guy who isn’t him, and makes her dinner. And we are supposed to think he has done the moral, responsible thing.

    He was turned on by the idea that she was already a slut. When reality intruded, as it can in many ways, with the fact that she was a virgin, the whole thing collapsed, not because he was so moral, but because the sexual fantasy amd the mood got so utterly destroyed. As someone who often had to learn to divide those who actually enjoyed bdsm from those who wore all the signals as a fashion statement, I can totally sympathise. You find out someone’s bluffing and faking, and find out at THE last minute, it can be a super turnoff. I don’t think its about dividing standards between virgins and nonvirgins. I think if she had been honest from the start, he’d have taken her virginity. He stopped because the last minute announcement ruined the mood and displayed deliberate deception. why wouldnt that turn him off?

    Imagine perhaps a man lusts after a woman for quite some time. Then, finally, the day comes. everything superheated. the fantasy finally becoming real. closer and closer to that magic moment. you remove her panties and discover she is a he and hung like a horse. that _could_ throw off the whole deal for you. not bc of any inherent moral lesson. but bc it was so far from what your entire obsessive desire was based on to begin with. and because you feel jerked around and have to question if you are being manipulated.

    Or ask a woman who sleeps with other women. They may sleep with ‘virgins’ as well as experienced women. But its goddamn irritating to have someone act like they have tons of experience with other women and then freak out halfway to the navel and say “I was lying, ive never done this before.” I have ended a sexual encounter just as aburptly for that exact reason – not because I needed the woman to have any specific level of experience, but because she played out months of bullshit trying to convince me to partake, and then when i did literally did not tell me until last possible moment it was all bullshit. I lost my desire for her within seconds.

    1. I’m finding I can always count on you for a unique take on any given subject. I like that.

      One possible problem with your interpretation is that she was never dishonest with him – unless flirting is equivalent to announcing that you’re a sexually experienced slut. He may have been deceived, but I don’t know about deliberately. She wasn’t talking to him about her many fictitious sexual encounters the way she talked to Janey.

      And the scenario you posit DOES make a distinction between virgins and nonvirgins, even if it’s not a moral one. It’s just replacing a moral double standard with an attractiveness double standard – that somehow a flirty virgin is less a turn-on than a flirty slut. Note I’m not referring to your own experience – clearly there was real deception there. Lester, on the other hand, had no reason to assume she was experienced other than the fact that she was so forward.

      I guess I can understand that he was turned on by the idea of making it with a highschool slut, although that kind of distinction makes no sense to me. Seems to me if you’re attracted to someone you’re attracted to them – if there hasn’t been dishonesty, which I agree is a massive turn-off, why should their level of experience be a turn-off? But I realize everyone has their own turn-ons and turn-offs.

      1. well in another of my examples, not the woman, but the bdsm, no ‘lying’ took place. it took me years to really grasp that someone who sent all the signals of being into bdsm might just be wearing the trappings. while they never _said_ they were into it, if i see someone dance in a collar with handcuffs dangling from their belt, i assumed they were willing to use those items in the bedroom. i felt lied to anyhow in those cases.

        she presents herself as a slut, she tells the daughter, and i was not convinced in watching that scene that she wasnt aware the father was there (ill rewatch it though, i make no claims either way at this time). also consider the crisis scene between them – if she thinks he doesnt already ‘know’ shes a slut, she would not depict her admission of virginity as telling the truth (again ill have to rewatch to check the exact wording, but doesnt she say basically ive been lying? why say youve been lying unless you know someone heard and believed the lies?)

        1. Hmm. I wear my bondage collar purely for decorative purposes. I’ve sometimes wondered if I’m sending the wrong signals; but since I’m never in a situation where anyone could be expected to act on those signals, it hasn’t been an issue.

          Come to think of it, she may have said something about everyone thinking she’s something she’s not. I’d watch it again, but I returned it this morning.

          1. I dont think its an issue anymore (collars etc), but there was a time, between it being a guarantee that it was a deliberate signal and today, where the gradually increasing acceptability caused some confusion. By the kids standards perhaps noone should assumed that much flirtiness and that little clothing meant she was a slut, but by the fathers perception it was a pretty clearcut assumption.

            I will definitely rewatch it sometime with all this in mind and see what I think.

  4. Re: p.s.

    First of all, I’m sick of seeing military men in movies stereotyped as angry, emotionally stunted, violent, homophobic troglodytes who tyrannize their familes.

    Having known many of that type, and having had a stepfather who was an angry, emotionally stunted, violent, homophobic racist asshole who tyrannized his family, that part didnt seem at all out of place to me. I have certainly met many fine military people as well, but that image is in no way exaggerated or ‘worn out’ in a way that doesn’t reflect reality.

  5. i keep having this convo with people. while she doesn’t flat out lie, she does give a very false impression…which can be just as bad and just as wrong, least to me.

    and i won’t get into military dick fathers…

  6. “First of all, I’m sick of seeing military men in movies stereotyped as angry, emotionally stunted, violent, homophobic troglodytes who tyrannize their familes.

    Having known many of that type, and having had a stepfather who was an angry, emotionally stunted, violent, homophobic racist asshole who tyrannized his family, that part didnt seem at all out of place to me. I have certainly met many fine military people as well, but that image is in no way exaggerated or ‘worn out’ in a way that doesn’t reflect reality.

    I agree with that comment– the reality is much too real for it to be tired or “old.” But also: I thought one of the main reasons for the military father’s behaviour, as revealed toward the end, was that he himself was a gay man. It would make sense that his pent-up emotions came out in his violent, asshole-ness. This also help explains his homophobia as something that is all-too-often-true in humanity: people hate things that they are themselves most guilty of.

    I agree with the commentary on the Lester/Angela scene, though. Good stuff.

    1. I agree, however even that seems an all too true statment rather than anything specific to this character. Repressed homophobia and severe emotional constipation are things I believe to be a factor in a large percentage of military males of any nationality. I also believe thats why the fear and rejection of gays remains so strong even in the US military, the core fear is that it will tap into something inside themselves they cant face or even consider.

    2. I thought one of the main reasons for the military father’s behaviour, as revealed toward the end, was that he himself was a gay man

      Bah. Honestly, I’m also tired of the homophobia-is-just-repressed-latent-homosexuality meme. Sure, it happens, but I think it’s overplayed. A lot of the attacks on those opposed to homosexuality (a group I am not a member of) seem to me to have a childish “you’re just jealous” attitude. I don’t care if the subject at hand is homosexuality or anything else – that line of argument may be fun, but it’s a copout that fails to really engage. It’s a cheap shot with no more weight than “I know you are – but what am ?!”.

      1. That’s cool that you’re “tired of the …meme,” but you forget that the character we’re talking about in American Beauty really is gay, or they at least heavily hinted at it in the movie when this father kissed Kevin Spacey’s character. No need for you to play straw man here– I’m talking about the initial conversation at hand, not all the stuff you’re constantly tired about, which doesn’t actually apply to me anyways. None of your generalities apply to me in any way. If you want to rant about stuff you’re “tired” about, go ahead, but don’t paint me with your misrepresentations. So, considering that this is a subjective movie, it could very well be that my initial analysis about the movie was right. Peace.

        1. I’m sorry… you seem to be responding to a different comment than the one I wrote. Where do you get that my comment applies to you, or that I’m painting you? You seem to have taken it awfully personally, especially for someone who just dropped into my journal apparently out of the blue.

          What do you mean by a “subjective movie”? Do you mean that it was intended to portray the characters as seen through a particular point of view, rather than objectively? Is this a bit of the movie’s background that I wasn’t aware of?

          It seems somewhat superflous to point out that your analysis might be right… if there wasn’t a chance of it being right, why would you have stated it in the first place?

      2. I didnt say they all were homosexual. I said the thought, the idea, the mere consideration, is enough to terrify many men into violence and humiliation towards others.

        and again, for something to be overplayed in my mind, it has to wildly exaggerate the existing truths and i just dont think either of those does.

        i do understand your reaction however, of disliking having something automatically dismissed as youre just jealous etc. there is some degree of that in what i was trying to relate about the poly business. simply that i tire of wornout copout dismissals of other povs (meant generically). i am NOT jealous of what they have, nor suffering a lack of selfexamination.

        1. I didnt say they all were homosexual

          I didn’t say you said so.

Comments are closed.