The absolute BEST review of "American Beauty" ever!
Nimrod ``
Nice sentiment. Badly executed.
N``
On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 16:37:01 GMT, kas...@uselessspamaccess1.net (K.
Smith) wrote:
>No one reviewer was so on-target about this movie:
>
>http://www.dumbassandthefag.com/reviews/abeauty.html
>
>American Beauty
>Review by Mogel
>
>American Beauty was a success not for its quality as a unique (or even
>interesting) story, but for its remarkable ability to sucker all you
>idiots into liking it. Sorry to be so blunt, but if this is The Best Movie
>of The Year, it sure must've been a horrible fucking year. God, where do I
>begin? There's so much to make fun of.
>
>I can just see some teary-eyed Hollywood executive sobbing, "this movie
>touches on all the issues--this movie is about American life!" And it
>does, you know. We see MATERIALISM IN ACTION when beer won't be spilled on
>a couch, we see REBELLING AGAINST SOCIETY with Spacey's refusal to live
>out expectations, we see THOSE NAUGHTY SUPERFICIAL PEOPLE acted out by the
>"dumb blonde" character, and we even see the results of 'growing up' and
>becoming older and moving to the suburbs!
>
>Unfortunately, the mere act of touching on BIG ISSUES is in no way
>interesting OR original--particularly when nothing is actually said or
>realized. The effect is basically a cinematic version of Billy Joel's
>shitty We Didn't Start The Fire, in which he just reads out dozens of
>problems on a big list. I can read the newspaper for that, folks.
>
>If you haven't seen this vomit, here's a quick summary: two self-centered
>(apparently AVERAGE AMERICAN SUBURBAN) parents live a depressed, redundant
>life until the father gets a boner because of his daughter's 16-year-old
>schoolmate's breasts and masturbates about her. Apparently this
>16-year-old girl has revitalized him in ways that nothing ever could, and
>he becomes totally goofy, man. He breaks all the rules. Fuck the man. He
>quits his job! He has no structure! Life is crazy! And chaos ensues with
>neighbors, drugs, homosexuality, naked breasts, adultery, and the
>never-ever-ever-let's-'em-down Hollywood climax, MURDER!
>
>Yeah, I know--that plot sounds like a winner. Basically it's targeted to
>depressed middle-aged losers who revel in the "what have I become?!?
>Old?!!"-self-appearance based paranoia every waking minute of their lives.
>I guess there's a lot of you pathetic, hopeless people. Life sure is
>awful, isn't it?
>
>What's particularly strange about this movie, really, is that although the
>characters are clearly intended to represent "The American Experience",
>the actual lives of the characters are painfully EXAGGERATED and
>RIDICULOUS. Seriously. This shit is basically like an episode of Jerry
>Springer, with ANGSTY GOTH GIRL SHE HATES HER PARENTS GRR and
>DRUG-DEALER-$40,000-BOYFRIEND and NAZI-EX-MILITARY-BEAT-MY-SON FATHER and
>CAREER-DRIVEN SCREAM-A-LOT MOM and HIPPIE-REBEL-FUCK-THE-SYSTEM DAD and
>DUMB BLONDE SEX-OBSESSED CHEERLEADER. I've seen more human-like characters
>on the front of my Rice Crispies cereal box. Anyone who didn't notice
>these excessively generic identities got suckered in... by the...
>pseudo-meaningful... dialogue... and its... excessive... use of...
>dramatic pause... as a... vehicle...
>
>Or maybe you feel like "a freak", too, man, like that girl. You know, the
>girl who was basically GOTH except never explicitly referred to as such. I
>just wish the movie provided an explanation of why this tortured gothic
>soul was a CHEERLEADER. I wouldn't normally harp on such a minor, lamely
>unexplained detail, except this is a great metaphor for the entire movie:
>everything is completely over-extended to ADVANCE THE STORY, regardless of
>how unrealistic, uninsightful, and corny it is. The cheerleader sequence
>exists simply to have a convenient scene for the father to have his first
>child-molestation fantasy, a-blazin' with that god damn ROSE PETAL shit.
>
>DO YOU GUYS GET THE SYBOLISM? THE BEAUTY OF A ROSE, SYMBOLIC OF LUST. I
>don't think there's a single man in America (other than Jarett) who'd ever
>have a child molestation fantasy involving a girl covered in rose-petals.
>Still, they were there a-plenty. God, were they ever there. Did you happen
>to forget about them? Don't worry, we are treated to THREE MORE GREAT
>SCENES showing her naked body covered with rose petals galore!
>
>Oh, and don't worry, gang. We, of course, see her unobstructed, roseless
>breasts by the end of the movie! American Beauty wouldn't let us enjoy a
>movie without naked breasts. Where would the meaning be without them? And,
>yeah, we see the goth girl's naked breasts, too. And, as an added bonus,
>for no justified reason whatsoever. I guess they're just thinking: she's
>got nice breasts! She's in a movie! Why not?
>
>The goth girl's (Thora Birch) casting was particularly amusing because
>she's actually quite attractive. It's almost as if the casting agent,
>director, and producer uniformly decided to entirely deny the point of her
>character--a slightly-ugly freak of some sort. Or, more retarded, maybe
>they were trying to be sneaky: "she's actually attractive, so when we
>represent her as having a bad self-image, people will say BUT SHE'S NOT
>REALLY UGLY! SHE IS HOT!! MAYBE THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE HOT THAT
>THINK THEY ARE UGLY!!" Which is true, of course, but it really takes away
>from any sort of potentially richer meaning. If they had cast a
>conventionally 'ugly' character, like someone somewhat overweight--or
>ugly--or even PLAIN looking, hey! There would've been much more of a point
>to her character. But, since she was hot, she just looked like an idiot.
>She fit in well.
>
>Her boyfriend is a kooky nut who manages to find "BEAUTY" in almost EVERY
>GOSH DARN THING (especially his conventionally attractive goth girlfriend
>with large breasts), you know. I considered turning off the movie during
>that embarassing scene with the video-taped dancing bag. That fucking
>scene made every art fag in the world feel exactly like every computer
>geek felt after watching You've Got Mail: ridiculous, cliche, and entirely
>misrepresented. I doubt mockery was the intention sassy-Brit director Sam
>Mendes was going for with that scene, but that's exactly what it was.
>
>Clearly this movie proves that British guys should direct any movies about
>American life. I mean, hey, just look at how he directed BEST ACTOR OF THE
>YEAR, can-do-no-wrong Kevin Spacey in this role: badly. Seriously. While
>his zombie-like efforts were initially justified because of the
>"depressed" nature of the character from the beginning, we (well, I guess
>just me? I really hope not) soon see this schtick never ends. While some
>may like Spacey's walk-through-the-movie-am-I-even-awake? style, this is
>not BEST ACTOR material, regardless of how arbitrary and empty the oscars
>actually are (other than for the actor's paycheck).
>
>While Kevin Spacey's performance was toned down to near-boredom, every
>other character was completely over-dramatized, and, quite frankly,
>pathetic. Especially his wife, who is hysterically animated like a cartoon
>for virtually the entire movie. Perhaps that's JUST HOW SHE WAS, man, but
>every character was basically acting out a soap-opera level melodrama, but
>perhaps that's JUST HOW THEY ALL WERE, man. You can't blame them, really,
>since they were basically living in a Jerry Springer level of reality.
>Maybe that's Sam Mendes's world, who knows?
>
>Honestly: this melodramatic, bad acting wouldn't have bothered me nearly
>as much if the director/screenwriter/whatever had chosen to be even
>somewhat consistent in the overall tone. Perhaps it's the fact that it's
>his first movie, and he has a stage director background... so maybe this
>sort of ambiguity between drama and comedy flies better in that medium.
>Here, it's just juvenile. The drama was insincere, empty, and pathetic:
>remember when the mother finds her husband dead and starts crying in the
>closet? I couldn't tell if I was supposed to be crying or laughing--and I
>wasn't doing either. The excessive "humor" of the movie took away from
>anything that might've struck me as heavy. Not even the token "sad music"
>could bring me to feel bad when Kevin Spacey was MURDERED. I was actually
>hoping that I could have some time in the film where Kevin Spacey wasn't
>on screen, but alas, no luck. The movie was over.
>
>In short, the BIG ISSUES that this movie touches on with its little bitty
>fingers (and then quickly runs away from) needed to have a fundamental
>choice made: is this a satire or a drama? Now, I hate generic Hollywood
>classifications as much as the next guy, so we could ask Why Can't A Movie
>Be Both? Good question: it most certainly can. Perhaps for some people
>this abiguity was kind of 'existential' and it gave them a philosophical
>boner--but for me (someone who does enjoy deviation from conventional
>storytelling), this attempt at "GREAT MEANING" was entirely ruined by it;
>The drama made the comedy trite, and the comedy made the drama insincere.
>
>Perhaps screenwriter Alan Ball should watch some surrealist films, learn
>something about subtlety, and try again. Until he does, all his movies are
>going to resemble bad version of '80s angst favorite John Hughs
>movies--and that's exactly what American Beauty is--"wacky situations"
>about angsty teens and ineffectual parents.
>
>After discussing with friends, I've determined the main focus of why
>people "like" this movie has little to do with the content and much more
>to do with themes. Touting lines like "In this world full of awful
>Hollywood movies, here's one that actually tried to be different!" is
>basically an admission that the movie sucked, but they can't think of
>anything better. Which is really a shame, but quite representative of the
>relentless slop that we're fed.
>
>Movies like this remind me of the ol' story of The Emperor's New Clothes,
>except The Emperor is also a mentally retarded child. In Being John
>Malkovitch the kid's got a pogo stick and a funny beanie hat! So silly! In
>The Matrix he's got a SUPER HI-TEK SUIT OF ARMOR! And in American Beauty,
>he's just buck naked and flailing about. Here's the punch line: no matter
>what clothes The Emperor is wearing, he is still an idiot, and it's our
>obligation to let him know. Otherwise we're just not being honest.
>
>------------------------------------------
>Thank you for saying so well!
>
>~K~
Steve Oldham
Smith) wrote:
Quoting Mogel's review:
>After discussing with friends, I've determined the main focus of why
>people "like" this movie has little to do with the content and much more
>to do with themes.
As I've posted before, I like it because the suburbs make me
claustrophobic and vaguely uneasy and the cartoon characters are right
out of the central casting office of my psyche.
Steve
Tom Sutpen
review more. When I saw "American Beauty", I was apalled at how mediocre it
actually was. Outside of Conrad Hall's cinematography, there was nothing here
that was really original or sharp about it. Just two hours of obvious satire --
is there a more worn out target on the planet than Middle-class American
suburbanites? -- papered with sitcom style jokes.
It was nothing Lenny Bruce hadn't done better (or funnier) forty years
ago.
Tom Sutpen
"Cinema is Truth, 24 times a second" -- Jean-Luc Godard
"Movies lie 24 times a second" -- Brian DePalma
"Kill Ugly Cinema!" -- Tom Sutpen
eldorado
"K. Smith" <kas...@access1.net> wrote in message
news:kasmith-0902...@ool-182ebc38.dyn.optonline.net...
> No one reviewer was so on-target about this movie:
>
> http://www.dumbassandthefag.com/reviews/abeauty.html
>
He makes good points, but why is he so overwrought? Can't he explain his
thoughts without working himself into a rage? He should check his Caps
Lock, too... I think it's stuck.
Dan
Sawfish
>Nice sentiment. Badly executed.
Yes, but it had heart...
I agree that AB, plus Shakespeare In Love, were probably the two biggest
industry jerk-off projects of the last 10 years.
>N``
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Anderson
"K. Smith" wrote:
> No one reviewer was so on-target about this movie:
>
> http://www.dumbassandthefag.com/reviews/abeauty.html
>
I saw nothing in this mildly interesting movie that might inspire such
passion. The reviewer seems more offended by its popularity than its message,
or lack of same.
Why did it receive awards? I have no idea. That rose petal scene was a
humdinger, though!
Bill Anderson
--
I am the Great Favog
Dalton
wrote:
>
>"K. Smith" <kas...@access1.net> wrote in message
>news:kasmith-0902...@ool-182ebc38.dyn.optonline.net...
>> No one reviewer was so on-target about this movie:
>>
>> http://www.dumbassandthefag.com/reviews/abeauty.html
>>
>
>He makes good points, but why is he so overwrought?
Politics. There is no reasonable discussion of this movie to be had
because it is aggresively 'political'.
I liked the movie quite a bit and was still annoyed at much of the
clumsy crap in it.
If it were released in the 70's it would have been more effective.
> Can't he explain his
>thoughts without working himself into a rage? He should check his Caps
>Lock, too... I think it's stuck.
>
>Dan
>
steve
> When I saw "American Beauty", I was apalled at how mediocre it
> actually was. Outside of Conrad Hall's cinematography, there was nothing
> here
> that was really original or sharp about it. Just two hours of obvious
> satire --
> is there a more worn out target on the planet than Middle-class American
> suburbanites?
Hi Tom et al.
I loved this film when I saw it (4 times, no less) in the theater. Watched
it at home recently and found it seriously flawed. The writing is sometimes
weak ("my wife's out fucking that dorky real estate guy, and I dont care"),
and it's a bit obvious (um, same example). Yet I still think there is much
to admire.
The opening, for example, is great. It's a provocative image relevant to
the times (hot young chick, voyeuristic video), it sets up the targets of
the satire, and it dangles the films mystery before us. Economically and
effectively done, I'd say. And far from being a tired cliche, I think
suburban yuppie consumerist america is once again ripe for criticism.
Unlike the many suburban satires I recall from the 60's and 70's, these
people (spacey and family, anyway) are not merely denounced as hypocrites.
The film suggests (rather clumsily and overtly) that the problem is a loss
of perspective, and suggest (again, rcao) a practical solution. No, I dont
mean quitting your job and smoking weed. Keep the job.
The much maligned and belittled obsession that Lester harbors for Angela, I
think is really poignant. Behind closed doors, grown men (like me, only I'm
not secretive) are drooling over hot teen girls. This is natural, yet it is
trendy to call such men sick and even pedophiles. That idiotic hypocracy is
maddening. I'm personally pleased the film took on the issue.
It's clear to me that I was caught up in the sexy images and drastically
overrated this film. And it sure as hell isnt the triumph hollywood
pretends it to be. But I think it's a decent film, and one that could have
been great if it hadnt come from hollywood.
steve
--
"It aint me, man, it's the system."
Charles Manson
Steve Oldham
>The much maligned and belittled obsession that Lester harbors for Angela, I
>think is really poignant. Behind closed doors, grown men (like me, only I'm
>not secretive) are drooling over hot teen girls. This is natural, yet it is
>trendy to call such men sick and even pedophiles. That idiotic hypocracy is
>maddening. I'm personally pleased the film took on the issue.
Took on the issue? Lester himself realizes how sick his behavior is
when he finds out the girl is a virgin. There's nothing healthy about
Lester's obsession and if he had not had his epiphany the film would
have been a wash out.
Steve
steve
On 11-Feb-2002, Steve Oldham <stev...@rocsoft.net> wrote:
> Took on the issue? Lester himself realizes how sick his behavior is
> when he finds out the girl is a virgin. There's nothing healthy about
> Lester's obsession and if he had not had his epiphany the film would
> have been a wash out.
>
>
> Steve
Well, I agree with your conclusion, but with some substantial differences in
interpretation. His desire isn't sick, but he realizes that acting on it
isn't fair to the girl. He weighs his compassion against his desire, and
makes a mature choice. His epiphany wasn't about the rejection of a sick
desire, it was about treating the girl as a person.
Rather than calling men sick for lusting after young girls, we should
recognize that desire for a hot young chick is a normal and natural
temptation that a responsible man resists. That's what I take from that
scene, anyway.
The Avocado Avenger
>The much maligned and belittled obsession that Lester harbors for Angela, I
>think is really poignant. Behind closed doors, grown men (like me, only I'm
>not secretive) are drooling over hot teen girls. This is natural, yet it is
>trendy to call such men sick and even pedophiles. That idiotic hypocracy is
>maddening. I'm personally pleased the film took on the issue.
The older men "drooling" over teenaged girls syndrome is certainly
nothing new. In the 1950s, dozens of popular songs sung by men in their
30s or older were about some sweet sixteen girl in ponytails and twin
sets. History books are full of examples of men marrying young teen girls
dozens of years their junior.
Historically speaking, I have heard several historians offer up the idea
that a man who outlives his wife - who would have had a greater chance of
dying during childbirth and from various rampant diseases - would later
marry a young girl because she would have a more childbearing years left.
What I find interesting is that historians feel they need to address the
issue of a middle-aged man marrying a teen girl. Society doesn't like the
idea, obviously. It doesn't condone it. When Jerry Lee Lewis married his
13 year old cousin Myra, people were more upset by her age than by her
close relationship to him (newspaper articles at the time illustrate this
perfectly).
The problem with older men "drooling" over "hot teen girls" is that it
objectifies a woman based on her age and nothing more. Men like teens
because of how they look, and society knows this - there's no substance to
the attraction whatsoever. And teenaged girls are suprisingly vulnerable
and can be manipulated, so the idea of an older man using his age and
experience to basically take advantage of a kid is not an idea society
embraces.
There were a few saving graces in "American Beauty", and one is the
scene with Lester and the girl, which others described as Lester finally
realizing he was a pedophile. I think it was more than that. It's Lester
realizing the lack of depth in his attraction to the teenaged girl and
finding out his fantasy of a "hot teen girl" is nothing but a fantasy.
It's Lester growing up.
I would argue with you the so-called naturalness of middle aged men
wanting to bang their daughter's best friend, or the supposed hypocricy
you refer to, but I don't believe the movie was really trying to say what
you think it said. That men do it is a given; that men learn from it was
the point.
Stacia * The Avocado Avenger * Life is a tale told by an idiot;
http://world.std.com/~stacia/ * Full of sound and fury,
There is no guacamole anywhere. * Signifying nothing.
steve
On 11-Feb-2002, sta...@world.std.com (The Avocado Avenger) wrote:
> I would argue with you the so-called naturalness of middle aged men
> wanting to bang their daughter's best friend, or the supposed hypocricy
> you refer to, but I don't believe the movie was really trying to say what
> you think it said. That men do it is a given; that men learn from it was
> the point.
If you read the full thread you will see how much we agree.
The Avocado Avenger
>If you read the full thread you will see how much we agree.
My server spits out posts at random. I read some of your similar posts
in this thread, which showed up about 10 posts down the line from the one
I just wrote. In a nutshell, I agree that we agree on agreeing.
Sawfish
>"steve" <st...@steve.com> writes:
>>The much maligned and belittled obsession that Lester harbors for Angela, I
>>think is really poignant. Behind closed doors, grown men (like me, only I'm
>>not secretive) are drooling over hot teen girls. This is natural, yet it is
>>trendy to call such men sick and even pedophiles. That idiotic hypocracy is
>>maddening. I'm personally pleased the film took on the issue.
> The older men "drooling" over teenaged girls syndrome is certainly
>nothing new. In the 1950s, dozens of popular songs sung by men in their
>30s or older were about some sweet sixteen girl in ponytails and twin
>sets. History books are full of examples of men marrying young teen girls
>dozens of years their junior.
> Historically speaking, I have heard several historians offer up the idea
>that a man who outlives his wife - who would have had a greater chance of
>dying during childbirth and from various rampant diseases - would later
>marry a young girl because she would have a more childbearing years left.
I think that this is looking at the phenomenon backwards, kinda like
someone saying, with regards to an evolutionary feature of a porpose, for
example, "The shape is designed to move thru the water with minimimal
resistance." This is a misunderstanding of how evolution works. There's no
"design" to it. It is the morphology that has survived to be observed,
while the others fell away in failure.
It's the same with this notion of older men being attracted to younger
women. First, it's not just older men, it's younger men, too. Sure we can
find counter examples, but the vastly representative trend is for adult
males to prefer young, nubile females. And it's not got to do with
"because she would have more childbearing years left," it's because men
who have a tendency to mate with younger females will stand the chance of
siring more offspring, and those male off-spring may share the father's
hereditary attraction to young females and they, too, will stand the
chance of siring more off-spring. So, they don't rationally find the idea
of siring more offspring to be a reason for the attraction, but rather the
likelihood of siring more progeny re-inforces the attraction
evolutionarily. Those with that form of attraction are favored
evolutionaryily--or were, prior to monogamy. There's no decision for the
man to make: she's there, and I like her. I don't know her age, but do
know I like the way she looks.
>What I find interesting is that historians feel they need to address the
>issue of a middle-aged man marrying a teen girl. Society doesn't like the
>idea, obviously.
Probably not since monogamy, which is perhaps the greatest stabilizing
influence in the history of civilization.
Think about it: one older, highly successful man with 57 wives, and 56
other men, many of them younger, runnning around with a rampant sex drive
and no legitmate outlet. Blood's gonna flow, for sure.
>It doesn't condone it.
Ditto.
>When Jerry Lee Lewis married his
>13 year old cousin Myra, people were more upset by her age than by her
>close relationship to him (newspaper articles at the time illustrate this
>perfectly).
> The problem with older men "drooling" over "hot teen girls" is that it
>objectifies a woman based on her age and nothing more. Men like teens
>because of how they look, and society knows this - there's no substance to
>the attraction whatsoever.
Outside of the evolutionary advantage that such an attraction accrues, I
agree.
>And teenaged girls are suprisingly vulnerable
>and can be manipulated, so the idea of an older man using his age and
>experience to basically take advantage of a kid is not an idea society
>embraces.
I agree here, also.
> There were a few saving graces in "American Beauty", and one is the
>scene with Lester and the girl, which others described as Lester finally
>realizing he was a pedophile. I think it was more than that. It's Lester
>realizing the lack of depth in his attraction to the teenaged girl and
>finding out his fantasy of a "hot teen girl" is nothing but a fantasy.
>It's Lester growing up.
> I would argue with you the so-called naturalness of middle aged men
>wanting to bang their daughter's best friend,
I don't think that this phraseology justly capture the essence. They don't
want to "bang their daughter's friend" some much as they are sexually
attracted to younger women. If their daughter is of that age and she has
friends, this means that at some level the older man is sexually
attracted, often in spite of himself. It's VERY important to remember that
to be atracted or not by these younger women is not a voluntary choice;
men's sex drives don't work that way. It IS up to the man to conform to
societal norms in this area, however, and that part is voluntary.
>...or the supposed hypocricy
>you refer to, but I don't believe the movie was really trying to say what
>you think it said. That men do it is a given; that men learn from it was
>the point.
Yeah, well, I didn't think too much of the film. Largely it was my
perception that Kevin Spacey was miscast. He was not believable as
Benning's husband. It wasn't as if their relationship had soured by that
point; it was more that he just plain had no feeling for how a married
couple would relate under those circumstances. I'd almost generalize and
say that playing married men is not his strength. I'd have to consider
examples, to be sure.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant was awful--but at least the portions
were large!" --Sawfish
Man...An Ancient Race
Dalton
And you are correct.
It is normal to find a pretty young girl arousing (we are talking post
puberty I assume) but the older generation is there to guide the
younger as best they can, not use them for gratification.
'American Beauty' handles the issue well. Look, but don't touch.
Aldo Pignotti
character's lust for the sweet young high school girl. For one thing,
think about all the people who could have killed him at the end. His
wife was ready to blow him away, his daughter has discussed killing
him. That guy was going to die that night one way or the other. And
for what? He never did have sex with the young girl. It was his wife
that was having the affair. Why did he have to die? What was so
dangereous about him that he had to die? Does he represent
something?
steve
I think that is both an intriguing plot element and a somewhat cheesy
statement. You never know when it will all end, so dont waste a moment.
The Avocado Avenger
>> Historically speaking, I have heard several historians offer up the idea
>>that a man who outlives his wife - who would have had a greater chance of
>>dying during childbirth and from various rampant diseases - would later
>>marry a young girl because she would have a more childbearing years left.
>I think that this is looking at the phenomenon backwards, kinda like
>someone saying, with regards to an evolutionary feature of a porpose, for
>example, "The shape is designed to move thru the water with minimimal
>resistance." This is a misunderstanding of how evolution works. There's no
>"design" to it. It is the morphology that has survived to be observed,
>while the others fell away in failure.
I didn't add "I think the theory is bullshit", only because my main
point was that even historians feel a need to explain away this seedy side
of humanity. Personally, I find that part the most interesting.
>It's the same with this notion of older men being attracted to younger
>women. First, it's not just older men, it's younger men, too. Sure we can
>find counter examples, but the vastly representative trend is for adult
>males to prefer young, nubile females.
You say we can find counterexamples, but what you don't allude to is how
much. I'd find it very interesting to know just how much of the
attraction is for "young, nubile females" and how much isn't. I've seen
enough of the porn market on the 'net to think that there's a sizeable
amount of men who are sexually attracted to almost anything except young
women - and let's not forget the fact that most of these young teens are
really women in their early-20s, posing in pigtails and school uniforms.
>And it's not got to do with
>"because she would have more childbearing years left," it's because men
>who have a tendency to mate with younger females will stand the chance of
>siring more offspring, and those male off-spring may share the father's
>hereditary attraction to young females and they, too, will stand the
>chance of siring more off-spring. So, they don't rationally find the idea
>of siring more offspring to be a reason for the attraction, but rather the
>likelihood of siring more progeny re-inforces the attraction
>evolutionarily. Those with that form of attraction are favored
>evolutionaryily--or were, prior to monogamy. There's no decision for the
>man to make: she's there, and I like her. I don't know her age, but do
>know I like the way she looks.
That's certainly a more logical way of looking at the theories I
mentioned above. In a strict Darwinist sense, it's the only explanation.
But I think historians tout the theory of marrying young as a conscious
decision because they know that these men consciously *want* the teen
girls. So it's their way of both having a conscious decision while
explaining it away in a harmless, pseudo-logical fashion.
>attracted, often in spite of himself. It's VERY important to remember that
>to be atracted or not by these younger women is not a voluntary choice;
>men's sex drives don't work that way.
Not being a man, I can't really say I agree with this or not. For me, I
can say that I often feel as though sexual attraction is almost a
voluntary choice, and I admit to superimposing my experience on the movie.
I think we all do that to an extent.
>couple would relate under those circumstances. I'd almost generalize and
>say that playing married men is not his strength. I'd have to consider
>examples, to be sure.
Now that I think about it, he didn't portray a married guy really well
in "The Ref", either...
steve
On 12-Feb-2002, sta...@world.std.com (The Avocado Avenger) wrote:
> I didn't add "I think the theory is bullshit", only because my main
> point was that even historians feel a need to explain away this seedy side
>
> of humanity. Personally, I find that part the most interesting.
Hi Stacia. I hope you dont mind if I jump in here.
I'm trying to understand where you are going with this. I dont think
historians (anthropologists?) are "explaining away" so much as just
explaining. Plus I think the subject has only become "seedy" in the last
century and only in certain cultures. If you watch some international
television you will see (for example) south american cultures shamelessly
displaying teen (and even pre-teen) girls in a way the would certainly raise
eyebrows in the US.
> >It's the same with this notion of older men being attracted to younger
> >women. First, it's not just older men, it's younger men, too. Sure we can
> >find counter examples, but the vastly representative trend is for adult
> >males to prefer young, nubile females.
>
> You say we can find counterexamples, but what you don't allude to is how
>
> much. I'd find it very interesting to know just how much of the
> attraction is for "young, nubile females" and how much isn't. I've seen
> enough of the porn market on the 'net to think that there's a sizeable
> amount of men who are sexually attracted to almost anything except young
> women - and let's not forget the fact that most of these young teens are
> really women in their early-20s, posing in pigtails and school uniforms.
Actually there is a ton of actual teen "porn" on the net, though I
personally wouldnt call it that. The stuff (perfectly legal, BTW) that I
see is mostly artistic photos of nude girls posted on various newsgroups.
What you allude to is the tendency of profit making porn sites to entice men
with the false promise of young girls. That should tell you something about
the universal nature of the attraction. Those same sites, however, are
usually very conservative in staying away from grey areas in law
enforcement. Hence the bogus teens.
That being said, I'm confused as to your point regarding counterexamples.
> That's certainly a more logical way of looking at the theories I
> mentioned above. In a strict Darwinist sense, it's the only explanation.
>
> But I think historians tout the theory of marrying young as a conscious
> decision because they know that these men consciously *want* the teen
> girls. So it's their way of both having a conscious decision while
> explaining it away in a harmless, pseudo-logical fashion.
Men _do_ consciously want the teen girls and the evolutionary explanation
_is_ logical. Attraction to young females (sexually mature or on the cusp
of sexual maturity) simply makes biological sense and has been selected into
the male population. But (in this culture) it has become socially
unacceptable and driven underground (where it thrives). I'm one of the few
men I know who speaks openly about it, but I hear about it in private from
just about every guy I know. Believe me, if a hot looking 13 year old girl
dresses provocatively and walks through the mall, men of all ages take
notice. A responsible man does no more that that, I should add. Many
desires should go unsatisfied.
> >attracted, often in spite of himself. It's VERY important to remember
> >that
> >to be atracted or not by these younger women is not a voluntary choice;
> >men's sex drives don't work that way.
>
> Not being a man, I can't really say I agree with this or not. For me, I
>
> can say that I often feel as though sexual attraction is almost a
> voluntary choice, and I admit to superimposing my experience on the movie.
>
> I think we all do that to an extent.
...movie...oh yea, I almost forgot...
Sawfish
>Sawfish <m...@q7.com> writes:
>>> Historically speaking, I have heard several historians offer up the idea
>>>that a man who outlives his wife - who would have had a greater chance of
>>>dying during childbirth and from various rampant diseases - would later
>>>marry a young girl because she would have a more childbearing years left.
>>I think that this is looking at the phenomenon backwards, kinda like
>>someone saying, with regards to an evolutionary feature of a porpose, for
>>example, "The shape is designed to move thru the water with minimimal
>>resistance." This is a misunderstanding of how evolution works. There's no
>>"design" to it. It is the morphology that has survived to be observed,
>>while the others fell away in failure.
> I didn't add "I think the theory is bullshit", only because my main
>point was that even historians feel a need to explain away this seedy side
>of humanity. Personally, I find that part the most interesting.
Interesting in that it's disheartening to think that academics need to
explain the inexplicable?
Yeah, I'm never too comfortable when I hear a phenomenon clearly rooted
in animal instinct being explain in terms of rational behavior.
>>It's the same with this notion of older men being attracted to younger
>>women. First, it's not just older men, it's younger men, too. Sure we can
>>find counter examples, but the vastly representative trend is for adult
>>males to prefer young, nubile females.
> You say we can find counterexamples, but what you don't allude to is how
>much. I'd find it very interesting to know just how much of the
>attraction is for "young, nubile females" and how much isn't. I've seen
>enough of the porn market on the 'net to think that there's a sizeable
>amount of men who are sexually attracted to almost anything except young
>women - and let's not forget the fact that most of these young teens are
>really women in their early-20s, posing in pigtails and school uniforms.
I've not seen that stuff, and you may have a point about counterexamples.
I was merely trying to explain the selection mechanism that would favor
attraction to, and successful mating with, young females.
>>And it's not got to do with
>>"because she would have more childbearing years left," it's because men
>>who have a tendency to mate with younger females will stand the chance of
>>siring more offspring, and those male off-spring may share the father's
>>hereditary attraction to young females and they, too, will stand the
>>chance of siring more off-spring. So, they don't rationally find the idea
>>of siring more offspring to be a reason for the attraction, but rather the
>>likelihood of siring more progeny re-inforces the attraction
>>evolutionarily. Those with that form of attraction are favored
>>evolutionaryily--or were, prior to monogamy. There's no decision for the
>>man to make: she's there, and I like her. I don't know her age, but do
>>know I like the way she looks.
> That's certainly a more logical way of looking at the theories I
>mentioned above. In a strict Darwinist sense, it's the only explanation.
>But I think historians tout the theory of marrying young as a conscious
>decision because they know that these men consciously *want* the teen
>girls. So it's their way of both having a conscious decision while
>explaining it away in a harmless, pseudo-logical fashion.
Yeah, well, I, for one, don't think that instinct needs a logical
explanation--in fact, such an explanation misconstrues the actual
behavior.
Now, one can logically explain the outcome of this behavior, and why the
behavior is increasing/decreasing in a given environment, but not the
behavior, itself.
>>attracted, often in spite of himself. It's VERY important to remember that
>>to be atracted or not by these younger women is not a voluntary choice;
>>men's sex drives don't work that way.
> Not being a man, I can't really say I agree with this or not.
For the sake of the current part of the discussion, please weight this in
my favor.
I've had a *LOT* of time to think about this, and a lot of time to stew
about my problems in relating to members of the opposite sex, where it
comes to sexual relations. It gets down to the misunderstanding on my part
that what they wanted was immediate sexual gratification that was being
driven by a biological urge akin to hunger or thirst. It most certainly
was not an optional urge, like the urge to go swimming in a beautiful
moutain lake on a hot day. This is what is is like for many, perhaps
most, young men--and it was my unconsidered assumption that women were
precisley the same way, day after day, like men are.
I've come to the belated realization that what most of my girlfriends
wanted, most of the time, was a pleasant, sensual diversion with a fair
amount of companionship, whereas I was mostly looking for the culmination
of the sex act, and, just as women sometimes feign sexual ecstacy, I found
that I had to feign intererst in extended foreplay. Of course, I learned
to get better at it, and as the years went along, my drive diminished to
the point where this became in all ways a *good* thing. But Jesus! Being a
young man is just like being on drugs, when it comes to sex drive.
Now, over the past 15-20 years, I've read a lot of material from the
woman's perspective that can only be explained logically if one starts
with the assumption that a man's sex drive is similar to the urge to swim
in a lake. This *really* misses the true nature of what's going on with
men, just as most men make the same mistakes in relating to women that I
did.
>For me, I
>can say that I often feel as though sexual attraction is almost a
>voluntary choice, and I admit to superimposing my experience on the movie.
>I think we all do that to an extent.
Yes.
>>couple would relate under those circumstances. I'd almost generalize and
>>say that playing married men is not his strength. I'd have to consider
>>examples, to be sure.
> Now that I think about it, he didn't portray a married guy really well
>in "The Ref", either...
I don't know. I've seen him and liked him, but his best roles have been
quirky and idiosyncratic. Swimming with Sharks, Usual Suspects, etc. The
LA Confidential role was fairly conventional, for him.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx