Was Lester behavior criminal? - American Beauty (1999) Discussion

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

He is not a pedophile, because she is not a pre-pubescent child. If he had sex with her, it may or may not be criminal depending on the laws of the state at that time. Some US states have 16 as the age of consent and the character is 16 in the movie. Other US states have 17 or 18 as the age of consent.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

Who asked that?

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

You did? "Was Lester behavior criminal?" I took that to mean you were asking if it was a crime.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

Yes but not in the way you replied.
I asked NOT if her age was a crime or not.
I asked if what he DOES is criminal or not.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 2 years ago

"what he DOES"

you mean thinks about having sex with her?
no, that is not a crime

" if they did not actually fuck at the end, would that sexual encounter be considered not criminal"
if they didnt fuck , was it a sexual encounter?

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

I think it was.
They were not chatting about the weather, were they?

reply

[–] liscarkat (18367) 9 months ago

Chatting isn't a crime, no matter what the subject is or who the chatters are.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 9 months ago

Are you sure about that?

I think it is. An adult talking about his or her intentions to fuck a minor to said minor, and maybe getting into details and asking for actual sex, I am pretty sure that is already a crime.

What do you think? That we need for said predator to get naked or jump on a minor before we can charge them?
Chatting about having sex together is enough.

reply

[–] CaptainIII (188) 8 months ago

Not crime

reply

[–] enriquesingh (1810) 9 months ago

What did he do? Fantasize about her?

I guess not criminal then since that's out of his control, involuntary.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 9 months ago

Their encounter in the last 20 min.
That is what.
Is that criminal?

reply

[–] enriquesingh (1810) 9 months ago

Had to look it up... I haven't watched this movie in so long.

It is my understanding that even if you don't have sex with someone, you can get in lots of trouble for just touching someone/anyone minor or adult - even worse if its with sexual intentions.

In Lester's case in particular during those last 20 minutes...

We are watching a 42 year old man and a 17 year old girl.

The movie takes place in Chicago, Illinois.

Assuming that the events during the last 20 minutes in the movie take place in the real world.

Lester offers Angela a beer - she is 17... that is a misdemeanor in Chicago.

All other sexual interactions (the kiss, caressing, blouse unbuttoning) would 100% be illegal between a 42 year old and a 17 year old... almost anywhere else in the US.

Except that American Beauty takes place in Chicago where the age of consent is 17 and "Angela" despite being a minor is that age and can consent.

Now, morally - most people would disapprove of a man of Lester's age being involved with a 17 year old, but I don't think he would get in trouble as long as Angela maintains that it was consensual (everything depends a lot on her and what she claims happened - regardless of her age) if authorities are involved.

He would be in deep trouble if the age of consent was 18 though... there was some sort of predatory sexual assault and I'm sure Lester would be going to jail for at least a handful of years.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 9 months ago

Great reply, thank you enriquesingh for clarifying everything from a legal perspective.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3346) 2 years ago

Depends on the law, I suppose. Age of consent laws vary all over the world. I think Mexico might have the lowest one, I think in parts of Mexico, the AoC is 12.

I suppose its a matter of opinion on whether or not you think it's "criminal" to find someone under 18 attractive. Personally, I don't think it's criminal to think someone under 18 is attractive. I mean, do teenage girls (or guys) suddenly become ugly after you turn 18 or 19? The attraction can still be there well beyond your teen years.

It is kind of funny that we assume the attraction suddenly disappears after someone reaches a certain age, which that age (usually 18) is an arbitrary number anyways. If someone under 18 commits a serious crime, all of the sudden they become adults in the eyes of the law and are tried as adults in court. The only time we see them as "children" is when something sexual happens. The point is, not even the law can decide what's a 'child' and what's not.

Anyhow, that being said, in regards to what Lester did, I would say 'no'... what he did was not "criminal" but depending on the state he's in, he could go to jail for it.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

Who asked that?

reply

[–] stickman38 (3346) 2 years ago

>>I read lots of posts here saying he is not a pedophile because he did NOT actually have sex with Angela.

But is that true?<<

And this....

>>I mean, everything that happened before him backing out was sexual, it was thus a sexual activity between a grownup and a minor, that did not include fucking (even if the real possibility of fucking was there and was talked about a lot).
Isn't that criminal too?<<

Were you looking for literal or figurative?

Age of Consent and laws based on it is about the only way to answer this. Otherwise, it's simply opinion based. Unless you want to dive into psychology, which none us are really qualified to talk about it from this point of view. But I would guess, most head doctors would not really call it a "criminal act" baring what the law says, of course, but rather it's simply an aging man acting out and trying to forget he's a middle-aged loser that is going through a mid-life crisis.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

I asked if what he DOES in the movie is criinal or not, considering it is a crime to have sex with a minor like her (like everyone knows).

reply

[–] stickman38 (3346) 2 years ago

Like I said, it depends on the AoC laws. Or did you just want a few "opinions" on it?

I've already answered both.

However, the filming location is California, and I'm not sure what the AoC was back then. And I'm not sure what the fictional location is supposed to be in this movie but it's probably the same as the filming location.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

ok so you are saying that, since the AoC in California is 18, it was a crime.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 9 months ago

"Who asked that?"
Err, you did, no?

And if not, what WERE you asking Heisenberg?

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 9 months ago

I asked to know if his actions (not really doing anything with an underage girl - there is no dick, pussy or nakedness involved) are illegal.

NOT, LIKE HALF THE PEOPLE RESPONDED, IF SHE IS UNDERAGE AND WHAT FUCKING STATE LAW SAYS ABOUT 16 OR 18 OR WHATEVER THE FUCK ELSE.

It's a clear question.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 9 months ago

Yeah, alright. But then, it seems like in this movie all he does to her is in his mind so probably in that case no.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 9 months ago

Besides, SPOILER ALERT, even though its still understandably relevant...

In this movie, SPOILERS - Lester dies at the end, so in a way its a moot point as to whether or not he should or would be arrested for ANYTHING, but still...

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 9 months ago

And do some, however small in overall context, matters have say gray moral areas and not often clear legal requirements or is it all clear and black and white? And notice how some things in life and by law we are say allowed to do in certain areas and others are downright illegal AND immoral, not that I disagree but still...

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 9 months ago

Yes.
But is this a grey area matter?

What does the law say about this?
Or like you said, this is a case a bit murky where it's not clearly stated, so it's a matter of lawyers and jurors?

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 9 months ago

Maybe you're right but I was also at least a little thinking about it in other ways plus I thought it all maybe was just a fantasy in his head. ALSO... I myself have a rather not just a feeling of, what's the word for not wanting, "unwantonness", but rather outright fear of being jailed for anything including matters of this nature too, then again, I am civilized enough not to get involved in it in the first place for moral and righteous reasons too.

And I know most people are afraid of it as well. Paradoxically, for some offenses and whatnot, many believe it is not only necessary but that... use your imagination.

But maybe this is law and how it has to be so in the end, that's what this is all about. But is it, as an example, also immoral too, and seriously, even in its own way also?

And I don't quite feel like actually getting in touch with law to debate it with them, then again, they won't have TIME for me.

reply

[–] liscarkat (18367) 9 months ago

Of course it can't be criminal to find someone under eighteen attractive. All a man could do would be to say he didn't find a girl under eighteen attractive, which would be lying.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56645) 2 years ago

She did take her top off and he laid there with her until he covered her up. I'd say it is criminal.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

Yes that is my take too.

reply

[–] Thaisticks (3020) 9 months ago

HE didn't take her top off. He never touched her. What is the crime?

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56645) 9 months ago

[deleted]

[–] stickman38 (3346) 9 months ago

Now that's an interesting question. Is simply being in the presence of someone underage and nude against the law? I would think it's not. For example, nudist camps have all ages going around completely nude. Same at nude beaches. And hundreds of films contain underage nudity, including American Beauty. Thora was 17 when they shot her topless scene.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56645) 9 months ago

[deleted]

[–] stickman38 (3346) 9 months ago

Technically speaking, he never touched her. He was just helping her undress. Lol

reply

[–] Thaisticks (3020) 9 months ago

I reported you for posting a sex site.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56645) 9 months ago

Not funny.

reply

[–] Thaisticks (3020) 9 months ago

You deny it's a sex site (aznude)? Now that is funny! I guess if you peruse it often you become inured to all that flesh, right?

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56645) 9 months ago

How else am I supposed to show you what he did unless I link it?

reply

[–] Thaisticks (3020) 9 months ago

You can describe it with words.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56645) 9 months ago

That wouldn't be proof.

reply

[–] Thaisticks (3020) 9 months ago

We're not in court.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56645) 9 months ago

I still proved you wrong though.

reply

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) 2 years ago

Too close to call, hahahhaaha. For me the cutoff is 21 years old. If a girl is under 21, I won't go anywhere near her (in a romantic way). And if it seems iffy - I ask for ID. Now, in Angela's case, she's in High School. She could be 18. It is possible. So, is Lester's behavior criminal? Well, if Angela is 18, and the law in the state they are living in says it is ok for an 18 year old to do whatever they want to do - if this is the case, then no, Lester's behavior is not criminal.

reply

[–] liscarkat (18367) 9 months ago

Since eighteen is the age of adulthood and legal consent in most states, there is nothing immoral or illegal about being romantically or sexually involved with an eighteen-year-old. Your arbitrary cutoff age of twenty-one has no moral or legal reason. You must just not find eighteen to twenty-year-olds attractive.

reply

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) 9 months ago

No, it's just better being safe than sorry. I'm not saying you are wrong - but I believe, in some states, the age of consent is 21.

I could be wrong on that, though.

But again, in the interest of better being safe than sorry - 21 is the cutoff for me. If you are not 21 years old, I will not touch you. Or even approach you (I mean, ask for a date, flirt - stuff like that). And yes, I have asked for ID in the past on girls I wasn't 100% sure on.

Nothing to do with what I am attracted to - it has to do with self preservation.

reply

[–] mechajutaro (2788) 9 months ago

The only thing criminal here is the existence of age of consent laws. Had we been taking nonsense like this seriously back in The 70s, David Bowie would've spent decades exploring his sexuality in a prison shower, rather than out in the free world + gifting us with a veritable library of sublime music

reply

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) 9 months ago

It's the way the law is. The law does not care about the age of consent. What the law cares about is getting as much money out of you as possible. So, how do you beat that?

Don't do anything that risks you getting into trouble. And probably the biggest thing a guy can get in trouble for is being inappropriate with a girl.

So, for me anyway, I don't leave any openings for problems. Better safe than sorry - self preservation - as I said.

Yeah, those guys in the 70s (Bowie as you say, Freddie Mercury, Mick Jagger) - they never would have survived in the world of today.

reply

[–] mechajutaro (2788) 9 months ago

All three of openings on a woman's body that we enjoy COULD potentially bring a man problems in addition to pleasure. REDUCING problems is all that we mortals can achieve

reply

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) 9 months ago

Indeed.

reply

[–] mechajutaro (2788) 9 months ago

"No one cared about it until the 90s when it started to infiltrate the straight community"

That never happened in great numbers https://listen.sdpb.org/2008-06-10/radical-wisdom-for-the-global-aids-epidemic

reply

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) 9 months ago

[deleted]

[–] Burk48917 (11356) 9 months ago

18 is not the majority age of consent in the US, It's actually the least common age. It surprised me to find most states are 16 or 17.

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (2308) a year ago

It depends on age of consent laws, however I don't think it's clear from the movie where it takes place, or how old Angela is. We only have minor clues such as the license plates, but they are never clear and in focus.

For the sake of argument, if she was below the age consent. Than yes, the kissing, groping, fondling etc would be considered a crime, but it would probably be difficult to prove anything happened unless Lester admitted to it.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 9 months ago

And regardless of the law, is it also seriously wrong and immoral or moderately wrong at least?

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 9 months ago

And would it be a tragedy in a civil sense if for what he does in this movie to her character, if it was even any of that at all (wasn't it all imagined or did he actually sleep or inappropriately intimately touch her for real?), if he does not go to jail for it, SHOULD he be in prison? Or is it a minor wrong or a moderate one rather than a grave one?

And would he survive in jail or would he be specifically mistreated there if inmates and guards knew or suspected what he did, and if he DOES get reported to the police, well, what are his chances either way? And how many years in jail would he get and why (was the girl slightly underage, or was she 18, did she consent to him touching etc her?)

P.S. Small SPOILER - did you feel SORRY for him when, as it turns out, he got shot and killed? And given this moment as well... (Even if maybe he didn't totally deserve it and was he not killed for ultimately undeserved and selfish reasons?)

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 9 months ago

On a related or SOMEWHAT related note...

Bearing in mind or baring some or other harsh facts...

Should we, men OR otherwise, well, HUMAN BEINGS... Regardless of what we are like personality wise and mentally wise, well... Be glad we haven't committed ANY "crimes" or acts that CAN be illegal including say kissing or touching someone, let alone getting involved sexually, who is even a year say under most legal age of consents like 17 or 18 and that we must and can be respected here as human beings in general who haven't done anything, however slightly, immoral or criminal?

And do you agree with such laws and stances here full 100%? And think its for the best of us in general and not just in respect to system and letter of the law?

reply

[–] liscarkat (18367) 9 months ago

If she was seventeen, it would be illegal in most states, but not necessarily immoral, either seriously or moderately.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 9 months ago

And do you think those individuals should or even MUST be jailed, besides the fact that IF law does its thorough job, its proven etc that they will anyways? And do you think its a good law in that sense and also, I am not saying I disagree, but why is 17 age considered young still and by law unacceptable whereas one year difference of 18 is fine and is allowed by law? Does it have scientific err evidence to it and biological facts too?

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 9 months ago

But then, wrong as I might be in THIS instance CINEMATICALLY speaking, but I think all of those activities with him and her were just merely in his head, and I think that, as flawed and troubled as he might have been, Lester Burnham legally AND morally didn't intend to go that far so... Unless Spacey or the director Sam Mendes can prove otherwise.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 9 months ago

Actually, I think most people would say it is a LITTLE 'immoral' at least to a degree as well, even if not as awful and severe as other examples.

reply