Are All Men Pedophiles? (2013) User Reviews

Rough But Interesting

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 6 June 2014]

What is the difference between normal, healthy men and pedophiles? According to this documentary, as men age, their desires expand but do not simply change. They claim this is connected to the Stone Age, and the age people mated then. They also throw in Greek pederasty and how sexuality has changed through the lens of society.

Some issues are brought up, like the different maturity ages for men and women. We learn that Western society stigmatizes men who are attracted to young women while simultaneously promoting teen girls in the fashion industry and the media. We learn of lolicon.

Most striking is the claim that men today are afraid of touching children, including even showing affection towards their own children. The "pedophile" label has become so widespread that men fear it.

The film as a whole is rough, and at times not as authoritative as it could be. This is a topic that ought to be addressed again, perhaps with more studies. Trying to sort fact from opinion in this one is tough.

Initially Upset, but Satisfied

[melodygoplen · 7/10 · 13 May 2016]

Uncertain what defines a review as being a spoiler so went ahead and checked the box. My first reaction from watching this documentary or informational movie was simply upset and disappointment. I couldn't understand how the documentary explained the title, and in watching it I figured it would have more of a specific focus. After being given a moment to think about the documentary, I think it is a good start for bringing attention to horrible things that happen to children and adolescents without making it something just for entertainment purposes. It also brings about how men may unfairly be treated in this society. I may not agree with some parts of it, however, it's a good start for change.

Are All Men Pedo's? No. We're not.

[djkoz78 · 7/10 · 8 June 2014]

I don't review many films on IMDb bc to me it's tedious and time consuming. For me I forget a lot of what I want to write about to begin with. So I'm not a very good writer. I can rate the hell out of something though. Anyways I wanted to come here and write a little about the film and what I thought, but more about what 1 reviewer wrote and rated the movie. This person gave it a 1 out of 10. Why? Because It brought up the Japanese Lolita Fashion or Loliicon and how it is directed at men for underage girls. This reviewer claims that the Lolita Fashion purposefully tries distance itself from any sexuality about underage girls attracting men & maybe it does. Yet the name Lolita is in it's titled a book written by Vladimir Nabokov about a literary professor named Humbert Humbert who is lusting after a young girl of 12 years old named Lo who he nicknames Lolita. Who if I am not mistaken he ends up having a sexual relationship with.

Anyways the reviewer clearly based him/her opinion not on what the film was trying to convey, but because this person is clearly a fan of Lolita Fashion. I recommend you watch the documentary for yourself and you decide. Another reviewer said that the creator has an agenda. At first I thought that as well & still do to a degree, but the as the film progressed I see that the lines are not so easily black and white. I see what the creator was trying i think to convey. He was trying to show how the pedophilia hysteria specifically in the west has become outrageous. That the media is spreading so much fear while simultaneously society and the fashion industry is promoting young nubile models in erotic or provocative clothes or poses. And if the underage model shows nudity bc it's in a magazine it's not child porn it's "Artistic". The hysteria and fear has become so ridiculous that laws are being written to arrest children to "protect" them from the pedophiles. Or teenagers sexting each other are being tried as adults for having child pornography on their phones. I had a friend who is married woman who used to babysit her friends 13 year old daughter who was sending sexually explicit photos online to different boys. Now if she hadn't found out and told the girls mother what she was doing and someone found those photos and reported it to the police. Do you think they wouldn't arrest the woman or her husband even though they had nothing to do with it? More so the husband I think.

Which is another point the film tries to make. I believe that there is a huge problem and a backlash happening because of this hysteria and fear. Mainly that every single man on the planet earth is a sick and twisted pervert. That we all think about sex and if we can't get it consensually, then we will take it by force. Which simply isn't true. There is a very small percentage of people who are like this. Yet this is what I mainly found interesting. It's a scary issue bc fathers are afraid to show affection, bathe, go to the park alone or change the diapers of their own children for fear of being accused a pedophile. Or men are being barred from entering nurseries even if your a 16 year old boy coming to pick up his siblings or their own children. Boys are being told in school that men are sexual predators and that they might or will in fact grow up to be one themselves. 99% of all teachers are women now bc men just don't want their lives ruined for being accused. How many people have seen some man on the news being accused of being a pedophile yet never hear if he is found not guilty? Because the news only wants you to see him accused and you to hear the guilty verdict, but if he's acquitted not a peep from the news. The film also brings up the glaring double standard about women being sexual predators as well, but are rarely convicted for sexual abuse or even brought to trial. Or if the woman has sex with an underage boy because she's a woman the media uses terms like "relationship". So women get leniency not just from the peers, but from judges as well especially if she's an attractive woman.

I believe the film also tries to distinguish the difference between men & women who are attracted to physically and sexually mature girls/boys versus men & women who attracted to prepubescent boys/girls. That if you have ever been attracted to a younger girl/boy 16-17 years old that looks like a man or woman physically then it's not pedophilia it's hebephilia/ephebephilia. That pedophilia is used a wide very general term. The term pedophilia means that a person is attracted to a boy/girl between the ages of 5-13. I don't agree with the entirety of this film b/c I think being attracted to underage girls/boys is wrong, gross, and creepy. I do agree that the media over saturates and perpetuates fear and I think sometimes they do it at the behest of the government. This was a very difficult film to watch but I think people should watch it because where does the hysteria & fear stop? Do we start chemically castrating men? Do we start locking up children to protect them from potential threats or from themselves?

Reverse-Sexism

[williamoseibonsu · 3 April 2013]

At first I was very skeptical. The title sounded like a joke, but after watching the documentary I was blown away. This documentary was no laughing matter. There is a shift in society that all men are viewed as potential pedophiles. And while watching this documentary I asked myself the same question.

I hear a lot of stories from female friend that they been approach by an older men, through social media or at streets. Myself I am 24 and I must say I keep on hanging around with women ages around 17-21 years old.

Is that wrong or pedophilia? Luckily, the documentary answers those questions and addresses the issues of sexism against men in society. An important issue that is mainly overlook by mainstream media. My only point of criticism is that certain chapters were too short. I would have liked more information about certain subjects.

This is one of the best documentary I ever saw, all the question about pedophilia where answered in this documentary. Now I get a good clear what is going on in the society. I think we all are responsible on what is going on and have to take things seriously before is too late.

Though-Provoking

[KellenKing · 6/10 · 16 May 2018]

Interesting documentary that will spur some new thoughts. I would have liked to see if some of the information given had some specific studies backing it up. There were a lot of very interesting blanket statements that were expected to be accepted as fact. I appreciate when norms are challenged, but I would like some more substance. Also, the structure of the film was extremely disorganized...it was as if the chapters were randomly thrown together after someone picked up the notecards off the floor. Could have been so much more!

This documentary has an agenda

[mo123567 · 2/10 · 30 December 2013]

"Are All Men Pedophiles?" demonstrates the separation between people who are attracted to children (pedophiles), people who are attracted to infants (infantophiles), and people who are attracted to teens (hebephiles). It is on the last group that the film eventually focuses on. From the minute you see the cover featuring an attractive underage female model, and then are presented with biblical and historical evidence of men's desire for young pubescent girls the film is leading you to it's desired conclusion. You are expected to come to the realization that you (you thought that young model was attractive right?) and just about everyone else currently and throughout history has been attracted to young teen age girls, therefore you should accept hebephilia as a part of society or you are a hypocrite because you are in fact a hebephile as well.

Here's the problem with that. The film doesn't really take into account the rights of the young females in question. So what if you can prove that all men are attracted to young girls and it has been a part of human culture for thousands of years? There have been many things that have been pretty common throughout human history and prehistory. Slavery and unequal rights for woman come to mind. We can and have began the process of moving past these relics from the past and age of consent laws are also part of our progress as a civilization. Even if all men can be shown to be attracted to young teen girls, it still does not mean that it is in the interest of the girls. Just as most people can be proved to want more money, it doesn't mean that we have to allow them to steal it from someone else.

In the end though, whether you agree with the point of this documentary or not, it is misleading and attempts to fool the viewer into adopting the desired opinion of the documentary's creator. The clever marketing also plays into this by saying that this is "the most controversial documentary ever made" and setting people up to be accused of not having an open mind if they disagree. The documentary says that there are two sides to every story and it presents you with two sides: You agree or you are a hypocrite. The truth is that there are more than two sides to every story and this documentary attempts to hide or discredit those sides that don't conform with it's goal. This documentary is not objective and I would advise anyone who watches it to be sure to keep their mental guard up against the false choices this documentary cleverly presents.

Jailbait docu

[Karl Self · 4/10 · 30 September 2014]

This documentary starts by putting forward the thesis that "all men are pedophiles" because they find girls around the age of 16 sexually attractive while the legal age of consent "in most countries" is 18. To drive home this theory it shows us a bunch of sultry lolitas in frilly frocks. Well, just a quick shufty at the internet shows that a common age of consent doesn't exist and that it's often around 14-16. Simplistic theory debunked, lurid title exposed.

The movie then goes on to briefly discuss the terms pedophilia, infantophilia and hebophilia and the qualifiers acting out / offending and exclusive / non-exclusive. Strangely, some of the interviews are conducted in a glossy, scripted style that is reminiscent of the fake customer testimonials of home shopping commercials ("I've lost ten stone with the fab ab trainer!"). This is dubbed with the heavy Dutch brogue of the director.

This documentaries has a few good interviews, but overall it never lives up to its overblown premise and consequently is a bit of a dud. So, not all men are pedophiles, but we already knew this. The underlying questions, what is pedophilia, why are some (men) pedophiles and how do we deal with it, are neither touched nor illuminated.

This documentary will provoke your thoughts and make you squirm with discomfort!

[kejholliday · 9/10 · 19 April 2012]

So often sensitive or taboo subjects are avoided, and it's better to be open and honest about them so we can gain a better understanding of ourselves and those around us.

If a person is 24 and is in a relationship with a 16 yr old, is that wrong? What about 30 and 16? 40 and 16? The film argues that girls mature sooner than boys, and for thousands of years our life expectancy was 33 so it made sense to reproduce as soon as the woman came of age (began menses) In the film, they interview a female pedophile. Her graphic story was difficult for me to hear. Another shocking moment is when they interview a woman who was repeatedly raped as a child by her father and a neighbor.

They also interview a man who is out about being a pedophilia. During that interview it is noted that pedophilia is an orientation, not an action. The man interviewed claims to be a non-exclusive, non-offending pedophile, meaning he admits he is sexually attracted to children, but is also attracted to adults and does not act on his attraction to children. He believes a lot of people are attracted to kids; they just won't dare to acknowledge it.

What about the weird sexualization of girls in our society, such as making sweatpants for little girls with words like "JUICY" on the butt? Makeup for kids grooms them for future sexual advertising. And of course, there's the whole beauty pageants for little girls racket.

A friend of mine went to jail for a year because his friend sent him a topless picture of his girlfriend. Turns out the girlfriend was 16 and he got busted for possession of child porn. When he got out of jail he found a job, but was fired two weeks later when the employer found out about his criminal record.

Chid porn is people under age 18 who are portrayed in sexual, lewd conduct erotic behavior. So wouldn't that mean that many magazine ads are child porn? This film digs into these topics and more.

American sexual hangups and stereotypes on full display.

[smilingshadow · 4/10 · 30 June 2017]

I would say this documentary was exactly what I expected it to be. At least people who made it understand a dfference between pedophilia, the real mental disorder, and an arbitrary legal rule that makes a 19 yrs old having oral sex with 17 yrs old a "pedophile" because the state legislature forgot to ad extra provisions for teenagers having oral versus vaginal sex (hello, state of Georgia).

However the fundamental premise of the documentary is wrong. In Western Europe the age of consent is 15 or 16 yrs old and yet you almost never hear about 35 yrs old guys having sex with 16 yrs old. Why? Because normal men do not find teenagers attractive. Even if the law permits it. Actually the ideal procreative age for female today is about 22- 28 yrs old and this is the group most men find attractive, regardless of age.

Also, "teenage porn" is models in their 20s, sometimes 30s, telling to the camera they are 18. Most actual teenagers look 11 on film. Why do you think all high school movies cast actors in their 20s?

And sorry but the only people who find 15 yrs old half-starved models attractive are other women and gay men fasion designers. I mean models look so asexual to normal men that they dressed a teenage boy as a female model and nobody could tell the difference. What does that tell you?

As to the ancient times, yes, in ancient Egypt the average life span was 25, if you did not start having kids at 13, you did not have kids at all. But a few 1000s of years later in advanced civilisations like Greece people lived until 60 and men were not even allowed to get married until they completed their military service at 30. In Sparta, where women got education and were allowed to choose a husband out of their free will they did not even start to think about marriage until 16 and quite often did not marry until 19-20.

Sex at 16

[deelsteelin · 9/10 · 10 November 2012]

Editing: 5 Narrative: 5 Research/Content: 4 Production: 5

Demand on Viewer: Moderate-High (mature/difficult theme) Overall: Very needed for discussion Pedophilia is both a dangerous and widely misunderstood phenomenon. How to make sense of it? Such is the task of this remarkable film, one of the unsung successes screened at the Julien Dubuque International Film Festival.

Director Jan-Willem Breure bravely swims upstream against conventional wisdom in this close and fine-tuned examination of human sexuality and the complex body of knowledge under the simple heading "pedophilia." With interviews of professionals in the field as well as perpetrators and victims of pedophiles, a solid and wide-ranging portrait of this fascinating problem is painted. Among some of the more thought-provoking lines: "Mary was 12 or 13 when she had Jesus" and "Pedophilia (the post-pubescent kind) will eventually come to be accepted." The best distinction this film makes is that pre-pubescent children and post-pubescent children are dramatically different, and should be categorized as such when trying to understand the biological phenomena of sex, including readiness for sex as well as attractiveness to (normal) opposite sex. The number 18 is shown to be an arbitrary starting point for legal consensual sex. Consider the following analysis from PRWEB on this film: We live in a society that condemns pedophiles, though biological instinct and world cultures throughout history suggest that an attraction to adolescents is as natural as it is unavoidable. The fashion industry on the one hand sexualizes ever-younger girls while those who act on these instincts are reviled. According to Jan-Willem Breure, the apparent hypocrisy at the heart of society forces the question: What do we mean when we talk about Pedophilia? Are All Men Pedophiles?

Where do you draw the line? Your answer might be blurry after seeing this well-made and thought-provoking visual essay. Thanks to JDIFF and the screening team for allowing this one through, it was edifying and provoked much discussion afterward. This film proves that only rational thought, not following the herd morality, can lead us to better, safer, more compassionate humane world.

Edward Ober - paperblog

And necrophilia's not so bad either!

[corazontvc · 2/10 · 9 March 2016]

OK, I'll admit I was drawn in by the rather insulting but intriguing title. First, to the technical issues I noticed right away and then on to content. This was apparently made by some Dutch or Scandinavian company, and some of the people on screen are hard to understand. The narrator has some seriously weird pronunciation issues in particular. There are obvious edits and insertions and drop outs. Production values could use improvement. But it's not so bad it's unintelligible.

It starts off with someone throwing down some evolutionary biology in favor of pedo. He says that a woman's peak fertility is at 16 and, therefor, men are by nature going to be attracted to women, well girls, who are that age so they can maximize their reproductive success-all about the Darwins! The girls are attracted, by NATURE!, to older males because they have acquired more resources. So, I checked this out. Turns out that females have maximum fertility in their early to mid-twenties, drops off slowly after their late twenties, and drops off more sharply after 35. Now, it could be that in the stone age, as they called it, things were different, but how would they know? Next the guy said the average human lifespan was 33 at that time. Which means you better get your groove on before you keel over. Yay pedo! Well, people's lifespan most certainly was shorter and in general did adult type things like make babies earlier than today, but this makes it sound like one second after your 33'rd birthday you exploded in a fireball. The reason the average is low is because of the higher levels of infant mortality back then. This is what skews the average to a lower level. If you made it past approximately 15, your chances of living much longer than 33 were reasonably high. There were people who lived a long time. A skeleton was found without any teeth and arthritis. It's basic stuff like this that made me skeptical right off the bat. That's just the first 10 minutes. They also discussed pederasty, an adult having sex with pubescents or pre-pubescents, and how common it was (and some places like in the Middle East still is). How exactly is this increasing reproductive success? Having sex with someone who is not only not of age of fertility, but a union that cannot conceive offspring. Boggles the mind, huh? Infanticide was in places and times no big deal, so let's just bring that back.

Anything good about the movie? Yes, a few good things. It pointed out that the lack of thought and nuance we put into constructing our laws is having a trickle down effect that is ensnaring people who really aren't causing any harm, especially men. I've known plenty of men who genuinely love children and the thought of doing something like pedo causes them to be sick. They will not be alone in a room with a child without a chaperone. They avoid going into professions where they will be around children, like teaching. Everybody loses when paranoia is policy. What I didn't know, is that those under 18 are also committing pedo when they do things like send provocative pics of themselves, like in 'sexting'. They could theoretically, and apparently some have, be on a sex offender list, even if the receiving party raises no objection. I don't like it because it's classless, but then I'm a bit old fashioned, I guess. But a sex offender list? Too much.

The ending is what really gets me and shows what this movie is really up to. It asks 'experts' if pedo will ever become acceptable-one answers yes, someday. She compares it to homosexuality and says once it was classified as a disease and now it's considered a legitimate orientation, just as pedo is. Hate to break this to her, but those are adults who have the agency to make decisions like that, children don't. Is there the rare teen who is mature enough? Sure. But we don't make laws based on the exception. There are under-eighteen kids who have the maturity to vote, but the vast majority don't so they have to wait till 18.

The last scene is the worst. It shows a variety of couples, different races, etc. A voice-over says, 'love knows no color, no gender', etc. Then it shows an adult's hand and a child's hand clasped, 'and love knows no age'. They are trying to soften us up to accept pedo as a legitimate orientation. We're already circling the toilet, the day that happens, we're flushed. Sickening.

Provides more questions than answers...

[RorschachKovacs · 28 July 2014]

Since Are All Men Pedophiles? deals with real life and its issues, it's classified as a "documentary" in contemporary parlance. However, unlike most documentaries which examine a historical event or set of events, this movie focuses more on a widespread cultural phenomenon which is only incidentally historical; I would prefer to term this an educational film or maybe a cinematic investigative report (basically a big-screen version of the hard-hitting exposes regularly available on news channels on TV).

Of course, such reports rarely come without an agenda, and a cinematic version is hardly likely to be any more neutral than TV. To hear this film's many hostile critics talk, though, I tend to think it more successful as a social experiment than as propaganda for much of anything. If the point of making it was to stir up a lot of self-righteous hysteria and make its detractors look like raving imbeciles, at this it has succeeded most impressively. Apparently, a vast majority of the hostile reviewers either didn't actually watch the movie, or were determined not to let any facts confuse their opinions by paying any attention to what it actually says.

In fact, what agenda this film does seem to have is as concise as it is modest. While it raises a great many questions about pedophilia and related topics, the only answer this movie unambiguously provides is to the question in the title. In this answer also lies the agenda: put simply, the popular definition of pedophilia in most contemporary cultures is far too broad. By this definition, not only are virtually all *men* pedophiles (apart from the odd asexual and gerontophile), but all boys and no small number of girls and women! What director Jan-Willem Breure would like us to do is accept the much narrower clinical definition of pedophile commonly used as the basis for our laws, which refers only to individuals (male or female) sexually attracted to prepubescent children; nothing more, and nothing less.

As to "justifying" pedophilia or hebephilia (or the less-commonly-used English variant "hebophilia" this movie uses) or advocating for changes in age-of-consent laws or any other sexual laws, neither this movie nor anyone in it attempts anything of the sort. It's not advocating for "men's rights" or "children's rights" or any other "rights" except for the individual rights all of us are already supposed to have that popular culture's insanely broad and hypocritical definition preemptively denies us: habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, and a fair trial. To this end, the movie points to a number of historical and contemporary realities that tend to contradict the tidy cultural narrative so many have adopted by which any male so much as a day over eighteen who finds anyone so much as a day under eighteen the least bit sexually attractive is to be condemned as a pedophile, which is to say a monstrous sexual predator whose humanity and very right to exist are questionable at best.

In all other matters, this movie seems to serve almost no purpose but to raise questions without answering them. It takes us on a brief tour of cultures from past to present, bringing up the practical concerns of childbearing in savage eras when the average lifespan was dangerously low and few would live to see the births of their grandchildren, and pitting them against more contemporary philosophical concerns about sexuality and its impact on our society. Through snippets of popular culture, sound bites from various individuals on the street, and in-depth testimonies from pedophiles and victims and various experts on related subjects, we hear a great many opinions and narratives that flatly contradict each other. At no time are we offered any simple resolutions to any of these contradictions.

If any actual pedophiles come looking to watch this movie for prurient purposes, chances are they'll be sorely disappointed. Its most potentially prurient sequence is exactly one brief and relatively tame animated example of Japan's "lolicon" line-drawings which employs all the usual censors' tricks to stop just short of showing us all of an obviously prepubescent girl's forbidden parts during a magical clothing transformation. Likewise, if they come looking for some kind of justification for molesting youngsters, they won't find one. Accepting the clinical distinction between hebephilia, pedophilia, and normal adolescent sexuality (as our legal systems already do to some degree) is not going to make statutory rape any more socially acceptable or make children and teenagers any more vulnerable to sexual predators.

Indeed, if anything, the popular broad definition of "pedophile" with all of its paradoxical inconsistencies is by far the greater danger to our children and our civilization. As Are All Men Pedophiles? points out, the popular definition of "pedophilia" already has men and boys looking over their shoulders as a sexist double standard bars males from seeking employment in schools and daycare centers, while boys (but almost never girls) are declared child pornographers and registered as sex offenders for "sexting" whether they are on the sending or receiving end. Beneath all their pretended concern for the safety of our children and our society's alleged need to crack down on sexual crime, our politicians know that if "pedophilia" can mean anything they and their media lackeys want it to mean, no dissenter will ever be safe from character-assassinating show trials.

Breure's report is far from being a complete recommendation for what kind of moral and social (not to mention legal) reforms we need to end the hateful hysteria-generated witch hunt against men and boys our supposed superiors have foisted on us through popular culture. Nevertheless, it's a start.

Attempts to Justify Men Having Sex with Teenage Girls

[candylilacs · 1/10 · 15 June 2014]

It becomes very evident, in about the first few minutes of watching this on Netlix, that this "documentary" has an agenda. I think when you come out with a generalization that since you found children attractive at the age of 13-16, "As you grow older, children under the age of 18 do not become less attractive."

Granted, I'm not a man, but I find 16 year old boys kind of funny- looking, I see many young girls as being skinny and weird-looking, too. Anyway, the whole film is just riddled with hasty generalizations and awful, illogical arguments. Since when does the age of the Virgin Mary have to do with anything? Or that one 13-year-old dated an 18-year-old and isn't traumatized by it? That hardly counts as more than an anecdote, not evidence of anything.

Add the labored and barely understandable narration by heavily-accented director/writer Jan-Willem Breure, junk science (it makes *a lot* of poor evolutionary hypotheses that could be destroyed in an elementary school science class), and an underlying agenda of the producer and his ilk wanting to date/have sex with young girls -- although Breure does admit that sex with young girls before puberty is wrong -- and it's not surprising this has only appeared on Netflix. No network or distributor would touch this because of its amateurish content.

Breure also uses the argument that women can be pedophiles -- which means what? That doesn't cancel out the fact that men are pedophiles, too. He also suggests that teens are sexting, and that teens are considered distributors of one-third of the world's child pornography, but this argument is used to insinuate that many child pornographers and users are teens, not adult men.

If you are a pedophile, or want to commit statutory rape, please speak to someone and seek help. Don't attempt to justify your decision by watching this film.

What appears to be a serious inquiry sure seems to have an entirely different agenda.

[planktonrules · 1/10 · 25 July 2014]

I have rarely, if ever, watched a documentary that made me as angry as "Are All Men Pedophiles?". While it sometimes asks very interesting questions, it also seems to have an agenda…and a seriously disturbed one at that. Now I can be open-minded about other opinions, but sometimes being THAT open-minded is really, really stupid…and I strongly suspect most viewers also won't be THIS open-minded.

Are All Men Pedophiles? is a new documentary that just appeared on Netflix. I was intrigued by the title—especially since when I was much younger, I was a therapist in private practice that kept getting pedophiles referred to us as patients. Over time, I felt that much of what I was doing by providing outpatient therapy was a huge disservice to the community, as it gave the false promise that psychotherapy could somehow 'cure' these folks. It also gave the false impression that therapy was often preferable to incarceration. So, it's obvious I have my strong opinions about sexual offending and I was very curious to see exactly what this new film was trying to say.

Well, what it seems to assert is VERY shocking—and provides ample justification for the sexualization and exploitation of children. Arguments the film gives is that in our historical past men often engaged in sexual behavior with children, that it has an evolutionary basis and that successful models used by the media are often under-aged— so men being attracted to young girls is normal. And this is why they appear to argue that pedophilia isn't really a bad thing. It also uses words like 'always' and 'all'—as if to say every man secretly want to engage in sex with children but this seems very dubious to say the least. But this isn't all. The movie also presents stories of pedophiles and victims—ones that many pedophiles will no doubt find stimulating. The film also does something that is not especially helpful nor is in line with recent research about sexual abuse of children. It tries to differentiate between types of pedophiles—as if some are 'good' and others are 'bad'. In fact, they call some pedophiles 'true pedophiles' and others are apparently NOT. What does this mean? And, why make such distinctions? I sure know that if either of my daughters was molested, I wouldn't wonder if it was a 'true' pedophile!!

So is everything about this film awful? No. The film does make a point that television, movies and print media over-sexualize young girls. This cannot be denied. It is also true that ages of consent vary by nation and culture. But to take the leap that sex between teens and adults is somehow acceptable is quite disturbing.

So, if I set aside the messages that the film appears to be promoting is it a well made film? I really don't think so. Too many of their points seemed to ignore evidence to the contrary or anyone with a different opinion. While the film appears to be a scientific and educated inquiry, it often uses opinions as facts and constructs bizarre arguments to promote their agenda. It also seems to ignore emotional damage to victims—especially when often it shows victims who seem to have enjoyed this adult-child sexual contact.

Why did they make this film and exactly who is its intended audience?! I don't know…I just know it isn't something I would ever consider recommending to anyone. And, I wonder why Netflix chose to include this film in their library as opposed to one that might condemn sexual abuse.

Excellent concept; oddly executed

[clc9009 · 8/10 · 7 December 2014]

First off: The title is just atrocious. Literally anything else would be better. Narration was weird, too. Overall, not horrible though. One of the first (only?) films that tries to address an issue we never talk about. This will be a 100% polarizing film. Some might see it as a pedo apologist documentary. Others might see it as an insight into a dark and disturbing world. It makes you think, however. What are the chances that you know a pedophile? What defines a pedophile? Are *any* of them legitimately sorry that they feel the way they feel? Is it wrong for male homo sapiens to be attracted to females entering/exiting puberty? We aren't as different from other primates as some would like to think. Why is it seemingly so common for men (and women) to abuse children? Why is more research not being done into treatment? Ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away. And the answer is not to neuter every sex offender before you shoot them in the head. Is it a coincidence that Catholic priests are repressed and deprived of adult intimacy and find an outlet in the form of child abuse? Why does basically every religion condone childhood sexuality? It clearly isn't a 21st Century problem only. The film does not even remotely hint about legalizing sexual relations with a "child." It prompts us to consider scientific facts and cultural taboos for understanding why the media has made us all afraid to discuss sexual topics and our "innocent" imagery of anyone under the age of 18.

Perpetuating Harmful Misconceptions

[dearestdarlingamae · 1/10 · 1 June 2014]

I am very disappointed in this films choice to involve Lolita Fashion in an implication that it is a fetish. The cover features a girl in the Japanese street style Lolita on the cover but then shows the style in the film with no explanation as to what it is. This leads me to believe that the producer did no research on the fashion or its values, which anyone could very easily find out through a quick google search, are directed twords modesty (blouses, long skirts, bloomers under dresses, buttoned up collars, no cleavage, no shoulders, no midriff, small amounts of visible leg) and are not at all directed to fetishes or sexual content. The style takes inspiration from Rococo Era french clothing and Victorian Era fashion. The general Lolita Fashion community tries to distance itself from the misconception that this style is a fetish or sexual costume, so it is evident how this film could help perpetuate this ignorant stereotype of people who wear the clothes. This was disgraceful to the people who participate in this fashion and also shows how little thought was put into the details of this documentary.

A provocative sounding documentary

[fayromptony · 10/10 · 10 November 2012]

That is the question posed by this new Documentary by Jan-Willem Breure focusing on adult-teenager intercourse, and the lines between finding a younger girl attractive or not. The poster for the flick features an attractive chick…who is 14. Or, if you find her attractive, it makes you a pedophile I guess.

In my opinion, saying this girl is attractive is fine. Your average adult male is not thinking about going and diddling her, she's just good looking. After all, she is a model. The movie was actually inspired by Breure's attraction to teenage girls. He is 23. And he wanted to investigate whether this was pedophilia or not. They base theories on younger girls in the past getting married. Even, as you'll see in the trailer below, they discuss the age of the Virgin Mary when she may have been impregnated with Jesus. They talk about our age laws here in North America Vs. other countries around the World. Personally, I think the laws make perfect sense her. Girls and boys are raised differently here. We are still immature and don't quite understand consequence until a later age. Our society reflects this perfectly. Whereas somewhere in a third world country where you are a "man" or "woman" no longer a boy or girl, at the age of 13, it's completely different. Even then, the idea of an adult male, say 33, having intercourse with a teenager is simply wrong.

Definitely a provocative sounding documentary. What do you think?

Matt Berry - x929

Rather disturbing attempt to justify child abuse

[Dcamplisson · 1/10 · 27 June 2014]

This is a not very well made and thinly disguised attempt to push the idea that having sex with children is acceptable. It is rather reminiscent of the Chariot of the Gods type of thing. It uses facts ( or ideas) plucked out of a great variety of unrelated cultures and presents them as somehow convincing proof that sex with kids is quite okay. Two clichés introduced are that Mary, mother of Jesus was 12 or 15 when she had the baby Jesus. There is really no discussion of this it s just put there as if it is persuasive. Then we hear about Mohammed and Aisha. Again there is absolutely no context given. It s even mentioned where or when they lived and no discussion of their relationship. It is just stated that she was nine. Jews aren't spared. The age for bar mizvah and bat mizvah are stated as if they have significance in this context. But I kind of doubt that lots of Jews consider 12 year old girls as legitimate sexual partners. The rest of it is just as bad. They have a modeling agency executive made unsupported claims such as " everyone wants to be a model". I don't know none who has that aspiration. However since the message is unsavoury and a bit hamfisted anyway, this doesn't really detract from the attempt to persuade. We hear about Greek man bit relationships and then, very oddly, they state as if it is a known fact that institutions such as the church in centuries past included sexual rituals between adults and children. I teach medieval history and I have no idea what they were talking about. Lots of "facts" are stated but without any evidence at all. For example it is supposedly common knowledge that most men prefer 16 year old girls no matter how old they themselves are. Sounds fishy. Maybe the people who made this strange film move in Different circles from the rest of us. Fortunately this is a short film so it was over before it got too prurient. I cannot call it a documentary as It is not at all factual or objective. It is more of a commercial for child sex. It's one of the most distasteful films I've seen and I'd suggest skipping it unless this is a topic that you find titillating. It does contain some stories about perverse acts that include sexual details. Their agenda is explicit only at the end of the film. They say " 18 is just an age" and " all sex should be consensual NO MATTER WHAT THE AGE". They don't Even bother to discuss the fact that kids cannot give informed consent.

More than a disappointment

[nicoleborcha · 4 April 2016]

I began this documentary seeking to be educating about a touchy subject and was deeply disappointed. I won't even qualify this as a documentary. It seems very fake - very scripted. I'm imagining some pedophile sitting in his room and writing the script for this film all on his own as he attempts to justify his attraction to children. The "film" seems to argue that because women reach sexual maturity at a slightly earlier age than men, and because in the past, men and women have historically had sex at younger ages (shorter lifespans) - that somehow pedophilia today, in the 21st century, is justified. It fails to take into account so many things. First, you can't pick and choose how evolution applies to sexual attraction. If all attraction was completely natural, and it was all about reproduction, we would all be heterosexual and men would be attracted to big, round women. This is not the case because social norms, beliefs, values, and life experiences also play a role in what someone finds attractive. Just because a woman completes puberty around the age of 16 doesn't mean it's okay for a 40 year old man to want to have sex with her. Often, age & size = power, coercion is a factor. Another issue, sexual/physical maturity is not the same as mental maturity. If someone is still young, and inexperienced, and doesn't know what they want, and is seeking validation (as many young people today are) it becomes incredibly easy to manipulate them. This entire film is very one- sided, and every argument is easily rebutted. If you want to amaze yourself with the kind of stupidity that is able to make it's way into the "educative" genre of film, then go ahead and watch. Otherwise, don't even waste your time.

Only watch if you need something to angry-blog about

[xo-sammielovesyou · 1/10 · 22 October 2014]

This film attempts to make excuses for pedophiles and tries to justify the illness by claiming it's "instinctive". Incredibly heteronormative, especially in the end when there's a whole montage about love not seeing age, race, etc but makes no mention of other genders. The reason I watched this is because the title card has a picture of a girl in Lolita fashion. For anyone who doesn't know what that is, or has just thought of the book of the same name: Lolita fashion is a Japanese street fashion inspired by the frilly and feminine styles of the Victorian and Rococo eras. The main focus of the style is a careful coordination of elegance and cuteness. Although it can appear as somewhat childish, it is not about the infantilization of woman nor is it even remotely done for men's approval. The representation of Lolita is short in the film, but it's very clear that the creators DID NOT do their research on the fashion.

In conclusion, this film is lazy, gross, and creepy. It's obvious that the creators couldn't be bothered to do much research and as a result they really miss out on a chance to tell the important story.

Spoiler Alert- Was Missing Important Aspects of The Argument It Sought To Make

[nmk330 · 4/10 · 10 January 2015]

This documentary brings up a valid an interesting point about sexual attraction and its relation to the age of puberty.

Certainly young pubescent women will be attractive to older men because evolutionarily, they are the fittest partners. This is why we find so many "normal" non pedophilia labeled men attracted the porn stars dressed in school uniforms having sex with "teacher." The documentary does a great job of explaining the difference between pedophilia and hebophilia which I think is an interesting and valid issue to bring up.

However, where I disagree is the film's suggestion that sexual attraction to young teens is acceptable more or less as long as consent in there. But it fails to bring up the issue of changing maturity levels between pubescent teens today, and pubescent teens who were courting and reproducing at 13 in the stone age.

Young teens today are far more sheltered and much less mature in my opinion then they have been at other time periods in world history. Certainly they have access to much more knowledge via the internet but most teens live at home in western culture today well into their 20's.

In short, I can understand a biological attraction to young girls or boys clearly in or past puberty, but I still don't think children below the age o maybe 17 or 18 are mature enough to consent to their bodies being used sexually by older people or even people their own age.

The film seemed to pushing an agenda to me that suggested that only actual pedophilia (attraction to pre pubscent children) should be shunned, while hebophilia has actually been celebrated in past cultures.

No. My 13 year old cousin may be in puberty, but she still plays with dolls and participates in the girl scouts. If any man tried to tell me she can consent to any sexual act with him, I'm going to jail for manslaughter.

Mental maturity and ability to truly consent should always be an important aspect of this discussion and was conveniently left out of a film that seemed to be made for old men wanting to justify sex with teens.

Portrayal of Lolita fashion was severely problematic

[supesawky · 1/10 · 23 August 2014]

I am very upset with the portrayal of Lolita fashion in this documentary. Lolita fashion does not contribute to pedophilia. The name is shared with a novel by Vladimir Nabokov and there is no relation between the novel and the fashion. It is very insulting to say that Japanese Lolita fashion contributes to men's fantasies, especially because most Japanese men HATE the fashion! Girls in Japan keep wearing it probably even more so because of that. Saying that a fashion choice is part of pedophilia is indicative of rape culture and must be stopped. It disgusts me that a photo of a Lolita girl was used as the cover for this mediocre documentary. It's too bad I could not give this documentary less than a 1/10.

This can't be real. A joke right?

[mehmetoney · 1/10 · 15 October 2020]

Through the end of this "so called" documentary, they mentioned that, as long as there is no sexual action, sexual thoughts on children can be referred as sexual orientation, but not a mental problem. And they used sweet 16 thing to defend that idea. Yeah right!

How about the sexual thoughts of a person, towards ages of 10-11? Is that a a sexual orientation too? Are you completely dumb or out of your mind?

This is a seriously sick minded film, with an absolute agenda.

Other than defining terms, a bit dull ...

[bruce-129 · 2 December 2016]

This movie tries to be titillating and provocative, and I suppose it is to a certain degree given just the subject matter, but it is mostly kind of boring because there is no real thread of ideas, a plot or a point.

The one thing it does it is give the viewer some information, such as what various terms actually mean and what are their histories as well as what is the age of consent and what is considered normal in other countries across the world.

Does not seem to advocated for any particular viewpoint or really explore the subject such as comparing what same age relationships are like versus different age and gender situations. Also seems to ignore feminist issues such as the objectification or commoditization of women, so contrary to a lot of comments here this is not a feminist movie per se, though the facts do lean in a certain way .... as Stephen Colbert quoted reality has a well known liberal bias! ;-)

Probably worth watching if you are interested and want to know some facts.

5/10

Didn't Care

[jamesdonnie · 1/10 · 16 May 2022]

I just couldn't watch all of it. There were some stuff that were wrong. Like saying most gave birth at 13, but didn't people back then have a lot of kids? Despite what some people believe a 12-14 year old girl is fertile then a 18-22 year old women. Yes younger is more fertile, but that is young as in no younger then 18 or 16. I don't know if a 12 year old is more fertile then a 39 year old. However according to research older teens and women in their 20s are the most fertile. Younger teens and preteens go through a subfertility Also young teens are less likely to survive childbirth.

@ nmk330 A girl around 13 makes a worse partner even in the Stone Age. She is less likely to survive childbirth and less fertile. Teen girls go through a subfertility for a few years. She is most fertile as early as 16-18 and late as 23-24. Not saying younger girls olds don't ovulate, but not on every cycle. Even during the Stone Age 13 is too young. But 30 would be too old, so 15-16. But under 15 or 16 would not be good for pregnancy. Teen pregnancy is worse for girls under 15/16.