Are All Men Pedophiles? (2013)

That was an excellent one.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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.

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.

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.

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.