Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Abby Watts 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.

sandowl I watched this film and it provides a premise of pedophilia as a sexuality rather than an illness. It wants acceptance in mainstream society of pedophilia, rather than intense medical treatment.Let's get this straight - some true facts about this issue; 1.Paedophiles are those interested in prepubescent children 2. Child Molesters are those interested in pubescent children. Both of these categories are composed entirely of under age children, not capable of consenting to any type of sexual relationship.Paedophiles have a choice to act out their sexual perversions on children, or to not act out. This film wants people to 'open their minds' to the fact that pedophilia was happening back in ancient Greek times and not considered odd or wrong, so why is it now? {In ancient Greek times, older men would have a relationship with younger men in the form of a mentor-ship. This mentor relationship often had sexual activity involved. To the ancient Greeks, prepubescent boys were off limits}I would like to address this - Humans evolve over time and we now know, without a shadow of a doubt, pedophilia damages children. It damages children, families, communities and society as a whole. It ruins lives - abilities to have relationships with self and others, intimate relationships with friends, partners and children.While I do not dispute the rarest possibility of non-active pedophiles, who do not act out, I have no doubts about the abhorrence of child rape perpetrated by active pedophiles.The film talks about shame caused by societies views of pedophiles. It IS a shameful act. Raping children is shameful full stop. A pedophile who is not raping a child, yet uses media (photos, video, Internet) to observe young children in sexual acts - or indeed sits around parks/schools where young children congregate in order to gain some stimulation for private sexual gratification - is, actually, an active pedophile who is acting out. Children are entitled to be free from sexual objectification. A pedophile sitting on a bench in a park, as one does in this film, watching children walking by in uniforms and such, stating he does not 'act out' on his feelings, is being untruthful. As said above, deliberately sitting in a public place, at times when children are particularly known to be present, (or a children's park/playground etc) IS 'acting out'.This film reminds me of the group NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Association) which promotes pedophilia, lowering of age limits and believes children have an ability to make decisions appropriately regarding older adults sexually penetrating them.It is now common knowledge that the human brain does not fully develop it's fear and cognitive abilities until around the age of 25 years old.No child is able to determine and decide for themselves, to have a sexual relationship with an adult.This film, in my opinion is nothing short of trying to normalize pedophilia and make it acceptable in society. Trying to liken it to homosexuality and not the heinous crime it actually is. Paedophilia is an illness, whether a person acts on it or not and needs to be treated as such. There may be some people who watch this and fall for the bull%^&t contained within - no matter how you dress it up, pedophilia is still child rape and abuse. This includes the support, exchange and creation of child pornography, sexual objectification of minors while they are carrying on their normal days and anything else which violates their sovereign selves.I completely give this film a 20,000 thumbs down.I am an informed person regarding pedophilia and I find films such as these quite frightening, as they have the power to influence the minds of those not so informed and those vulnerable to manipulation.If by chance any children read these reviews - If someone older than you is asking you to do things that involve your private areas or their private areas, please tell someone- these people are sick and very dangerous. Tell someone you feel safe with. Tell your parents, or a policeman or policewoman, or a teacher at your school, or your doctor. No matter what, keep telling people what is going on until someone helps you. It is NOT your fault. You are NOT bad. You did NOTHING wrong. You do NOT deserve to be hurt. You DO deserve to be listened to and believed. You ARE important. You DO matter. *hug*Addendum Feb 2017: The clarification of differences between pedophiles and child molesters can be extremely confusing. Please visit the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. This site has links to information regarding these topics and definitions. Another site, with clinical study results is the Child Molestation Prevention .org website.

xo-sammielovesyou 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.

J C "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.