VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

nmk330 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.

McKenna Steele Not a very solid documentary from a technical standpoint. A lot of the "evidence" provided is anecdotal at best, with very few experts backing up what the narrator says. Every last one of the interviews sounded scripted and forced, like they were pre-written. The narrator just gives the viewer the same information over and over again. He talks a lot, but he doesn't actually say anything.Now, the content...that's a whole new story. I appreciate that this documentary covered the topic of female pedophiles/hebephiles, because I feel like that's something that needs more coverage by the media. However, I feel like the main message conveyed by the documentary is that while lusting after kids is wrong, wanting to have sex with teenagers is totally normal and natural. It feels like this documentary almost encourages those sorts of relationships.Relationships between adults and teenagers are unhealthy, period. I don't mean ones between, say, 18 year olds and 15 year olds, I mean the ones between people in their early to mid twenties and people in their mid teens. Teenagers are not mentally mature enough to get into a relationship with such a twisted balance of power.When I was 14-16, I was in two relationships with adults. One spanned from when I was barely 14 years old to a little after my 15th birthday with a man 7 years older than me. I was a child then and he exploited it. The second one was from when I was barely 15 to a little after my 16th birthday with a man who was 10 years older than me. These relationships completely skewed my ideas of love in a negative light, because I was - let me emphasize this - a CHILD. Teenagers absolutely do not have the mental capacity for serious romantic relationships with adults, because they are so easily manipulated and coerced into harrowing situations. I feel like this documentary could have done a much better job exploring the power play between children, teenagers, and adults. It could have been a great way to open up lines of communication regarding pedophilia and the sexualization of minors. Unfortunately, when you look past the choppy, poorly thought out arguments, the shoddy narration, and the overall laziness of the documentary, it comes across as a half-baked justification of lusting after teenagers.I'm truly disappointed because I was looking for something thought provoking. Instead, I just feel gross.

candylilacs 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.

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.