You won't be disappointed!

i must have seen a different film!!

Excellent adaptation.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

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.

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.

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.

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