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.

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?

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.