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.

Karl Self This documentary starts by putting forward the thesis that "all men are pedophiles" because they find girls around the age of 16 sexually attractive while the legal age of consent "in most countries" is 18. To drive home this theory it shows us a bunch of sultry lolitas in frilly frocks. Well, just a quick shufty at the internet shows that a common age of consent doesn't exist and that it's often around 14-16. Simplistic theory debunked, lurid title exposed.The movie then goes on to briefly discuss the terms pedophilia, infantophilia and hebophilia and the qualifiers acting out / offending and exclusive / non-exclusive. Strangely, some of the interviews are conducted in a glossy, scripted style that is reminiscent of the fake customer testimonials of home shopping commercials ("I've lost ten stone with the fab ab trainer!"). This is dubbed with the heavy Dutch brogue of the director.This documentaries has a few good interviews, but overall it never lives up to its overblown premise and consequently is a bit of a dud. So, not all men are pedophiles, but we already knew this. The underlying questions, what is pedophilia, why are some (men) pedophiles and how do we deal with it, are neither touched nor illuminated.

Dcamplisson This is a not very well made and thinly disguised attempt to push the idea that having sex with children is acceptable. It is rather reminiscent of the Chariot of the Gods type of thing. It uses facts ( or ideas) plucked out of a great variety of unrelated cultures and presents them as somehow convincing proof that sex with kids is quite okay. Two clichés introduced are that Mary, mother of Jesus was 12 or 15 when she had the baby Jesus. There is really no discussion of this it s just put there as if it is persuasive. Then we hear about Mohammed and Aisha. Again there is absolutely no context given. It s even mentioned where or when they lived and no discussion of their relationship. It is just stated that she was nine. Jews aren't spared. The age for bar mizvah and bat mizvah are stated as if they have significance in this context. But I kind of doubt that lots of Jews consider 12 year old girls as legitimate sexual partners. The rest of it is just as bad. They have a modeling agency executive made unsupported claims such as " everyone wants to be a model". I don't know none who has that aspiration. However since the message is unsavoury and a bit hamfisted anyway, this doesn't really detract from the attempt to persuade. We hear about Greek man bit relationships and then, very oddly, they state as if it is a known fact that institutions such as the church in centuries past included sexual rituals between adults and children. I teach medieval history and I have no idea what they were talking about. Lots of "facts" are stated but without any evidence at all. For example it is supposedly common knowledge that most men prefer 16 year old girls no matter how old they themselves are. Sounds fishy. Maybe the people who made this strange film move in Different circles from the rest of us. Fortunately this is a short film so it was over before it got too prurient. I cannot call it a documentary as It is not at all factual or objective. It is more of a commercial for child sex. It's one of the most distasteful films I've seen and I'd suggest skipping it unless this is a topic that you find titillating. It does contain some stories about perverse acts that include sexual details. Their agenda is explicit only at the end of the film. They say " 18 is just an age" and " all sex should be consensual NO MATTER WHAT THE AGE". They don't Even bother to discuss the fact that kids cannot give informed consent.

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.