First off: The title is just atrocious. Literally anything else would be better. Narration was weird, too. Overall, not horrible though. One of the first (only?) films that tries to address an issue we never talk about. This will be a 100% polarizing film. Some might see it as a pedo apologist documentary. Others might see it as an insight into a dark and disturbing world. It makes you think, however. What are the chances that you know a pedophile? What defines a pedophile? Are *any* of them legitimately sorry that they feel the way they feel? Is it wrong for male homo sapiens to be attracted to females entering/exiting puberty? We aren't as different from other primates as some would like to think. Why is it seemingly so common for men (and women) to abuse children? Why is more research not being done into treatment? Ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away. And the answer is not to neuter every sex offender before you shoot them in the head. Is it a coincidence that Catholic priests are repressed and deprived of adult intimacy and find an outlet in the form of child abuse? Why does basically every religion condone childhood sexuality? It clearly isn't a 21st Century problem only. The film does not even remotely hint about legalizing sexual relations with a "child." It prompts us to consider scientific facts and cultural taboos for understanding why the media has made us all afraid to discuss sexual topics and our "innocent" imagery of anyone under the age of 18.

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.

I am very disappointed in this films choice to involve Lolita Fashion in an implication that it is a fetish. The cover features a girl in the Japanese street style Lolita on the cover but then shows the style in the film with no explanation as to what it is. This leads me to believe that the producer did no research on the fashion or its values, which anyone could very easily find out through a quick google search, are directed twords modesty (blouses, long skirts, bloomers under dresses, buttoned up collars, no cleavage, no shoulders, no midriff, small amounts of visible leg) and are not at all directed to fetishes or sexual content. The style takes inspiration from Rococo Era french clothing and Victorian Era fashion. The general Lolita Fashion community tries to distance itself from the misconception that this style is a fetish or sexual costume, so it is evident how this film could help perpetuate this ignorant stereotype of people who wear the clothes. This was disgraceful to the people who participate in this fashion and also shows how little thought was put into the details of this documentary.

So often sensitive or taboo subjects are avoided, and it's better to be open and honest about them so we can gain a better understanding of ourselves and those around us.If a person is 24 and is in a relationship with a 16 yr old, is that wrong? What about 30 and 16? 40 and 16? The film argues that girls mature sooner than boys, and for thousands of years our life expectancy was 33 so it made sense to reproduce as soon as the woman came of age (began menses) In the film, they interview a female pedophile. Her graphic story was difficult for me to hear. Another shocking moment is when they interview a woman who was repeatedly raped as a child by her father and a neighbor.They also interview a man who is out about being a pedophilia. During that interview it is noted that pedophilia is an orientation, not an action. The man interviewed claims to be a non-exclusive, non-offending pedophile, meaning he admits he is sexually attracted to children, but is also attracted to adults and does not act on his attraction to children. He believes a lot of people are attracted to kids; they just won't dare to acknowledge it.What about the weird sexualization of girls in our society, such as making sweatpants for little girls with words like "JUICY" on the butt? Makeup for kids grooms them for future sexual advertising. And of course, there's the whole beauty pageants for little girls racket.A friend of mine went to jail for a year because his friend sent him a topless picture of his girlfriend. Turns out the girlfriend was 16 and he got busted for possession of child porn. When he got out of jail he found a job, but was fired two weeks later when the employer found out about his criminal record.Chid porn is people under age 18 who are portrayed in sexual, lewd conduct erotic behavior. So wouldn't that mean that many magazine ads are child porn? This film digs into these topics and more.