MovieChat Forums > Are All Men Pedophiles? (2013) Discussion > '18 is just a number'

'18 is just a number'

posted 10 years ago by tardifisa
39 replies | jump to latest

I practically forced myself to keep on watching, even if i threw up in my mouth a few times.

Definitely not made by feminists, the title is indeed misleading. It felt like propaganda, a lot of psycho-babble to "explain" and dare I say, excuse pedophilia.

They go through all the evolution theories I've heard before about short lifespan in the stone ages, about how men and women were wired for the survival of the species to explain why a man will find a young woman more attractive than the older one.

Then, they move up the history ladder and talk about the practice of pederasty in ancient Greece, normalizing hebophilia, how it was not frowned upon, but rather regarded with a certain respect among the society, broadly part of social life.

What the movie makers accomplished, or at least tried to in reality, is tell the viewer that pedophilia is not the bad thing society makes it out to be by deciding the legal consenting age to be 18 (showing how it was set to 18 in westernized countries because of, among other things, sex would not mess with the teenagers' "education"!!!!) but in fact, over the globe, it ranges from 9 years old to 20 years old. How can some countries be right and others be so wrong?

They then proceed to explain that in fact, what is really frowned upon by society is infantophilia, which is sex with prepubescent kids, aging from 0 to 13 years old. They also have "experts" explaining that a pedophile that is non-active is just fine, it’s those who act upon their feelings that we need to send to jail. Saying something to the effect that we cannot punish someone for something thought of but not acted upon.

Basically, its it’s fine to sexualize a kid in puberty, to prey on them and to have sex with them because, society very arbitrarily decided 18 was the legalized consenting age! Its It’s easy enough to have a 14, 15 or 16 year old girl convinced she's in love and wants to have sex with an older man.

To me, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!

So, I don't believe all men are pedophiles, or hebophiles. That being said, I still think its wrong for grown men to have sex with teenage girls.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tardifisa 10 years ago

Frankly, 18, 19, 20... its all pretty much the same. But at some point, you have to decide on a number. I do think that at 25, there is more difference if you are attracted to 18, 19 years old girls than if you look the other way, towards a 30 years old. Its about life/sexual experience as well. I'm not saying it all has to be a real relationship, right now, i'm not even contemplating that side of the equation. Maturity in life is one thing, but sexual maturity comes later, giving yourself a chance to decide what you like or dislike or even how far you want to go. Girls are so impressionable! To me, its about giving them the opportunity to be true to themselves and not regret their past when they reach 30.

In my mind, teenagers experimenting with teenagers a year or so difference, its how it should be, but even if a boy is 17 or 18 and experimenting with 13 years old girls, it is creepy.

Aside from wanting to be "the first", I see no reason (not even going to go down the perverse side) to contemplate sex with an underage girl.

Mind you, i have a 13 years old daughter, and the thought of a predator, even under the age of 18 working his charm on her creeps me out and scares me to death. Maybe if I had a boy, my view wouldn't be the same.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tardifisa 10 years ago

Not sure where and how you came to this very insightful description of my mental capacity, but you must know better (sarcastic) than me.

At 25, most people are adults and mature. At 18, 19 and 20 they are legally adults, but most are not mature. That's where I make a distinction.

You are so not even close to how I see my daughter and treat her that your statement is almost funny to me. I trust my daughter's decisions and I listen to her views and opinions, but she's but a child, a child that could be mistaken to be a young adult by her physical development, but her mind is not there yet. Not because she's brainless, but because she is JUST 13! She has much to learn and understand before she can chose for herself in many areas of her life; sex only being one of that. I wouldn't let her decide to stop school or to live on her own. Sex is not just a fun thing; it can have many many consequences; pregnancy being probably the not so bad problem of the bunch.

Lets agree to disagree and please, do not resort to "analyzing" anyone online from 2 short postings; you are bound to be mistaking.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tardifisa 10 years ago

If I misunderstood your reply, I'm very sorry. It felt to me, when you started with: You act like an 18 or 19 woman... was a reference on me.

I could totally be lost in translation since English is not my birth language.

I thought I answered your question by saying that you might be considered an adult at 18, 19 or 20, legally anyway, but most lack maturity; thus, having a 25 years old with a 19 years old to me can be improper compared to a 25 with a 30 years old.

It is clearer now to me that you were not referring to my daughter at 13, but pushing it forward in time. And again, I have to agree that at 18 or 19, the decision will be hers, not mine. I can only help her grow up to be an independent, mature, balanced adult. But she will take decisions that I will not agree with, that she might regret later (yes, we all have made those!) and others that will only help her to grow in wisdom.

Basically, I want her to live her life stages one at a time, enjoy them or curse them, but not miss out on what is the building blocks of life. One thing at a time. This is where the "pervs" come into play in my mind, pushing her further than she is willing to because they are charming or master manipulators.

This movie, at times, seems to make an apology of pedophilia (or hebophilia), and of course, to me, its all just wrong.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tardifisa 10 years ago

You certainly are welcomed to watch it, but we're in the territory of opinion and beliefs, the movie will not help you understand my stand on things!

I tried to answer by saying that I believe at 18, 19 or even 20, legal age makes you an adult, but the maturity is often lacking, when at 25, its usually kicked in.

Maturity doesn't freeze, it evolves, but for most, at 25, you are able to hold a job, work a budget and keep a house, have kids and big responsibilities that at 18, 19, 20, many cannot. I'm not saying we're all dumb at that age, its not about that, we are just not at the same place and at 25, looking ahead (towards older people) is looking at mature people, looking behind (towards younger people), is most often looking at less mature people.

BUT, because there has to be a but! I don't see it as illegal, not does the law; so of course, its just an opinion and is not worth anything to anyone else than me!

I hope I made it clear enough this time!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tardifisa 10 years ago

I agree that a blanket statement is often wrong; humans are many different things. But on a legal side, a number must be decided upon, and as it is said in the movie, even that has quite a range depending on where you are, going from 9 to 21.

The movie goes into describing what is pedophilia, explaining there are 3 types, about the infants up to pre-pubescents and to pubescents.

At times it feels like propaganda trying to defendant hebophilia (sex or attraction to teenagers), with the whole discussion about how in the stone age we needed to procreate and life expectancy was not what it is now. How in the middle ages girls were married much younger than they are now.

Their intellectual approach is not wrong per say, but it feels definitely biased; trying to make their point, which is sex with an infant or a pre-pubescent girl is wrong, but there is history on sex with pubescent ones.

They talk about women pedophiles, but its short and not a long segment; there is of course less women predators than there are men.

I'm the curious type, so I had to watch it. As a mother of a young girl and as a woman, its all very confusing to me that a grown man could be interested sexually into a young girl, and not being considered a pedophile.

There is a man on here, on another board, that was very direct about his attraction to a young actress (12-13) and he told me something to the effect that I was a sicko because i told him to stay away from my daughter, that he was a predator and a danger. It got me wondering if I was indeed seeing this the wrong way; so i watched the movie... my view has not changed!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jeorj Euler 10 years ago

Jan-Willem Breure somewhat misconstrued age of majority as age of consent, and overlooked the fact that being not under the age of majority means having an advantage not had by being under the age of majority. Minors are quite plainly vulnerable people, regardless of age, and kept so by law. In a manner of speaking, they have fewer civil rights than adults. On the other hand, or furthermore, he also didn't bother to explain that rapists (sexual predators) prey upon vulnerability and, apart from them targeting women, children, the elderly, the handicapped and the destitute largely indiscriminately, cannot be adequately distinguished from those who take a genuine prurient interest in children or adolescents.

[–] tardifisa 10 years ago

I like the distinction you make between majority and age of consent.

I would have liked to hear about how long can a non-offending pedophile can remain non-offending and just how much of a normal life he can have. Are they non-offending or just not offending yet? And I know that guy said he was a big consumer of online porn, but "not with children", animés and such. I'm pretty sure its not the case of all "non-offending" pedophiles.

There sure are a lot of wholes in their documentary, it might have benefited from the supervision of a non-interested third party.

[–] scrnickell 10 years ago

Also, just out of curiosity...since when are all men considered positional pedophiles? I have two daughters, and I have never...and will never...felt awkward about showing them affection. And furthermore, while I will freely admit that many teenage girls are pretty or beautiful, I'm not particularly sexually attracted to them. I find the entire premise of this "documentary" repulsive. What's next? Marching for pedophile's rights and eliminating age of consent laws because some perverted director wants to bang teenagers?

And there is no such thing as a non-offending pedophile.

[–] tardifisa 10 years ago

I must say its refreshing to read you. I guess its all about their guilt.

I'm a woman, which makes me rather protective towards kids, teens and, well, pretty much anything lol But it feels wrong to me.

There is a difference between being physically mature and being mentally mature, and no matter how "mature" teenagers think they are, they simply are not adults yet.

[–] yousy12 10 years ago

I am a man and I came from the country that invent the words "lolicon" for a fetish.
With that said, I think there's nothing wrong with how protective we are towards kids. I don't have my own kids yet but my two nieces are living with me since their school are near my house than my sister's house (their mother), so I kind of understand the OP statement.
Tbh after watching this fiction movie (I don't think it can call documentary at all considering the "facts" given), I feel disturbed on how this movie tried to justified something that can be called a hidden agenda.
I don't know about other country or the film maker's country but One thing for sure, there's no witch hunt happen in my country.

[–] lazarillo 10 years ago

The problem is that people always conflate a lot of things when it it comes to this subject. There is a big physical difference between a 16 or 17-year-old girl and a child. There is a difference between being attracted to someone acting on it. I'd say most adult men are at least somewhat ATTRACTED to 16 and 17-year-old girls, but when you get over 25 or 30, it's becomes too ridiculous (if not illegal)to act on it. It ISN'T normal to be attracted to prepubescent girls, but if some people are and they don't act on it, why do people feel they need to "out" them? Aren't there enough "practicing" pedophiles out there to worry about?

Nobody is defending child molesters, but why worry about people watching Japanese anime where the "schoolgirls" often have bigger breasts than any woman I've ever seen on the street in Asia? Why worry about slightly underage nudity in movies made in the 70's and 80's? Why accuse men of being "pedophiles" if they happen to cast a sideways glance at a severely under-dressed teenage girl? Why legally prosecute guys in their early 20's for dating girls in their late teens (or occasionally vice versa) and then make them register as a "sex offender" for life? I'm sorry but I don't think the current atmosphere of paranoia and hysteria about this subject does anything to "protect the children".

[–] ethermusic1981 10 years ago

Well said!

[–] fococristao2013 9 years ago

Pedophilia is the primary sexual attraction to girls under 9 years of age (pre-pubescent girls).
Puberty usually begins at 9 years of age with breast enlargement. The average age of menarche is 12.
Biologically, a child who is not hit puberty. Teenager who is entering puberty. And adult is who reached the reproductive capacity.
The age of consent in most US states, was 10 or 12 years. Until 1920.
People enter puberty to have sex. The US consent laws are against the natural human condition.
The age of majority is usually to 18 years. But what turns a girl into a woman's puberty. Puberty is the real Majority. I would say the biological Majority.
As the average age of menarche is 12 years old. We can say that a woman of 12 years old is an adult. Since the reproductive capacity is the main feature of an adult..

[–] Jeorj Euler 8 years ago

The age of consent in most US states, was 10 or 12 years. Until 1920.

The process of the change coincided with national prohibition of alcohol and with woman suffrage as well as federal income tax and child labor laws. No matter how we try to cut it, for decades, females were tired of their husbands and fathers losing jobs due to being too drunk to work and furthermore coming home even more inebriated but also frustrated, then beating or raping their wives and children every night, while also getting away with it. Not to mention, there were liquor-serving brothels with female minors, prepubescent girls notwithstanding. Wives didn't appreciate adultery at such ghastly immoral levels.

Around that time, the mitigations for all this came in the form of such an extreme retribution toward the less-than-Christian patriarchal system and the industries reinforcing it. And it might never have happened if modern distillation of brews and purification techniques hadn't become popular in the years leading up to the industrial revolution. History is always these magnificent chain of events.

Anyway, where we stand to today isn't any simpler. Things like date rape and child molestation are probably even more of a problem now than ever before, in the wake of the popular response to national prohibition, organized crime and the ensuring "war on drugs." Lowering the age of consent (at least if done in an irrational way) just gives pimps and drug dealers an avenue to have an opportunity get closer to minors to exploit.

[–] chrome_wheelz 10 years ago

Not sure where you got your Phd in psychology, but you are absolutely wrong. There are absolutely non-offending pedophiles. They're the ones who were able to get treatment (in one form or another), early on, before they had offended.

[–] scrnickell 10 years ago

Same place you got yours, probably. They all offend. The only difference between an offender and a non-offender is opportunity. They will never be safe around kids.

And it would be hard for me to tell you how little your opinion means to me.

[–] chrome_wheelz 10 years ago

You really don't know what you're talking about. I may not have a Phd, but I do have experience with treating these people. Some of them end up getting help before they ever offend. I admit that number is very small, but it does happen. And lot of others end up getting treatment after offending. Granted that's not much consolation to victims, but the system is not designed to help those that want to get treatment without involvement of the courts. Many programs have rules that you can not be admitted unless you have gone through the courts. There's also the fear that they live with that if they admit to being a sex offender, that puts them open to harsher treatment, mainly by the public, and even worse if they go to prison. There's literally almost NO incentive for a person to get treatment, aside from no longer offending. But they have to GET the treatment in order to be able to comprehend (at least some) the damage they have caused, and experience empathy for victims. That's a very common theme among offenders, their lack of empathy towards others. But if people like you would stop promoting hatred and fear, they might be more inclined to GET treatment before offending. They fear this society that seems to have embraced vigilante justice towards sex offenders. Why would anyone risk putting themselves in a position to get help, when they think that would lead to more consequences, the worst being violence and possibly death. Look up "The Phoenix Program" at Alberta Hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

[q]You ain't leadin' but two things, right now: Jack and s**t... and Jack left town.[q/]

[–] scrnickell 10 years ago

Yeah? And I've counselled hundreds of victims of your poor, misunderstood darlings. Keep humpin'that chicken, though, if it makes your conscience lighter.

[–] chrome_wheelz 10 years ago

As much as I would love to continue this discussion, you seem completely closed to any new ideas, so it would be a waste of time. And this is hardly the proper forum for such a topic. I hope in the future we can discuss something a little less controversial....say perhaps...movies or tv?

You ain't leadin' but two things, right now: Jack and s**t... and Jack left town. ----- Army of Darkness

[–] Chomper66 9 years ago

There's no nice way to say this, but I find your attitude outright pathetic. Do you honestly believe there's no such thing as a pedophile who can resist molesting children? The only ones you ever even know exist are the ones who have offended, so obviously it will seem like they're all offenders to people like yourself.

[–] scrnickell 9 years ago

And, likewise, there is no good way to say this: your opinion is irrelevant.

Pedophiles are real and present dangers to children, time bombs looking for the right trigger. Trying to justify their inclusion in society by suggesting that many of them have not acted out their fantasies is pretty pathetic as well.

[–] sleepylegion 9 years ago

The only difference...is opportunity.

Stupid. Just like saying all men are simply waiting for an opportunity to rape, because they're attracted to women.

Just because a woman doesn't feel comfortable with a man walking behind her at night doesn't mean she's in danger, and just because you would never feel safe with a pedophile around your kids doesn't mean they're dangerous.

Especially if your kids are ugly.

www.sn-f.blogspot.com

[–] scrnickell 9 years ago

Youre making an equivalence error. I'm not talking about all people, I'm talking about pedophiles. A better comparison would be to say that all rapists are just waiting for an opportunity to rape a woman.

See how that works? I'm not making a sweeping comment on a general population or gender. I'm talking about pedophiles. Period.

[–] Chomper66 9 years ago

Ridiculous. You ARE making a sweeping generalization about the entire population of pedophiles.

[–] timmehh 8 years ago

You call someone a rapist when they have raped.
You call someone a pedophile, when they have sexual desires towards pre pubescent children.

See the difference? One requires an action (offense) the other doesn't.

You are doing good work by helping the victims of these horrible crimes.
But you are also misguided and stuck in your own frame of mind (which is faulty, I might add).

If you cannot show empathy for the mental condition these people live in, please refrain from posting on such topics.
Your hate mongering (as someone else had already pointed out) is not helping the case, and is having the ADVERSE effect of your intentions.

Now this is probably a day late and a dollar short since these posts are more than 6 months old, but still. I felt the need to point this out.

Please, can you watch Louis Theroux' LA Stories? The episode where he talks with sex offenders. It has no specific point of view as in what they did is good or bad, he just looks at the situation and the result on society.

aw man, i shot marvin in the face

[–] Jeorj Euler 8 years ago

They all offend.

That's not true.

The only difference between an offender and a non-offender is opportunity.

This statement kind of retracts the previous, in that the existence of the non-offender is acknowledge. As for opportunity, it could be defined in arbitrary ways. Given the wide variety of ways that pedophiles might operate, "opportunity" can vary from mere contact to strict circumstances like his/her target being asleep, taking a bath, changing clothes or having affection for the perpetrator. It depends upon what the particular pedophile's "needs" are. If he/she needs the target's affection or love, albeit "consent," then opportunity will be nonexistent or scarce. This is where manipulation comes into play, as you well know. There's no escaping the fact that pedophiles make whores of their victims, since they (if taking a polite approach) always give candy, toys, security or attention to the children in order to get them to their bidding. It's never because the children want to have sex for the sex in and of itself. (I'm not talking about horny teenagers.) To make matters worse, the child molester will likely threaten or extort his/her victims, in order to keep the misdeeds secret, or convince these "partners" that they're equally guilty of misdeeds. I don't think anybody who is seemingly defensive of pedophiles can deny any of this.

[–] fococristao2013 9 years ago

The age of majority is usually to 18 years. But what turns a girl into a woman's puberty. Puberty is the real Majority. I would say the biological Majority.
As the average age of menarche is 12 years old. We can say that a woman of 12 years old is an adult. Since the reproductive capacity is the main feature of an adult.
Pedophilia is the primary sexual attraction to girls under 9 years of age (pre-pubescent girls).
Puberty usually begins at 9 years of age with breast enlargement. The average age of menarche is 12.
Biologically, a child who is not hit puberty. Teenager who is entering puberty. And adult is who reached the reproductive capacity.
The age of consent in most US states, was 10 or 12 years. Until 1920.
People enter puberty to have sex. The US consent laws are against the natural human condition.

[–] adamsmo 9 years ago

you really can't call a 12 year old an adult just because it's when most people begin puberty. especially since if a girl actually were to get pregnant at that age, she would have very serious health complications and is not a fully formed adult. so, most certainly, that is not sexual maturity.

The natural human condition led to people dying of old age at 25. It should not be a standard of morality.

[–] zachanscom 10 years ago

the evolutionary reasoning is plausible, but it is often used as an excuse. morality is a system created by consensus to counteract evolutionary and biological tendencies in humans. it's why racism, sexism, xenophobia, which all have roots as survival mechanisms, are still frowned upon in society.

attraction to kids is the same thing. in ancient times, it was alright to have sex with children, but now we know better. we understand the psychological trauma it can inflict upon someone not psychologically prepared. that is why a standard age of consent was established.

there is no objective morality regarding this, but people need to be smart and think about the consequences of having the legal age as low as 14. i know france likes to pretend how they're more advanced than anyone else, but their 14 year olds are probably just as clueless and vulnerable to predators. 18 is a smart age of consent. also, lets face it, most 18 year olds in college are still idiots. they should probably learn how to write grammatically correct essays before they learn how to suck dick.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fococristao2013 9 years ago

[–] sharpnova 9 years ago

Your revulsion at this movie is exactly what I would expect from someone confronted with logic that disagrees with their belief system.

Having a belief system is in itself irrational.

Sticking to it when convincing logic that shows its absurdity is presented to you: plain stupid.

You are an irrational and stupid individual.

[–] nex-9 9 years ago

I still think its wrong for grown men to have sex with teenage girls.

or Grown women to have sex with teenage boys