You are here

Are All Men Pedophiles? (2012)

Primary tabs

SizeSeedsPeersCompleted
775.01 MiB00346
This torrent has no flags.


Are All Men Pedophiles? is a 2012 documentary film by Rwandan-Dutch media producer Jan-Willem Breure. Presented by 14-year-old model Savannah van Zweeden and covering the topics of pedophilia and hebephilia, the entire film was financed privately, mainly by the 23-year-old Breure (with the rest of the funding coming from the Royal Academy of Art, The Hague). Are All Men Pedophiles? had its world premiere at the Queens World Film Festival in New York City on March 2, 2012 and has been screened at a number of film festivals.

The documentary explores what it regards as a "pedophilia hysteria" and argues there is a "witch-hunt" against men. Furthermore, it argues that in an effort to protect children, society has begun to isolate men. The film suggests that all men are viewed as potential pedophiles and examines the political and social consequences of that assumption.

The film's tagline is "Eighteen Is Just A Number", expressing its principal claim that all men are hebephiles, which it defines as attraction to teenagers. The film argues that society needs to make a distinction between this and true pedophilia—a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

The documentary looks at pedophilia from a cultural and professional perspective, interviewing several experts, including neuroscientists, psychologists, sexologists and model-scouts.[5] Contributors included neurobiologist Dick Swaab, forensic psychologist Corine de Ruiter, international model-booker Jinnah Lou Domino, and former PNVD spokesperson Marthijn Uittenbogaard.

Comments

I don't get why this is so up for debate.

Look, sexual attraction exists to perpetuate the species.
A man's job is to find the most fertile female and impregnate her.
Quite often that's going to be a 14 year-old girl.

That's completely natural - but in modern society, most adult men won't enjoy the company of females that age, and offspring from mature women will still survive, so there is no need for it. It is futile to hate men for having a physiological reaction to fertile 14 year-olds though, we can't help it.

Attraction to PRE-pubescent children is a disfunction, although it has a reason. This is a man who knows he cannot attract a female, and thus wants to own and pair-bond with one before puberty attracts healthy males that will out-compete him for her attention.

Fashion culture is to blame for selecting pre-pubescent and androgynous looking models though. That's weird as fuck, I don't understand it at all, apart from maybe it's just the kind of men who become model scouts and work in that industry, are attracted to women who are basically easily rapeable. They should be ashamed, and it's disappointing that the rest of us allowed it really.

At the possible risk of seeming to be attempting to claim some high moral ground, I feel a need to say that the premises in zoopenhoff's posting deserve to be questioned, as does the logic used therein.

zoopenhoff wrote:

I don't get why this is so up for debate.
Look, sexual attraction exists to perpetuate the species.

Unquestionably - but reasoning from this observation to a set of statements that appear to justify certain attitudes and behaviours seems difficult to defend.

Quote:

A man's job is to find the most fertile female and impregnate her.

Says who? Individual creatures of all species have sex drives, but humans are different in that they (we) have developed complex societies within which certain codes of conduct have been developed that are a complete "game changer."

Actually, this matter of conduct with regard to sexual and relationship is but one example of something that can be observed and analysed more generally, such as in the case of aggressive demonstrations. All creatures have an instinct for self-preservation, generally expressed in the classic "fight or flight" pattern. But we humans, in all cultures and societies, put limits, through devices such as taboos and laws, on what is acceptable, and, through those structures, we institute penalties and punishments for those unwilling or unable to comport themselves in accordance with such strictures.

To adopt phraseology involving concepts like "man's job" vastly oversimplifies the matter in the case of humans, in that what is expected of members of society are at least equally defining as whatever one wants to say comes from "nature," and must therefore be taken into account in thinking about rôles and responsibilities, which are ultimately and intimately involved in determining what one's "job" might be considered to be.

Quote:

Quite often that's going to be a 14 year-old girl.

To feel attraction to such a girl may be unavoidable. But we have choices as to how to act on our impulses, eh?.

Quote:

That's completely natural - but in modern society...

The attraction may be "natural" (given by our nature, in this case), but a desire to engage in sexual relations with an "under age" person or to entertain such thoughts ignores the essential context of the societies in which we live, which rightly act to protect the well-being of their vulnerable members. Admittedly, there have been historically, and still are, societies in which such protections are not afforded. But there is an increasing international consensus that such absense of this kind of protection is in its essence a violation of a basic human right.

I do understand that the main point expressed in zoopenhoff's posting has to do with distinguishing between what is implicitly being considered to be a "natural" attraction and what is a dysfunctional sort of pathology. I also accept and see nothing wrong with taking pleasure in observing the beauty and other attractive features of someone who one's society rightly declares to be "off limits" with respect to physical demonstrations of sexuality (just as in the case of persons of any age who are involved in commited relationships with others). However, I have, for whatever it's worth, great difficulty with what to me is the crude and simplistic way in which this opinion is here stated.

Also missing from this description of "a man's job" is any consideration of a concern for the well being of the female and her child. Yes, there are some species where the father of the young does not help to protect, support and nurture his offspring due to a lack of instinct that impels him to adopt that rôle. Humans, however, lack any but the most basic instincts, filling in by means of social norms, conventions and dictates. To ignore the social component of what makes us who we are, speaking only of physical impulses being all that need be taken into account in understanding what is truly "natural" for humans amounts in my mind to avoiding a coming to terms with our real essence, which includes consideration of both biological and social components. (Those social and/or behavioural components are present in members of other species also, of course, and to not consider those parts of their being would be equally mistaken.) To imply that the "job" of human males excludes considerations of what's required in forming caring relationships with their mates and becoming responsible fathers within tever social context in which they are and must be embedded is to miss the largest part of what makes us who we really are, which is much more than physical impulses.

I hope that zoopenhoff would actually agree with what I'm stating here, and that my problem has more to do with style than with substance.

I should have said "one of a man's many jobs".

zoopenhoff wrote:

I should have said "one of a man's many jobs".

It's not really whether procreating is seen as being the job or one job among many that I see as being problematical here. It has more to do with how we conceive (no pun intended) that job. I'm saying that because of the kind of critter we humans are, we can't meaningfully separate the physical act of reproduction from all that's involved socially in reproducing and taking care of mates and offspring. That act has to be looked at within a social context. The same goes for what goes on in an ant colony, actually. The physical activity is governed by a complex set of social rules, based in that case upon hierarchical principles.

I'm not disputing the distinction between attraction to adolescents and to prepubescent children, though I am confident that acting on an impulse in either case deserves to be sanctioned. Rather I am mostly objecting to the crass way in which this "man's job" idea is being described and that it is trotted out in an attempt to say something meaningful about a particular form of pathology.

The other deficit I see in what was expressed about what is described as being "natural" is that it talks only about an instinct to engage in sexual activity so as to impregnate females and thus produce more humans. It says nothing about the equally important need to establish relationship, which provides various benefits to both parties, as well as a stable environment in which to raise children, which is best accomplished with active and loving support from both parents.

Quote:

A man's job is to find the most fertile female and impregnate her.
Quite often that's going to be a 14 year-old girl.

This documentary made the same argument as well, although they used the age 16. They also said females usually prefer more physically and mentally developed males, which ends up being around the age 18+ for male's maturation. They also said that the education system does not want to promote pregnancy before high school is complete, so the age of consent law in most Western countries is usually 18.

As for any theory of homosexuality, that is not really discussed, other than it is mentioned a few times in the film that homosexuality and hebephilia was common practice in Ancient Greece and Rome.

The documentary also mentions female hebephilia part way through, and goes through the many instances of female high school teachers having "love affairs" with their male students, often aged 14/15 or so...

Have I read news about female teachers having affairs with their young students! The larger our society grows the easier it will become to notice problems, but believe me when I say that those social problems are not exclusive to males, but females as well -this last group happens to be more settled about their misbehavior.