Plz reccomend me movies about pedophiles to watch!

[G@yWad69]

NOTHING ILLEGAL. And nothing “barely legal” either. No “oh it has some minor genitalia but I pinky promise its legal in my coun-NO. I would rather not go to prison over pixels on a fucking screen. No nudity or genitalia or anything, stuff that you can find on youtube, not the dark web

I have already watched headburst, the lamb 2015, no dogs allowed, and I am planning on watching for a lost soldier and leon the professional and lolita(even though I hate lolita, I have to do it because it is a very culturally impactful film). I might watch cuties but I here that its pretty bad an the typical youth sexuality=danger and evil film, so idk.

any other movies where the protaganist is a pedophile(or hebephile or ephebophile, or the the movie in general is very Mappy/map coded)?

[mrlolicon93]

Why do you hate lolita?

[G@yWad69]

Why do you hate lolita?

Humbert is the sterotypical evil abusive predatory predator sterotype that antis use to further pedophobia. I read some of the book a couple years ago, never finished it because I hated it, but from what I renember, he runs the girls mom over with a car so that he can prey on her and does shit like drug her and rape her and other cruel and terrible acts. Yo give lolita the benefit of the doubt, I never fully ginished reading it and I had read ir years ago, so maybe he wasnt as bad ad I renember, but I still renember him being incredibley abusive and vile towards the girl. Maybe I should give it a second shot, but still, if the entire book is “look how evil pedos are,(hes a hebephile but still) and gross and dangerous and nasty and violent they are, heres 300 plus pages of this evil pedo violently raping this poor girl. Maybe the book isnt like that, but crom what ive heard and read myself it is, so im not intrested

[Liyowo]

Why do you hate lolita?

Humbert is the sterotypical evil abusive predatory predator sterotype that antis use to further pedophobia. I read some of the book a couple years ago, never finished it because I hated it, but from what I renember, he runs the girls mom over with a car so that he can prey on her and does shit like drug her and rape her and other cruel and terrible acts. Yo give lolita the benefit of the doubt, I never fully ginished reading it and I had read ir years ago, so maybe he wasnt as bad ad I renember, but I still renember him being incredibley abusive and vile towards the girl. Maybe I should give it a second shot, but still, if the entire book is “look how evil pedos are,(hes a hebephile but still) and gross and dangerous and nasty and violent they are, heres 300 plus pages of this evil pedo violently raping this poor girl. Maybe the book isnt like that, but crom what ive heard and read myself it is, so im not intrested

Sounds disgusting. Seeing just the sprinkler scene out of context tricked me into thinking it would be a wholesome love story at first. Of course they wouldn't make a wholesome MAP relationship into a movie, should have expected it.

[John_Doe]

I recommend A Friend of the Family, I was planning on mentioning it sooner or later. It's a mini-series, based on a true story.

The minor-attracted adult is very much a villain, though.

[PorcelainLark]

Dreamchild (1985),The Woodsman (2004), and Tench/Muidhond (2019).

Here was my reviews for them from the b4um:

Dreamchild:

Although Dreamchild does lean into the idea of Carroll being threatening, ultimately he is a sympathetic figure. I wouldn't quite call it romantic, because the love Carroll feels for Alice is once-sided. He gets upset when Alice talks about marriage with someone else, but she doesn't see that he longs for her. Carroll is portrayed simultaneously sinister and pathetic. There's this recurring fear the older Alice is portrayed as feeling. I'll write about the ending in a separate paragraph in case people want to watch it without spoilers.

Spoilers: In the end, Alice, now old, dies. In her dying dream she is happily reunited with Carroll, as a girl. She is seemingly free of the fear she has felt through out the course of the film; her fond and friendly memories of Carroll prove to be the ones she holds onto, no longer feeling afraid of Carroll.

Ian Holm is the highlight of the film. Unfortunately, there's a romance between the older Alice's niece and a reporter which weighs down the story. Other than that, I liked it. Not the best movie, but passable.

The Woodsman:

My thoughts, having watched it. There are spoilers, so be warned.

Walter asks his therapist if he's crazy for seeing his attraction in other people. With Carlos (Walter's brother-in-law) it remains ambiguous, with Candy and Robin's father it's clear. Curiously, both Candy and Robin's father never have any dialogue. They are abstractions. It's also left ambiguous whether Carlos is taunting Walter, or whether he is attracted to his daughter (Walter's niece); the two other times Walter guessed someone else was a pedophile, he was correct, and Carlos is the only family member to visit him after he gets out.

Walter pushes away Vicki, because he fears he will shock her; we can interpret this as shame, or as not wanting to revisit pain. However, the audience sees redemption through Walter's suffering. It's unclear why Vicki stays with Walter, does she actually love her brothers? Does she love Walter because she finds closure in his honesty?

When Walter talks about the statistical probability of reoffending or when he asks Rosen (Walter's therapist) when he will be "normal." He acts as though pedophilia is external to him. However, in the scene where Rosen makes Walter recall molesting his younger sister, it might suggest that this distance Walter appears to have is a façade.

The visit from Sgt. Lucas seemingly shows Walter as co-operative, yet Lucas is indifferent, even hostile to Walter (however, this occurs before his interaction with Rosen where the audience is made to doubt whether Walter is trustworthy). Lucas isn't interested in the task of investigating what happened to the girl, he is there to take out his problems on someone else. Lucas sets up a dichotomy between the "woodsman" and the "wolf," the woodman saves Red Riding hood from the wolf by cutting the wolf open; Red riding hood emerges unscathed from the stomach of the wolf. When Lucas says there are no such thing as woodsmen, it could be interpreted either that no one escapes unscathed from CSA, or that there isn't anyone out there who protects children from "wolves." Walter becomes a "woodsman" in order to try to exocize his inner "wolf."

Robin watching birds is obviously an analogy to Walter watching girls.

This is made very clear, first with his interaction with Robin (who wear's a red coat), where he identifies Robin's father as a "wolf," and then avoids "devouring" Robin in the same way as her father devours her. Then with Walter's altercation with Candy, if you freeze frame the fight it shows Walter momentarily in position of Candy (on the ground being punched); Walter also takes on the anger of his victims. Candy is the scapegoat for Walter's sins, a sacrificial substitute.

Finally, after seeking forgiveness from his sister and being rejected, there is dialogue with Rosen about these things taking time. The rejection is seen from a distance, primarily through his girlfriend's view. When Walter reaches out to touch his sister, that's the moment he is rejected. The suggestion is that Walter still has a lot to learn because he still lacked that physical boundary (he recounts earlier that he liked to smell his sister's hair, which is what he tries to touch). However, if you miss the subtext of the scene, you are left with a problem.

How can Walter be OK? So far we see self-recrimination and suffering as how Walter redeems himself. There's an uneasy tension between trying to have Walter's character reach a kind of completion by the end of film, yet if he's unforgiven and by the film's logic he has to suffer in order to be redeemed, he shouldn't be "OK".

The path the film doesn't take, is asking the question of whether Walter really is comparable to the gruesome example Lucas gives. We are never given any suggestion Walter is a killer, yet the example that Lucas gives which justifies his dichotomy of Woodsman and Wolf, was a killer.

Over all, it's an interesting story, however you could see it as an attempt to build a full puzzle out of insufficient pieces; it comes as close to realism as it can, without adequate understanding.

I can't remember if I did a review of Tench; if I did I can't find it.

[mrlolicon93]

Why do you hate lolita?

Humbert is the sterotypical evil abusive predatory predator sterotype that antis use to further pedophobia. I read some of the book a couple years ago, never finished it because I hated it, but from what I renember, he runs the girls mom over with a car so that he can prey on her and does shit like drug her and rape her and other cruel and terrible acts. Yo give lolita the benefit of the doubt, I never fully ginished reading it and I had read ir years ago, so maybe he wasnt as bad ad I renember, but I still renember him being incredibley abusive and vile towards the girl. Maybe I should give it a second shot, but still, if the entire book is “look how evil pedos are,(hes a hebephile but still) and gross and dangerous and nasty and violent they are, heres 300 plus pages of this evil pedo violently raping this poor girl. Maybe the book isnt like that, but crom what ive heard and read myself it is, so im not intrested

It is very clear you don't understand the original text refer to these post.

https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?t=624&hilit

https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?p=12948&hilit

Read the book twice so i have a pretty good understanding of it.

Lolita is not a pro-pedo book but it is also, not an anti-pedo book either the book is not about look how evil pedophiles are because the book has no moral message and is supposed to be a dark tragic romance about obsessive love.

The novel is basically Humbert's guilt confession and apology and although he is not meant to be likeable you the reader are the jury and are supposed to read the text and judge him and his actions for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Lolita is great because of its moral ambiguity and how all the characters in the book are morally flawed and yes Humbert in the book is awful but Dolores isn't a saint either.

I recommend giving it another shot.