Talk:I, Pedophile

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.

Connected contributor declaration[edit]

Hi, folks. Because I appear in this film, I am of course in a conflict of interest, which I freely disclose here. I invite interested editors to check/verify the content for NPOV etc. and to make whatever changes as appropriate. (In case it is relevant: I received no money for participation in the film nor for creating/editing this article.)— James Cantor (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

James Cantor (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I,_Pedophile&oldid=772969715)

James Cantor, the article is fine, in general, and I wouldn't worry overmuch about NPOV and similar issues. However, you apparently added text too hastily, as it includes one confused sentence: "Cantor explains his program of research findings in the film and how each finding led to the conclusion that pedophilia us in the brain and brain differences are likely present before birth." You need to correct that; the words "us in the brain" do not make sense following "pedophilia", so presumably some text is missing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've de-garbled the sentence. Thanks, again!— James Cantor (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As seen here, here, here and here, I made a few edits to the article, including a WP:Said tweak (changing "emphasizes" to "states").

I haven't yet seen the film, but it seems it only focuses on "good pedophiles," which I feel is misleading as far as pedophile behavior goes; this is because there are a number of pedophiles and child sexual abusers who justify (rather try to justify) sexually abusing children and engage in activism regarding it. Not only do have I experience with such individuals in real life, but on Wikipedia as well. Their logic is so skewed that it can be difficult to grasp. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The logic of men who may tend to fantasize about rape, but who have never acted out their fantasies, would be similar, no? I ask this not to condone either rape or pedophilia, but only to point out that fortunately not all fantasies of all people are acted out, and those who may sometimes harbor such odd fantasies, but never act them out, certainly deserve some credit for never acting them out. So long as they remain as responsible and respectful citizens, shouldn't they be treated as such (but not with my child in the room)? Scott P. (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scottperry (Scott P.), I'm one of the editors well-versed in the topic of child sexual abuse and pedophilia. I'm also well-versed in the topic of rape. I didn't state that there can't be pedophiles who do not sexually molest children (although we only have their word on the matter). I was noting that the film apparently only focuses on pedophiles who state that they have never offended and lends a sympathetic voice toward those who have pedophilia. The article even currently quotes Cantor stating, "The day before somebody gives in to his sexual interest in children, he was a person who was struggling with his sexual interests in children, and that's the day we failed him." This statement makes it seem like all pedophiles who molested a child struggled with the question as to whether or not to molest a child. I know for a fact that not all of them have. Maybe not even most. I state "maybe" because we don't have a good estimate as to how many pedophiles exist; so it's not always easy to state that "most pedophiles do this [or that]." When it comes to struggling, one should ask what the nature of the struggle was. If it was being worried about getting caught rather than recognizing (not simply being told) that the act is wrong and being concerned about causing harm to the child, that is different. Being a rapist is not the same thing as being a pedophile; the first is a legal status (even if the rapist is not known to the authorities), while the latter is a psychiatric issue. Many people who do not have pedophilia have sexually abused children. Wanting to rape or repeatedly rape can be a psychiatric issue, but being a rapist is not a psychiatric category; being a rapist is not categorized as a mental disorder. Some teenage boys have date raped teenage girls by drugging them, not for power, but simply for sex. There are cases where men have raped their wives simply because they wanted sex right then and there and they believed that there is no such thing as being able to rape one's wife. It's not like the boys and men were fantasizing day in and day out about raping their acquaintances or wives. The acts were opportunistic. Furthermore, rape fantasies, which some people occasionally have, is very different than the very persistent mental state that comes with having pedophilia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer, you make several very valid points. I too disagree with the film's apparent premise that pedophiles should ever be allowed to blame their problems on others, society, etc. (Thanks for informing me about that.) I also agree that there is never any excuse for rape or sexual abuse of any kind. Clearly even such destructive sexual fantasies should never be encouraged by anyone, or in any context. I haven't seen this film, and don't intend to, but I'd hope that the producers might agree with this. Still, human sexuality and sexual ideation remain as things that are yet quite poorly understood.

In any event, should any individual succeed in controlling his or her sexual impulses to harm others, I still feel that they deserve credit, and perhaps whatever psychological support may be available to help them continue to do so. Should they ever fail, then surely they need firm intervention and in nearly all cases, incarceration. I do draw the line at those who either act out their destructive fantasies, or those who might in any way encourage others to do so. I would hope that this film might do the opposite, by trying to help these men not to act out their fantasies, though I do not know. As with most things sexual, I would assume that there is probably a "spectrum" or "scale" for pedophilic tendencies, and that while we tend to find out only about the ones at one end of the scale, there are probably others at the other end that this film may attempt to address. As with homosexuality, while it remained illegal, few reliable statistics were ever able to be gathered about it. In the case of pedophilia, this difficulty will probably always remain. Thanks for your insights here. Scott P. (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scottperry (Scott P.), yeah, it's obviously a good thing if a pedophile never molests a child. It's a good thing to help pedophiles control their urges so that they don't molest a child. I'm not disputing any of that. I'm not sure that I agree with commending pedophiles for not molesting children. They should know not to do so already, just like (to compare raping like you did) people should know not to rape and no one should be commended for not being a rapist. Sexual abuse of a child is rape anyway. All that stated, there are some pedophiles who have impulse control problems; this doesn't excuse the child sexual abuse, but it is clear that more needs to be done to treat this segment of the population. One way to do this is to have an environment where they are more willing to openly admit to one or more medical professionals that they have pedophilia, and that is what Cantor is trying to do. There is a lot that is well-understood about human sexuality, but some aspects of it, including pedophilia, are still not fully understood. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an awful problem. I don't know if this film will have a net positive or negative effect on the problem, but I do believe that there is much much work that yet needs to be done to better understand it, treat it, and if necessary, humanely incarcerate those who treatment cannot help. Years ago I once had an employee with this issue, who ultimately took his own life because of it. It was all due to non-workplace behavior. I was greatly saddened by the whole thing. I appreciate your concerns for this serious problem. Your keen insights on it have helped me to think more clearly through the matter, that I have not thought through for many years. (Viewer discretion is advised here. --Now he tells me-- Sorry.) Scott P. (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include image?[edit]

For anyone interested, I have uploaded to wikimedia commons this pic with the film director:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACampea%2C_Cantor_at_2017_Canadian_Screen_Awards_for_'I%2C_Pedophile'.jpg

I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to include it on the main page, or if I were the appropriate person to do it. So, I am posting it here instead.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]