![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on January 9 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Foreskin fetish
The term "skin freaks" is used almost exclusively by one pro-circumcision advocate who is very active on Usenet and the World Wide Web. -- DanBlackham 05:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Most of the references to "skin freaks" on Usenet were made by one pro-circumcision crusader who goes by wadi and Briar Rabbit among other names. -- DanBlackham 18:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The use of the term "skin freaks" seems even rarer when one notices the similarities between Briar Rabbit's writing style and Robert's writing style. -- DanBlackham 11:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I’m wondering here, because we have a part of the body, and supposedly there’s a fetish attached to it. Do you mean some people have frenulum, glans, circumcision scar, clitoral hood, big toe, earlobe, eyelid, nose, whatever fetishes too? Is that even possible?
If it is, I’m inclined to ask about the attitude projected in the article, and I wonder if it weren’t reasonable to make a similarly toned article on circumcision scar fetish — pretty sure there exist people like that, if even just a handful.
Oh, and it seems to me that “anti-circumcision” “activities” such as foreskin restoration (see some previous stage of the article) are considerably more “live and let live” than, say, circumcising someone. So I might just object to that notion too. -- Ralesk 21:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
“Nonsense removed ... everyone has feet but only a few have a specific foot fetish” — Most males in Europe have a foreskin, and I’m pretty sure their partners like to play with their penis, which the foreskin happens to be a part of. Nibbling, sucking, touching, whatsoever the foreskin is a normal part of foreplay.
“Vandalism repaired” — and you, are you afraid of the truth? Trying to justify your own obsession with circumcision and circumcised penises? It’s pretty much a fact that this was coined by people who don’t know much about foreskins, normal male anatomy, and so on. And we know the American Pediatrics’ old standpoint regarding foreskins, we know it well.
“To appreciate the extent of this fetish one needs to carry out Google searches on "foreskin fetish", "foreskin worship" and on the varients of "foreskin love/r/s".” — To appreciate the extent of circumcision fetish one needs to carry out Google searches on "circumcision fetish", "circumcision worship" and on the varients of "circumcision love/r/s". Notably, on both first searches you get a shitload of porn sites. On “foreskin fetish”, they seem to be such that are serving areas that lack foreskins.
Much love, Ralesk 02:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
“I have reverted "uncircumcised" to "intact" because this describes the penis without reference to circumcision, merely qualifying that nothing is missing. Whoever changed it has done so silently, suggesting they don't want their reasoning (if any) queried. -- Hugh7 23:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You might find it helpful to read edit summaries in the 'history' page before complaining about silent edits. Had you done so, you would have discovered that the change was to correct the terminology. Intact has a less precise meaning than uncircumcised. A foreskin fetishist might, for example, find a pierced foreskin tremendously arousing, but it is not intact. It is, however, uncircumcised. The reference to circumcision is necessary, because it is the absence of circumcision which is the issue here. I suppose you could substitute something cumbersome, like "penis which has a foreskin," but why bother when there is a perfectly satisfactory word already? - Jakew 10:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to make a constructive contribution to this article rather than just try to sabotage it from the sidelines. It appears you have some interest in the subject otherwise you wouldn't have got so involved. If you believe that by seeing one fetish type exposed (and subjected to public scrutiny you need to expose another I am sure Wikipedia will accept your starting such an article of your own. If however you are willing and able to contribute to correctly and comprehensively cover this particular subject please do. - Robert the Bruce 03:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Obviously though, since you’ve removed my “nonsense” about how and why it’s not a fetish in Rest of the World, you don’t want me to write anything that goes against your idea(l)s. If you did, you’d have tidied up the article, rather than wiped my entry. My contribution — albeit tongue in cheek, yes — did have information and did try to push this heavily POVed article back from falling over.
And yes I do have some interest in the topic — that doesn’t invalidate what I say, by far; and you still haven’t told us about your purpose and agenda. By the way, unlike you, this topic isn’t my only one here on Wikipedia. I just haven’t been active recently, and I’m more of a translator, than an en: contributor anyway.
~ Ralesk 03:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and why I didn’t start the counterpart article, here goes: your foreskin fetish article, as it is now, is slander towards pretty much all people who live in a non-circumcising part of the world (which means the vast majority of people), and calling people who have a preference for a circumcised penis is a slander towards those who don’t know any different. I think Nathan Yoder hit the nail on the head that this is a cultural “fetish”, i.e. what is considered a deviance depends on what is the norm in the area.
And unlike you, I don’t like to slander the people of a whole continent in a public article. And unlike you, I don’t delete factual information and related links. -- Ralesk 12:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"There is also evidence that in some cases, pedophiles may share this fetish" - why is that even in there? That's obviously trying to push a POV to make it look bad. Pedophiles can have all kinds of fetishes, that doesn't mean anything. There's nothing to suggest that it's even remotely common among pedophiles either.
"This fetish is often found among those who indulge in the body modification practices of foreskin stretching or foreskin restoration, and almost all oppose circumcision to varying extents."
Is restoration really "body modification"? Body modification refers to things like tattoos, piercings, sub-dermal implants, etc... I've never heard it refer to anything reconstructive. It's like calling someone who got their face reconstructed after a car accident undergoing body modification. Additionally the "almost all" statement is wrong, most of the people who oppose circumcision are in countries where liking foreskin is not a fetish.
I agree with the above, the 'vandalism' edits are highly inappropriate and are a violation of wikipedia rules.
"Is restoration really 'body modification'?" I think so. I suppose depending on how it's done. You can have surgical restoration, but this is widely unpopular because the desired outcome is significantly less than the reality; there usually are a lot of complications. So comparing foreskin restoration to facial reconstruction doesn't seem like a very good example because the vast majority of foreskin restorers use non-surgical, stretching methods aimed at lengthening what remaining foreskin they have left using devices that covers the glans of the penis. It's the same as gauging one's ears to larger and larger sizes slowly over time or those in various cultures who stretch their lips for jewelry and plates.
As Ralesk said, there is also a fetish about circumcision and this can be documented from the Internet. However, there are allusions to a sexual involvement to circumcision in the Bible and evidence from other sources. The foreskin and circumcision fetishes are, I believe, like two sides of the one coin. See (1 Samuel 18: 20-29) [1] Michael Glass 12:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Robert, where is your evidence that foreskin fetishists play a leading role in the anti-circumcision movement? Why do you feel that drawing a link between two fetishes will obscure the insights that you want to bring to this question? Michael Glass 05:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Robert, why did you remove a link to an article on circumcision fetishes? Michael Glass 05:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Robert, please answer the three questions I put to you:
Michael Glass 22:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let me answer you as follows: To those who have been observing the goings on starting with the desperate attempts to remove the the foreskin fetish article and leading up to the establishment of the circumcision fetish article have now certainly become more informed as to where the circumcision "debate" overflows into otherwise seemingly unconnected areas. What is truly hilarious is the second line of defense where when it was obvious that the foreskin fetish article was not going to be wished away the approach of "well if they are going to expose our soft underbelly then lets expose theirs" took over. Pretty sad stuff. So what is the connection Michael? Is the supposed connection between a foreskin fetish and a circumcision fetish anything more than that they are mutually exclusive? Your insistence of making a connection is interesting and requires explanation from you rather than any from me. In addition it is evident to anyone who has been "observing" the goings on on numerous lists over a period of time that there is a serious psychosexual (and yes, predominantly gay) undertone that permeates through these groups (and yes, that includes some of the folk over on circlist). It is good that this stuff comes out into the open, it is important that people get to know what floats some of the boats around here. You do believe that the truth should prevail don't you Michael? And to add Michael, it is also evident that many of the people over at circlist are also anti routine neonatal circumcision because that would deny them the "opportunity" to realise their peculiar interest in the act of circumcision itself. You are following this aren't you Michael? - Robert the Bruce 05:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It might help your point a bit if you stopped frothing at the mouth there Robert. Clearly, according to my anecdotal evidence, pro-circ people must frequently have a serious psychosexual circumcision fetish. Now we must absolutely start a circumcision fetish article to expose this disgusting and vile practice.
Next week Robert will dicuss why playing with the folds of skin on a woman's vulva is a sick, disgusting practice highly associated with lesbianism. We must do our best to spread the truths about the abomination known as homosexuality and sexual practices that involve anything other than being in the missionary position. - Nathan J. Yoder 22:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How anyone can read a page like this [2] and not agree there is a "circumcision fetish" out there is just deluding themselves (warning: graphic content). -- Jre 17:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Dan, some questions:
- Jakew 18:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If the disclaimer were actually relevant to the subject, it might count as bias.
I am aware of the history of the psychiatric evaluation of homophobia. However, you can't say that a paper is homophobic just because it happened to be published at a time when many medics were. Such an evaluation needs to be made on the basis of the content of the paper. - Jakew 20:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you're reading something into the articles that I'm not. I don't detect any more of a negative aspect to homosexuality than in describing, say, males in their 50s. It's a matter-of-fact observation. I'm inclined to agree that we have a few too many disclaimers (though I think that in a few cases they're justified). - Jakew 00:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Regarding hypothetical studies, you might be right - I don't know. I don't think that the intent is to discredit restoration, though, but that's just my gut feeling.
I agree with your suggestion regarding neutral disclaimers. "Site providing views in opposition to circumcision" is better than "Note: anti-circumcision site". I think that, if anything, disclaimers are more informative when advising about a site that uses a subtle approach (eg CIRP), and less useful when the agenda is blatantly obvious. On the other hand, we have an ethical obligation to disclaim extremism. Perhaps its best if we just have neutral disclaimers for every site except truly neutral sites like Medline. - Jakew 01:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I made some edits, to achieve the following:
Tannin 11:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have incorporated some of Tannin's changes - namely, "in the era of the internet..." and "viewing, handling...".
The other changes are inappropriate and have been reverted. Namely: 1) it is not controversial to describe this as a fetish (since that is the definition of a fetish). The only "controversy" is whether a given individual's interests constitute a fetish. 2) A fetish is a kind of paraphilia. If you need this explaining to you, perhaps you should read up on the subject before trying to write about it. 3) clinical aspects of fetishism, as they pertain to foreskin fetishism are of course relevant. 4) I've incorporated a summary of Khan's remarks on the paedophilia relation. 5) By all means change the language, but please don't censor information. 6) The links are valid as "exhibits". 7) I'll wait and see whether the article is still disputed. - Jakew 17:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jakew, please stop your constant reverts to this page. They constitute vandalism, which could lead to your being blocked. Exploding Boy 16:40, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
True, but other editors clearly believe that your reverts do not constitute an improvement. You have been repeatedly asked to stop reverting and to discuss what you see as problematic here, on the talk page. I've looked at your edit history; it seems like the majority of your edits are reverts; it doesn't look good. If you're not a vandal, if you're not simply trying to promote a particular point of view rather than trying to create a neutral, balanced article, then you'll discuss the things that concern you here, and stop your constant unexplained reverts. Exploding Boy 17:02, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
If you bother to look, you'll see that I have discussed the reasons (in the section above). Since you haven't discussed your reasons, by your own definition you've just vandalised the page.
In the spirit of compromise, I've removed the paedophilia reference. - Jakew 17:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Compromise tends to involve both parties conceding something. Including paedophilia, I've now agreed to three of Tannin's points. If you look above, in the paragraphs beginning with "I have incorporated some of Tannin's changes", I have addressed each and every one of Tannin's points. An exchange of views constitutes discussion, to my knowledge. I'm sorry that you feel it isn't as correct or informative. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you feel this way? - Jakew 17:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Robert, this seems a little contentious to say the least. If you have some set of people who are diagnosed forskin fetishists maybe you can justify the claim by ascertaining whether they are also anti-circumcision activists (which has to be a bit more than just not being circumcised themselves); otherwise it just looks like cheap innuendo. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 03:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Innuendo isn't enough. Please cite your justification for this claim. You should know by now that you can't throw the onus for your claim onto others; you have to substantiate it yourself. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 03:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The fetish distinguishes itself from mere appreciation by the fact that these activities become essential for the individual to achieve sexual gratification.
While the term may be used informally, a clinical diagnosis must meet formal criteria which include distress or impaired social or sexual functioning. The cause of fetishism is often complex, but frequently includes doubts about the patient's own masculinity or potency and feelings of inadequacy. Treatment is normally long-term counselling and/or drug therapy.
First it starts off with admiration of foreskin, then delves into people who absolutely need foreskin to get off. It goes on to suggest it's a psychological disorder. I find this a bit odd since fetish in no way inherently implies that's the case. If a guy has a foot fetish, for example, it doesn't necessarily mean it's his only way of getting off, just that he admires feet in particular. The same is true of most, if not all, fetishes. This is just a bunch of POV bias.
- Nathan J. Yoder 08:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
no kidding, I want details, details! I'm a huge foreskin fan. never met one I couldn't clean out nice and good with my tongue. love that cheese. I pray to god every day when i go to the gym I'll meet a nice big long cheese filled foreskin I can take home and polish clean but all the men in my gym are circumsized :-( but the few times when a fresh foreskin appears watch out! two or three of us make a bee line for it in the locker room and then its every man for himself the owner of the foreskin usually loves to show it off and parade it around , some of the other cut guys are jealous, they know what their missing whoever the lucky winner is who gets to take the foreskin home that day i can tell you one thing he always comes in with a huge smile the next day! http://unix.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.os.vms/2004-02/0741.html
I have removed several random links to men undergoing foreskin restoration and the pointless slang terms in accordance with the true fetishistic reorientation of the circumcision fetish articles carefully worked out by Jakew. DanP 19:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have added "intact" to the "not merely to male genitalia" to bring this article into line with the Circumcision fetish article, though for most of the world, that would not be necessary. I'd have put it in brackets, but the phrase is in brackets already. -- Hugh7 01:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of course there are foreskin fetishes, there are fetishes for everything, some that have never been discussed before. Just look at fears for example, people fear things like tinfoil. this for some would seem like a ridiculous fear, well same applies for fetishes.
From Merriam Webster: "Entry Word: intact Function: adjective Text: not lacking any part or member that properly belongs to it"
Seems fairly straightforward doesn't it? Exploding Boy 17:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Good. That explanation sounds entirely reasonable to me. Exploding Boy 00:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I have redirected both circumcision fetish and foreskin fetish to sexual fetish.
The reasons are simple: neither cite reliable sources, and both are original research. 'Foreskin fetishism' has only been mentioned once in the literature, and as far as I can tell, 'circumcision fetishism' has never been mentioned. Jakew 10:35, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I applaud your boldness. This was long overdue. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 11:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Someone's removed said redirect, and a subsequent RFD. Should any of these be re-added? -- Jre 13:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently there is a foreskin fetish article but no circumcision fetish article. This seems unbalanced. -- 203.97.108.91 11:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This is quite beyond me, that people becoming aroused over a natural body part is considered less noteworthy and desirous of its own article within an encyclopedia than those who fantasise over the amputation of it seems absurd. 86.142.200.182 11:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This article should be deleted as unencyclopedic content. It strikes me as an attempt by the pro-circumcision groups to attempt to make the presence of a foreskin sound abnormal. Lordkazan 13:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Any objections? this seems to be a very minor fetish, with little information on it, it may be better served as a section of an article-- Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on January 9 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Foreskin fetish
The term "skin freaks" is used almost exclusively by one pro-circumcision advocate who is very active on Usenet and the World Wide Web. -- DanBlackham 05:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Most of the references to "skin freaks" on Usenet were made by one pro-circumcision crusader who goes by wadi and Briar Rabbit among other names. -- DanBlackham 18:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The use of the term "skin freaks" seems even rarer when one notices the similarities between Briar Rabbit's writing style and Robert's writing style. -- DanBlackham 11:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I’m wondering here, because we have a part of the body, and supposedly there’s a fetish attached to it. Do you mean some people have frenulum, glans, circumcision scar, clitoral hood, big toe, earlobe, eyelid, nose, whatever fetishes too? Is that even possible?
If it is, I’m inclined to ask about the attitude projected in the article, and I wonder if it weren’t reasonable to make a similarly toned article on circumcision scar fetish — pretty sure there exist people like that, if even just a handful.
Oh, and it seems to me that “anti-circumcision” “activities” such as foreskin restoration (see some previous stage of the article) are considerably more “live and let live” than, say, circumcising someone. So I might just object to that notion too. -- Ralesk 21:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
“Nonsense removed ... everyone has feet but only a few have a specific foot fetish” — Most males in Europe have a foreskin, and I’m pretty sure their partners like to play with their penis, which the foreskin happens to be a part of. Nibbling, sucking, touching, whatsoever the foreskin is a normal part of foreplay.
“Vandalism repaired” — and you, are you afraid of the truth? Trying to justify your own obsession with circumcision and circumcised penises? It’s pretty much a fact that this was coined by people who don’t know much about foreskins, normal male anatomy, and so on. And we know the American Pediatrics’ old standpoint regarding foreskins, we know it well.
“To appreciate the extent of this fetish one needs to carry out Google searches on "foreskin fetish", "foreskin worship" and on the varients of "foreskin love/r/s".” — To appreciate the extent of circumcision fetish one needs to carry out Google searches on "circumcision fetish", "circumcision worship" and on the varients of "circumcision love/r/s". Notably, on both first searches you get a shitload of porn sites. On “foreskin fetish”, they seem to be such that are serving areas that lack foreskins.
Much love, Ralesk 02:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
“I have reverted "uncircumcised" to "intact" because this describes the penis without reference to circumcision, merely qualifying that nothing is missing. Whoever changed it has done so silently, suggesting they don't want their reasoning (if any) queried. -- Hugh7 23:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You might find it helpful to read edit summaries in the 'history' page before complaining about silent edits. Had you done so, you would have discovered that the change was to correct the terminology. Intact has a less precise meaning than uncircumcised. A foreskin fetishist might, for example, find a pierced foreskin tremendously arousing, but it is not intact. It is, however, uncircumcised. The reference to circumcision is necessary, because it is the absence of circumcision which is the issue here. I suppose you could substitute something cumbersome, like "penis which has a foreskin," but why bother when there is a perfectly satisfactory word already? - Jakew 10:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to make a constructive contribution to this article rather than just try to sabotage it from the sidelines. It appears you have some interest in the subject otherwise you wouldn't have got so involved. If you believe that by seeing one fetish type exposed (and subjected to public scrutiny you need to expose another I am sure Wikipedia will accept your starting such an article of your own. If however you are willing and able to contribute to correctly and comprehensively cover this particular subject please do. - Robert the Bruce 03:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Obviously though, since you’ve removed my “nonsense” about how and why it’s not a fetish in Rest of the World, you don’t want me to write anything that goes against your idea(l)s. If you did, you’d have tidied up the article, rather than wiped my entry. My contribution — albeit tongue in cheek, yes — did have information and did try to push this heavily POVed article back from falling over.
And yes I do have some interest in the topic — that doesn’t invalidate what I say, by far; and you still haven’t told us about your purpose and agenda. By the way, unlike you, this topic isn’t my only one here on Wikipedia. I just haven’t been active recently, and I’m more of a translator, than an en: contributor anyway.
~ Ralesk 03:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and why I didn’t start the counterpart article, here goes: your foreskin fetish article, as it is now, is slander towards pretty much all people who live in a non-circumcising part of the world (which means the vast majority of people), and calling people who have a preference for a circumcised penis is a slander towards those who don’t know any different. I think Nathan Yoder hit the nail on the head that this is a cultural “fetish”, i.e. what is considered a deviance depends on what is the norm in the area.
And unlike you, I don’t like to slander the people of a whole continent in a public article. And unlike you, I don’t delete factual information and related links. -- Ralesk 12:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"There is also evidence that in some cases, pedophiles may share this fetish" - why is that even in there? That's obviously trying to push a POV to make it look bad. Pedophiles can have all kinds of fetishes, that doesn't mean anything. There's nothing to suggest that it's even remotely common among pedophiles either.
"This fetish is often found among those who indulge in the body modification practices of foreskin stretching or foreskin restoration, and almost all oppose circumcision to varying extents."
Is restoration really "body modification"? Body modification refers to things like tattoos, piercings, sub-dermal implants, etc... I've never heard it refer to anything reconstructive. It's like calling someone who got their face reconstructed after a car accident undergoing body modification. Additionally the "almost all" statement is wrong, most of the people who oppose circumcision are in countries where liking foreskin is not a fetish.
I agree with the above, the 'vandalism' edits are highly inappropriate and are a violation of wikipedia rules.
"Is restoration really 'body modification'?" I think so. I suppose depending on how it's done. You can have surgical restoration, but this is widely unpopular because the desired outcome is significantly less than the reality; there usually are a lot of complications. So comparing foreskin restoration to facial reconstruction doesn't seem like a very good example because the vast majority of foreskin restorers use non-surgical, stretching methods aimed at lengthening what remaining foreskin they have left using devices that covers the glans of the penis. It's the same as gauging one's ears to larger and larger sizes slowly over time or those in various cultures who stretch their lips for jewelry and plates.
As Ralesk said, there is also a fetish about circumcision and this can be documented from the Internet. However, there are allusions to a sexual involvement to circumcision in the Bible and evidence from other sources. The foreskin and circumcision fetishes are, I believe, like two sides of the one coin. See (1 Samuel 18: 20-29) [1] Michael Glass 12:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Robert, where is your evidence that foreskin fetishists play a leading role in the anti-circumcision movement? Why do you feel that drawing a link between two fetishes will obscure the insights that you want to bring to this question? Michael Glass 05:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Robert, why did you remove a link to an article on circumcision fetishes? Michael Glass 05:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Robert, please answer the three questions I put to you:
Michael Glass 22:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let me answer you as follows: To those who have been observing the goings on starting with the desperate attempts to remove the the foreskin fetish article and leading up to the establishment of the circumcision fetish article have now certainly become more informed as to where the circumcision "debate" overflows into otherwise seemingly unconnected areas. What is truly hilarious is the second line of defense where when it was obvious that the foreskin fetish article was not going to be wished away the approach of "well if they are going to expose our soft underbelly then lets expose theirs" took over. Pretty sad stuff. So what is the connection Michael? Is the supposed connection between a foreskin fetish and a circumcision fetish anything more than that they are mutually exclusive? Your insistence of making a connection is interesting and requires explanation from you rather than any from me. In addition it is evident to anyone who has been "observing" the goings on on numerous lists over a period of time that there is a serious psychosexual (and yes, predominantly gay) undertone that permeates through these groups (and yes, that includes some of the folk over on circlist). It is good that this stuff comes out into the open, it is important that people get to know what floats some of the boats around here. You do believe that the truth should prevail don't you Michael? And to add Michael, it is also evident that many of the people over at circlist are also anti routine neonatal circumcision because that would deny them the "opportunity" to realise their peculiar interest in the act of circumcision itself. You are following this aren't you Michael? - Robert the Bruce 05:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It might help your point a bit if you stopped frothing at the mouth there Robert. Clearly, according to my anecdotal evidence, pro-circ people must frequently have a serious psychosexual circumcision fetish. Now we must absolutely start a circumcision fetish article to expose this disgusting and vile practice.
Next week Robert will dicuss why playing with the folds of skin on a woman's vulva is a sick, disgusting practice highly associated with lesbianism. We must do our best to spread the truths about the abomination known as homosexuality and sexual practices that involve anything other than being in the missionary position. - Nathan J. Yoder 22:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How anyone can read a page like this [2] and not agree there is a "circumcision fetish" out there is just deluding themselves (warning: graphic content). -- Jre 17:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Dan, some questions:
- Jakew 18:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If the disclaimer were actually relevant to the subject, it might count as bias.
I am aware of the history of the psychiatric evaluation of homophobia. However, you can't say that a paper is homophobic just because it happened to be published at a time when many medics were. Such an evaluation needs to be made on the basis of the content of the paper. - Jakew 20:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you're reading something into the articles that I'm not. I don't detect any more of a negative aspect to homosexuality than in describing, say, males in their 50s. It's a matter-of-fact observation. I'm inclined to agree that we have a few too many disclaimers (though I think that in a few cases they're justified). - Jakew 00:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Regarding hypothetical studies, you might be right - I don't know. I don't think that the intent is to discredit restoration, though, but that's just my gut feeling.
I agree with your suggestion regarding neutral disclaimers. "Site providing views in opposition to circumcision" is better than "Note: anti-circumcision site". I think that, if anything, disclaimers are more informative when advising about a site that uses a subtle approach (eg CIRP), and less useful when the agenda is blatantly obvious. On the other hand, we have an ethical obligation to disclaim extremism. Perhaps its best if we just have neutral disclaimers for every site except truly neutral sites like Medline. - Jakew 01:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I made some edits, to achieve the following:
Tannin 11:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have incorporated some of Tannin's changes - namely, "in the era of the internet..." and "viewing, handling...".
The other changes are inappropriate and have been reverted. Namely: 1) it is not controversial to describe this as a fetish (since that is the definition of a fetish). The only "controversy" is whether a given individual's interests constitute a fetish. 2) A fetish is a kind of paraphilia. If you need this explaining to you, perhaps you should read up on the subject before trying to write about it. 3) clinical aspects of fetishism, as they pertain to foreskin fetishism are of course relevant. 4) I've incorporated a summary of Khan's remarks on the paedophilia relation. 5) By all means change the language, but please don't censor information. 6) The links are valid as "exhibits". 7) I'll wait and see whether the article is still disputed. - Jakew 17:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jakew, please stop your constant reverts to this page. They constitute vandalism, which could lead to your being blocked. Exploding Boy 16:40, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
True, but other editors clearly believe that your reverts do not constitute an improvement. You have been repeatedly asked to stop reverting and to discuss what you see as problematic here, on the talk page. I've looked at your edit history; it seems like the majority of your edits are reverts; it doesn't look good. If you're not a vandal, if you're not simply trying to promote a particular point of view rather than trying to create a neutral, balanced article, then you'll discuss the things that concern you here, and stop your constant unexplained reverts. Exploding Boy 17:02, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
If you bother to look, you'll see that I have discussed the reasons (in the section above). Since you haven't discussed your reasons, by your own definition you've just vandalised the page.
In the spirit of compromise, I've removed the paedophilia reference. - Jakew 17:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Compromise tends to involve both parties conceding something. Including paedophilia, I've now agreed to three of Tannin's points. If you look above, in the paragraphs beginning with "I have incorporated some of Tannin's changes", I have addressed each and every one of Tannin's points. An exchange of views constitutes discussion, to my knowledge. I'm sorry that you feel it isn't as correct or informative. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you feel this way? - Jakew 17:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Robert, this seems a little contentious to say the least. If you have some set of people who are diagnosed forskin fetishists maybe you can justify the claim by ascertaining whether they are also anti-circumcision activists (which has to be a bit more than just not being circumcised themselves); otherwise it just looks like cheap innuendo. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 03:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Innuendo isn't enough. Please cite your justification for this claim. You should know by now that you can't throw the onus for your claim onto others; you have to substantiate it yourself. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 03:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The fetish distinguishes itself from mere appreciation by the fact that these activities become essential for the individual to achieve sexual gratification.
While the term may be used informally, a clinical diagnosis must meet formal criteria which include distress or impaired social or sexual functioning. The cause of fetishism is often complex, but frequently includes doubts about the patient's own masculinity or potency and feelings of inadequacy. Treatment is normally long-term counselling and/or drug therapy.
First it starts off with admiration of foreskin, then delves into people who absolutely need foreskin to get off. It goes on to suggest it's a psychological disorder. I find this a bit odd since fetish in no way inherently implies that's the case. If a guy has a foot fetish, for example, it doesn't necessarily mean it's his only way of getting off, just that he admires feet in particular. The same is true of most, if not all, fetishes. This is just a bunch of POV bias.
- Nathan J. Yoder 08:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
no kidding, I want details, details! I'm a huge foreskin fan. never met one I couldn't clean out nice and good with my tongue. love that cheese. I pray to god every day when i go to the gym I'll meet a nice big long cheese filled foreskin I can take home and polish clean but all the men in my gym are circumsized :-( but the few times when a fresh foreskin appears watch out! two or three of us make a bee line for it in the locker room and then its every man for himself the owner of the foreskin usually loves to show it off and parade it around , some of the other cut guys are jealous, they know what their missing whoever the lucky winner is who gets to take the foreskin home that day i can tell you one thing he always comes in with a huge smile the next day! http://unix.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.os.vms/2004-02/0741.html
I have removed several random links to men undergoing foreskin restoration and the pointless slang terms in accordance with the true fetishistic reorientation of the circumcision fetish articles carefully worked out by Jakew. DanP 19:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have added "intact" to the "not merely to male genitalia" to bring this article into line with the Circumcision fetish article, though for most of the world, that would not be necessary. I'd have put it in brackets, but the phrase is in brackets already. -- Hugh7 01:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of course there are foreskin fetishes, there are fetishes for everything, some that have never been discussed before. Just look at fears for example, people fear things like tinfoil. this for some would seem like a ridiculous fear, well same applies for fetishes.
From Merriam Webster: "Entry Word: intact Function: adjective Text: not lacking any part or member that properly belongs to it"
Seems fairly straightforward doesn't it? Exploding Boy 17:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Good. That explanation sounds entirely reasonable to me. Exploding Boy 00:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I have redirected both circumcision fetish and foreskin fetish to sexual fetish.
The reasons are simple: neither cite reliable sources, and both are original research. 'Foreskin fetishism' has only been mentioned once in the literature, and as far as I can tell, 'circumcision fetishism' has never been mentioned. Jakew 10:35, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I applaud your boldness. This was long overdue. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 11:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Someone's removed said redirect, and a subsequent RFD. Should any of these be re-added? -- Jre 13:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently there is a foreskin fetish article but no circumcision fetish article. This seems unbalanced. -- 203.97.108.91 11:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This is quite beyond me, that people becoming aroused over a natural body part is considered less noteworthy and desirous of its own article within an encyclopedia than those who fantasise over the amputation of it seems absurd. 86.142.200.182 11:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This article should be deleted as unencyclopedic content. It strikes me as an attempt by the pro-circumcision groups to attempt to make the presence of a foreskin sound abnormal. Lordkazan 13:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Any objections? this seems to be a very minor fetish, with little information on it, it may be better served as a section of an article-- Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)