Talk:Circumcision fetish

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision fetish (second nomination) --JWSchmidt 13:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more appropriate to delete the links elsewhere. Jakew 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Circumcision is a ritual fetish, perhaps intended to prevent prostate dysfunction or cancer or to more securely anchor males within a different culture.  As a bizarre demonstration of the specific musclature of foreskin loss during conflict, its loss may also guarantee a speedy SIDS-type death from mental confusion in dangerous locales.  As a cruel joke-made-real, populations which periodically are exposed to mental caches of historical imagery invariably send or require some attention to regions which then suffer from 'fit and flux' problems, or mob rule.  21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean fetish or sexual fetish? They really are quite different. I can see that a case could be made for it being a fetish, but I believe this article, when it existed, was talking about the other kind. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ritual fetishes 

message: If I was to provide full linkage to societies dedicated to the promotion or enjoyment of Circumfetishism (such as Acorn for instance) would it be acceptable for me to create a new article?
I assure you that I would not use ad hominems or sweeping statements and the article would be brief and to the point, making a simple description of a phenomenon which has an existance which is not within any reasonable doubt (just try a simple, standard Google search)and which this encyclopedia currently lacks any details on.
:That would be fine provided that you could find reliable sources identifying such societies as associated with a circumcision fetish. The article was deleted previously because none could be found. Jakew 16:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Ressurection of this Article? 

message: Scratch that last comment, I have one:
http://www.icon.co.za/~hugot/circum/circum.htm
Yes I am aware it makes the claim not to be pornography but, really, just read some of those textuals. The most polite term I can find to cover them is "Erotica of a dubious nature". It is clearly written to arouse rather than inform.
Bearing in mind both this and the circlist page where those in the actual possession of such a fetish could be found giving testimony there can be no reasonable doubt over existance.
86.142.200.182 22:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these qualify as reliable sources. Please look instead for published work, preferably in reputable journals, that discusses the phenomenon. Jakew 09:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read our policies on no original research and verifiability. The fact that it has not been studied in reliable sources means that it does not belong in Wikipedia. Jakew 19:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The term 'fetish' doesn't even appear once on that page. Jakew 09:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found It 

message: Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, by Brenda Love (Barricade Books, Inc., 1992).
81.153.18.37 09:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This book doesn't even mention circumcision fetish, let alone define it. What it does do is to describe an odd form of sex play involving simulated circumcisions. But as far as the central term of this article goes, it's silent. Jakew 09:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is "an odd form of sex play involving simulated circumcisions" but a fetishisation of circumcision? QED --Hugh7 (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid that you're mistaken. The entry is under "circumcision", not "circumcision fetish", which is not mentioned in the book at all. Jakew 13:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing