Talk:Foreskin fetish

message: 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)
replies: text: I googled to find its prevalence: "skin freaks" = 183 [most of these had nothing to do with foreskin], "skin freaks" foreskin = 13, "skin freaks" circumcision = 20. So basically you've got around 33 hits. From the look of the results its used entirely by certain specific individuals (probably less than a dozen) on specific forums. The term is very, very rare making it unacceptable to insert into the article. Nathan J. Yoder 17:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Briar Rabbit, that was the guy whose posts I was reading on some web-based forum.  It's even rarer than I thought. Nathan J. Yoder
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)

text: LOL, thanks for adding my signature, I always forget it.  This time I remembered afterwards, I was just too lazy to correct it.  He's already represented himself under at least 3 usernames on Wikipedia so I wouldn't be surprised.  He even thought he was perm banned, when it was a short temporary one, and came in with a new username.  It's pretty clear he doesn't care about Wikpedia rules/policies.  Nathan J. Yoder 14:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Skin freaks

message: :As this subject is marginally notable in its prominence and reach, it would probably be most fair to disclose the actual size of the group involved.  So in general, the article would most honestly say that really only ten (or 1000 whatever) foreskin fetishists are known or have been documented, and only one person uses the pejorative "skin freaks".  Tom - Talk 16:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to request for comment

message: 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)
replies: text: The article probably should not exist, at least not in its present form.  Except for the first sentence the article is little more than an ad hominem attack on people who are opposed to non-therapeutic circumcision. -- DanBlackham 08:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  If this article is left, there should also be a circumfetish article.  Both might be considered obsessive, with circumfetish bordering on pedophila.  We should decide one way or the other, but be consistent and NPOV. DanP 18:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: *Should this article exist? Yes indeedy. If you google "foreskin fetish" you get mega hits. This great secret needs to be outed. Instead of trying to bury it lets build a great article which explains what floats these guy's boats and how these boys impact upon the anti-circumcision movement. Fascinating stuff to be sure. Wait a minute ... surely no one here is suggesting censorship? Nah ... can't be. - Robert the Bruce 15:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: ** To use your method of arguing: Those sites are just the propaganda of pro-circumcision activists and therefore it’s bullshit and only what I say can be true because my side is the right side and those “monmaniacal” pro-circumcision activist freaks will do anything to push their propaganda. — Do you like my turning the table?  In any case, I wonder how when the vast majority of people on Earth are uncircumcised, can the “liking of” an uncircumcised penis be the fetish, while the rarer “liking of” a circumcised one not.  Do tell, I’m eager to know. -- Ralesk 19:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *When I read responses like this I always wonder what is the motivation which lies behind the mask. I think it is this very fear of being exposed as a fetishist that increasing leads to these people desperately attempting to hide behind the mask of (anti-circumcision) child rights activist in their desperate pursuit of respectability and legitimacy. The more i think about it the more important in the greater scheme of things this article becomes. - Robert the Bruce 01:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ** Please, call most men and women who are in a sexual relation with an uncircumcised male, a fetishist.  They will all love it.  The medical article referenced is American.  This fact, and that it was released in the early ’80s when circumcision was the most prevalent in the States, suggests that it is POV and they regard people who have or wish they had a foreskin as odd and unusual.  If you grew up with a missing left ear, you would probably say you wish you could have it — if you grew up knowing someone cut that ear off of you when you were small, you’d feel robbed.  It’s perfectly normal to feel robbed, even if you don’t remember how it was to be whole.  Most restorers feel robbed because they know that a person took part of their body from them.  What is your motivation of trying to pose circumcision as something perfectly normal, something that’s default, something that is not a problem when it’s done to someone who cannot voice for or against it?  What is your agenda here?  Why are you trying to show that the American way is right and the rest of the world is odd? -- Ralesk 02:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: **I was thinking that articles of this kind shouldn't exist since they are culture specific.  Like there are cultures where they make a hole in the lower mouth.  I'm sure there that a person with an intact mouth would be considered a fetishist there.  This should all be moved under a new entry like "cultural fetishes" for culture specific fetishes.  You can redirect things like foreskin fetish to it. Nathan J. Yoder 07:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: **Culture specificity might not be the best criteria.  We have a detailed article on Babylon 5, not just a generic science fiction article.  Perhaps this article should just be Robert's fetish? DanP 23:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: **Science fiction is a much, much more broad category than just cultural specific fetishes, so it's not really a good analogy.  Considering how short this article is I don't see why it couldn't be integrated into a bigger one.  How many culture specific fetishes are there?  I should clarify that by culture specific fetish, I don't simply mean a fetish that is more popular in one culture than another.  I mean a fetish that is popular and is reliant on a certain culture specific practice existing.  Like, if an ordinary foot fetish was 100 times more popular in Japan than the US, it wouldn't be culture specific because it happens everywhere.  However, if the fetish were for feet that have been binded in Japan, then it would be culture specific.  This would primarily be involving body alterations, but there may be some other exceptions I can't think of it. -Nathan J. Yoder 14:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: **Good point.  But we do have an article on foot binding, which is not only culture-specific, but a practice that's probably almost extinct.  I agree on the pointlessness of this article, but not so much on culture criteria.  We also have an article on Penile inversion, which is a somewhat rare culturally-speaking.  But the breast article has a section on cultural status (which includes whether breasts are viewed as sexual which varies from culture to culture).  Maybe there should be a "cultural status" section in the foreskin article? DanP 15:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: **Foot binding is an actual body modification practice though.  Foreskin is just something that's naturally there anyway.  It would make more sense to do what the breast article did and include it with the forskin article, since it is something naturally occuring rather than an active modification practice.  Nathan J. Yoder 08:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: **Too add, yes it should definitely have an explicit cultural mention.  The breast fetishism includes a very fitting cultural explanation, that should be followed. Nathan J. Yoder 18:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article even exist? 

message: “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)
replies: text: *Good then can we expect a constructive contribution from you from now on? I hope so. - Robert the Bruce 04:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we can expect constructive contribution from you where you aren’t trying to push your POV agenda. -- Ralesk 11:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: on some edits 

message: 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)  Michael Glass 12:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he doesn’t like the table turned. -- Ralesk 11:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Circumcision Fetish

message: Dan, some questions:
* Why is it necessary to describe papers as homophobic?
* What benefit is there in doing so, from the perspective of informing the reader?
* What evidence do you have for describing them as homophobic? I've not read Khan's paper, but I don't find Mohl's paper homophobic or offensive (and I'm a gay man).
- Jakew 18:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not in my opinion that it's essential.  But papers and sites are routinely described as anti-circumcision when that should be a judgement for the reader to make, and often it is not germaine to the purpose of the reference.  We rarely put such warnings on other value-laden sites.   Seems like disclaimers are popular these days in several circumcision-related articles.  As far as homosexuality in particular, psychiatric professionals routinely categorized homosexuality as a mental disorder in the United States until rather recently.   Some still do, and the UN makes such claims until the mid-90's.  If the reader needs a warning that they're being led to an article that judges circumcision one way or the other, NPOV suggests the same goes for article referring to value judgements of homosexuals engaged in foreskin restoration.  Personally, I'd rather abolish all such disclaimers as POV in themselves.  But I guess there should be consensus on this.   DanP 19:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Jakew, according to your edit in the foreskin article, you say it's not POV the indicate whether a site is anti-circumcision.  Yet you delete any mention of bias from here.  Which is it?  To mention alleged bias (and claim it's NPOV to do so), or to not mention bias (and leave the reader to figure it all out)?  I'd like to know your opinion. DanP 20:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Chonological correllation is not why it's homophobic.  The articles clearly suggest negative psychological phenomena in relation to gay persons and their body image -- and the slant at the time of homosexuality being called a disorder is evident in them.  Regarding many of the disclaimers that "warn" readers of the bias that various sites are anti-circumcision (even when referring to articles which they did not write), no such supporting evidence is given or put up for debate.  Somebody (usually Robert) read it, made a judgement without quoting the source, and decided to put a personally-chosen disclaimer on any link to any site that even questions circumcision.  I've seen it happen over and over.  DanP 23:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Perhaps if the article were entitled "Circumcision Fetishism And Its Relation To Ego Pathology In A Male Homosexual" and "Male Circumcision Seekers: Psychiatric Aspects" with case studies of fetishists, obsessives, and other aberrations used to discredit circumcision, your opinion about a disclaimer would differ a bit.  The disclaimers should only indicate the content in neutral fashion (Site that provides views against/supporting/discussing circumcision), not Robert's bold-letter ("WARNING: THESE ARE ANTI-CIRCUMCISION, DON'T GO HERE").  If you want to eliminate the disclaimers to only those sites who clearly state a position one way or the other (NOCIRC, CircList, etc.), I would hope we could come to some kind of agreement on this.   But I'm guessing you'd rather only keep Robert's insertions.  DanP 01:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: CIRP is not exclusively on one side, despite strong leanings.  There are a few subtle sites on the other side that fully promote circumcision, but do not exclude opposition views entirely.  I'm not in favor of judgemental disclaimers for either, as their goal is not to trick reader's who can certainly read for themselves, and we are not the reader's "daddy".  We would have to put disclaimers on the whole of Wikipedia, if subtle approaches were heavily vilified. So that is why I question this practice of disclaiming as Robert has, as it seems petty and arrogant to me. DanP 01:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Thank you.  Your changes are a big improvement. -- DanBlackham 07:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Homophobic Article?

message: 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)
:Exploding Boy, improving a page, as you yourself have said, cannot constitute vandalism. Logically, reverting a change which was detrimental to the article is equivalent to improving it. - Jakew 16:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your last edit because it continues to incorporate some of the information identified as problematic by other editors.  In particular, the claim that foreskin fetishism is associated with paedophilia is unsubstatiated, even by the highly questionable link provided.  Further, in an article such as this, a lengthy explanation of fetishism and its treatments is unwarranted.  What should be added is discussion of the fact that many people use the word "fetish" with a particular meaning that is different from its medical use, ie: to describe something that they have a particular liking for or attraction to.  Many people describe themsevles as having a [whatever] fetish; they do not mean that they cannot funtion sexually without [whatever].  All people who describe themselves as having a foreskin fetish do not fit into the medical definition of fetishism; some of them just like or have a preference for intact penises.  Exploding Boy 17:16, 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)
replies: text: The reference to paedophilia was not the only problem with the article.  You've just added a comment above; you have not discussed anything.  Sorry, but the version of the article you are trying to promote is just not as correct, as well written or as informative as other versions.  For the umpteenth time, before making changes, please discuss them here.  Exploding Boy 17:22, Nov 25, 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)
thread_title: Reverts

message: 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.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged link between anti-circumcision activism and foreskin fetishism

message: 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)
replies: text: Robert, think for a moment.  Even if it is abnormal, identifying singling out this fetish as a disorder is technically POV.  Pulling out random newsgroup postings is hardly a scholarly source of evidence, and perhaps the same standard should apply to the circumcision fetish?  Please remember that there are plenty of vile stories of people admiring mutilated baby penises, and then describing their taste for the exposed glans.  Presenting these sorts of "examples" is nothing but absurd and destructive to Wikipedia. DanP 18:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being evasive now.  Substantiate that it's a disorder.  If he continues to be evasive and doesn't substantiate it (which is doubtful consider his already shoddy evidence), just delete the paraphilia and disorder stuff from the article.  For an idea of what a "body part fetish" article should look like, see Breast_fetishism. Nathan J. Yoder 18:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreskin fetish is a disorder? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good choice. I think it improves the article. - Jakew 23:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to make this an actual fetish article 

message: 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)
:There are other definitions. For example, Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines intact as "complete and in the original state." (Thanks to Tony Sidaway for that)
:However, even using Merriam Webster's definition, a penis can have a foreskin yet not be intact. What if part or all of the glans has been removed, but the foreskin left? It is not an intact penis, yet it is an uncircumcised one. - Jakew 18:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: for Jakew

message: 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 SidawayTalk 11:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirected 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with the first sentence of your remark. You could try re-listing it for AfD. Jakew 14:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Does This Page Exist and not "Circumcision Fetish"? 

message: 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--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge to list of fetishes?