Talk:Circumcision fetish

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision fetish (second nomination) --JWSchmidt 13:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, review Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circumcision_fetish if necessary Dabljuh 15:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is linked to on other pages, I added the redirect to sexual fetishism (as indicated on the talk:foreskin fetish page.) --Jre 13:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more appropriate to delete the links elsewhere. Jakew 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ritual fetishes

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) beadtot 2/4/2006

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)[reply]

A Ressurection of this Article?

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)[reply]

I see. Well is an organisation strictly neccessary? I believe that this link should be suffecient as far as proving its existance is concerned: http://www.circlist.com/preferences/eroticforeskin.html

I think you will agree that it hardly belongs to that of an anti-circ site and includes the testimony of those who enjoy performing such procedures and the sentance "I find images that could be construed as having to do with foreskin/circumcision very erotic" indicates that he does indeed find the procedure arousing without any shadow of a doubt.

Please do not take this as an attempt to besmirch the name of Circlist (if I wanted to do that I would aim at their highly spurrious content on phimosis), I am simply stating that this is a phenomenon which can be shown to exist and thus it belongs upon Wikipedia. If there is to be some dispute over what constitutes a circum-fetishist society/organisation/club I will not even bother to link them.

Regardless, this article requires existance.

86.142.200.182 22:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found It

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)[reply]

Wow! It seems that once you look hard enough the links do not stop flowing...

It seems that this link was obscured to me (and others, presumably) by the euphamism of "Circumsexual" but I eventually found this site:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/circumsexual/

You might have to sign up to Yahoo to be able to see it (I did!) but once you are there I believe that the front page makes its content it as clear as it possibly could be and shows this to be an organisation dedicated to the topic at hand:

"This ia[sic] a group for men that are turned on by circumcised penises, the process of circumcision, or the fantasy of being circumcised and/or performing circumcisions on others. This is not an anti-circ nor pro-circ forum, nor a place to debate such affairs. It is for men, 18 and older, that find everything about CIRCUMCISION to be EROTIC."

I now have an organisation openly stating its purpose as a circumcision fetish group. Am I correct in my presumption that I may now procede?

86.142.200.182 22:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The difficulty is that it seems to be an area which has not been greatly studied in public sources. However it clearly does exist and is a highly notable phenomenon so it belongs upon Wikipedia.

(Just to avoid any confusion here I am 86.142.200.182, I just forgot to sign in before making the above posts.)

IndigoJones 18:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh wait, I was going to post some puerile request to know whether you or I would propose Freckle Fetish be deleted but here we go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3227734.stm

Yes, as a fellow Brit I am fairly sure that you must know that that paticular organisation is not entirely free of bias in its coverage but it is refutable in factual terms and that article seems reliable enough.

And yes, it is indeed a lone instance but then so was the Foreskin Fetish link and we can not be maintaining double standards now can we?

86.142.200.182 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'fetish' doesn't even appear once on that page. Jakew 09:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough...

I have found another one though, checking if it is still in print though. Or is the mere fact that it was once published enough? 86.142.200.182 23:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, by Brenda Love (Barricade Books, Inc., 1992).

81.153.18.37 09:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, it clearly does. IndigoJones 13:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]