Talk:Foreskin fetish

For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Foreskin fetish

---

Skin freaks

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Responses to request for comment

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)

Should this article even exist?

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• • 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)

• • 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)

• • 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)

• • 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)

• • 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)

• • 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)

Re: on some edits

“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)

• What brought you back? Was it a certain "call to arms" on a certain anti-circumcision list by any chance? Wikipedians need to know this stuff. - Robert the Bruce 03:44, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • Now now, don’t be paranoid and stop lashing out on those “certain” “monmaniacal” anti-circumcision “activists”. I came all by myself. -- Ralesk 04:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • Oh, to Wikipedia in general? Wanted to translate something for one of the other editions. -- Ralesk 04:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

---

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.

Circumcision Fetish

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)

• Michael you may start such an article if you so wish, however, please do not try to excuse the excesses of the foreskin fetishists and understate their leading role in the anti-circumcision movement by blowing smoke over another issue. Keep your eye on the ball, Michael ;-) - Robert the Bruce 18:09, 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)

Because he doesn’t like the table turned. -- Ralesk 11:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• By all means start such an article. Place what deserves to be there, there and your other stuff elsewhere. Now take this discussion to the appropriate discussion page if you will. - Robert the Bruce 16:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert, please answer the three questions I put to you:

• Why did you remove a link to an article on circumcision fetishes?
• 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 the two fetishes will obscure the insights that you want to bring to this question?

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)

Homophobic Article?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

I made some edits, to achieve the following:

1. Remove the kooky "in this era of the internet" introduction. This topic has nothing to do with the internet, except in as much as it can (like, say, vintage cars or growing geraniums) be discussed or published on the web.
2. Replace the POV definition with a simple, direct, and uncontroversial one: "can be described as" - i.e., we do not claim that this is a fetish, we simply report that some people have claimed that it is and make no forther comment.
3. Remove the paraphilia claim: whether you approve of or dissaprove of this particular sexual interest, by definition it cannot be a [paraphilia]], as it is a sexual interest in a part of the sexual organs themselves.
4. Replace prurient and rather pointless "viewing, handling, licking, tickling, stretching, sniffing, sucking on or kissing" section with a simple "is aroused by" sentence.
5. remove the "clinical diagnosis" para, replace it with a link to fetish, because (a) it has obviously been inserted simply in order to attempt to add a (probably spurious) air of accuracy to the article, and (b) because it doesn't say anything at all about foreskin fetishes, as opposed to fetishes in general. The appropriate place to discuss this general inforation about fetishes is in fetish.
6. Remove the gratuitous pedophile sneer. This was highly inappropriate.
7. Clean up excessive language generally and replace with text in an encyclopediac tone.
8. Remove two external links which are irrelevant to foreskin fetishism: either or both, however, would be perfectly sensible to link to from a more appropriate place, such as foreskin.
9. Removed the disputed tag, as the entry is now substantially improved. Whether it is improved enough, or should simply be deleted, I leave for others to judge.

Tannin 11:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Your changes are a big improvement. -- DanBlackham 07:10, 22 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)

Reverts

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I too am waiting for Exploding Boy to respond to this. - Robert the Bruce 05:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alleged link between anti-circumcision activism and foreskin fetishism

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)

• Why don't you sign up to a few anti-circumcision/foreskin restoration lists and read what floats their boats there. All will be revealed. - Robert the Bruce 03:39, 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)

Foreskin fetish is a disorder?

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)

• A disorder? Who knows? A phenomenon, yes. That is what matters. Here is an example of this phenomenon ... and yes ... the term skin freak is quite apt: - Robert the Bruce 04:27, 3 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

• On second thoughts ... yes ... I think it is a disorder. - Robert the Bruce 04:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Dan this is the discussion page. What the stuff available on the net indicates is that the "foreskin fetish" is indeed alive and well and worthy of its own article here on Wikipedia. This considering that there were attempts to have the article deleted a while ago. What were the people behind that attempt trying to hide do you think? The truth? - Robert the Bruce 23:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

Changes to make this an actual fetish article

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)

Good choice. I think it improves the article. - Jakew 23:19, 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)

Fetishes are many just like fears

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.

for Jakew

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)

Good. That explanation sounds entirely reasonable to me. Exploding Boy 00:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Redirected

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)

Why Does This Page Exist and not "Circumcision Fetish"?

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)

• Not only that, but all reference to the previous circumcision fetish page seems to be missing. If it is not, would someone please provide a link. --Hugh7 01:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There are no references to it, because it was deleted after extensive discussion (in which you took part). The reason for its deletion was that no reliable sources even mention the existence of such a fetish (that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just that our policies prevent us from asserting that it does). Jakew 09:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • But now I can't find that discussion or any reference to the vote. Using Google I found that Dabljuh had written to Ulayiti at [3] "I pretty much ended the debate by finding a source that suffices WP:RS, the lack of which was the reason for the AFD vote. You have nevertheless deleted the article. I request you to undo the delete and restore the article. Dabljuh 12:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC) I've put up a review, feel free to vote (in favor of undeleting it, I hope) Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Circumcision_fetish Dabljuh 15:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC) " But the link leads to no such review. Where is it? --Hugh7 10:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The archived discussion is here and the review here. Jakew 11:07, 27 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)

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)

merge to list of fetishes?

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)