[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: Plain Truth.

Written by Gar at 27 Feb 2003 22:10:41:

As an answer to: Plain Truth. written by Paul B. at 27 Feb 2003 20:30:58:

>> ...how is this site and person any more or less fetishist than the people you attack at Circlist?
>It's perfectly simple and straightforward. The foreskin is an important part of the normal and functional anatomy of the penis - it facilitates and enhances comfortable intercourse, as you of course don't know. I have purposely refrained from saying it is an essential part of the penis, because it is perfectly obvious that sex can occur without it, but simply much less satisfactorily. Just like you can do almost everything you need to even with a few fingers missing.
>Now getting back to "eroticisation" and "fetishes", this is also quite simple. There is no need whatsoever to "eroticise the foreskin", because as part of the penis, it is already, inseparably, erotic, just as the glans is, the clitoris, or the breasts.
>You don't, can't say someone has a "penis fetish" or a "breast fetish", because the definition of "fetish" is - "3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification". And that is most sensible - a body part that is, ipso facto, part of the sexual apparatus, is part of "normal" sexuality, it is normal to focus to whatever extent on stimulating, or using it, and cannot therefore be a "fetish".
>Sexual mutilations are equally obviously, neither in the remotest of circumstances necessary, nor conducive to normal sexuality. I have no qualms about including in this category, piercings and infibulations. Those who claim it "increases the stimulation" may well be accurately describing their particular personal perceptions, but are clearly in the category of "fetishists", exactly as those who claim a woman wearing high heels "increases the stimulation".
>And circumcision is amongst, if not singularly, the oldest of sexual mutilations. But that in no way gives it respectability, any more than that even older practice, murder.
>So it can hardly be clearer. Having sex is erotic - that is axiomatic. Hacking someone's sex organs so they function less than normally, is anti-erotic.

Hmm - do i understand you to be saying that people do not 'eroticize' the intact foreskin because the Creator (however you understand the means by which we were created) already did so?


Answers: