[ ARC forum 2 ]

One more try to help AJ grasp the concept.

Written by Paul B. at 28 Feb 2003 13:07:23:

As an answer to: Re: Plain Truth. written by AJ at 27 Feb 2003 23:37:21:

> Interesting speculation, Paul. Are you circumcised or just going by what you have been told?

I have spoken to enough people, over many enough years, to know that circumcised men, as well as those with an unretractable foreskin can have sex and find it "adequate", at least if they do not examine their experience too closely.

> plenty of objective studies don?t back up your presumption,

Then you will be able to cite these?

> So you are saying anything to do with the penis is not a fetish? Then, back to my original question,

Your re-statement of the original question, essentially verbatim, suggests that you simply still do not understand the term fetish.

It can't be much more straightforward. What most people understand, is that certain sexual practices are normal in the sense that 1} they are pleasurable to the vast majority of persons and 2} they lead directly to sexual excitement and orgasm. These practices include masturbation, which in males is facilitated by the foreskin (circumcised men generally attempt to use whatever remnant they have to emulate what was lost), breast play (usually more focussed toward females due to more pronounced breast development), oral sex and intercourse (which is again, greatly facilitated by the presence of a foreskin).

Whilst some people may concentrate more on one of these modalities than others, that is, may find one more pleasurable than the others, there is an indisputable connection between using the normal sexual organs, and experiencing sexual pleasure.

On the other hand, when something which is not part of the normal sexual response, becomes either preferred or even necessary to sexual gratification, then that indicates a fetish. Most people would find it pretty clear that to incorporate something injurious to sexual function, in such a fashion, that that thing must be a fetish. While the definition I continue to quote, specifies "Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body", it certainly does not exclude, nor would it intend to, procedures, rituals or fantasies (themselves other than of normal sexuality), or combinations thereof.

> Correct me if I?m wrong, but you are referring to circumcision as ?sexual mutilation??

Beyond the mangled punctuation, most certainly.

> So, from your perspective, you are saying that circumcision is a sexual act? That?s strikes me as bizarre.

It is circumcision that strikes me as bizarre. My description of it as a "sexual mutilation" was intended in the context of "mutilation of a sexual organ", and I was not proposing to examine the motivation of the person performing the mutilation. Nevertheless, on inspection, it becomes pretty clear that those who deliberately promote it, can have only two motives, profit and(/ or) vicarious - sexual - gratification. Certainly, it would be by no means either the only nor anywhere near the commonest example of envy as a sexual motivation.

> I am ... trying to understand how you can justify using different labels to describe what is essentially the same motivation, albeit with different preferences.

You do seem to have a problem. I don't think I can explain it to you. I can give another allegory and many others will see the relevance, but you will not. There is a certain practice in society, which is profitable to those who pursue it, whilst others seek to prevent them doing so. Of the latter group, some act for their own immediate interest, whilst others act for the community's interest and of these, some are even employed by the community to do so.

Now the motivation of the first group and that of the second are essentially similar - the acquisition of property. Nevertheless, the community almost exclusively sides with the second group I mentioned, and even, if they are to be candid about it, most of the first group does also. Try as you might, and however fond we are of "Robin Hood", it is simply not do-able to construe the first group as acting "justifiably", and very few people would visualise this matter as people having "essentially the same motivation, albeit with different preferences".

> Ah, so something that most people would perhaps consider a ?turn on?,

I personally believe you are confusing the particular - your own particular in fact, with the general. Infibulation may be a "turn on" to you, but that's a minority preference - looking at it is a novelty and may indeed amuse most of us (briefly) - doing it is not - it is most assuredly a fetish (or even worse than that - a fashion!). And not doing it - is not a fetish.

> What?s respectability to do with the topic at hand? I?m not trying to debate with you the ethical issues involved with child circumcision or if it?s respectable.

Indeed you appear not to wish to debate that.

> I just want to know how you are different from the people at Circlist (which your colleagues would suggest are aroused by a circumcised penis), while your colleagues are aroused by an uncircumcised one.

One group appreciates the "designed" working of the human body, one group takes pride if they can successfully prevent it working normally. What's to know?

> you are saying that some people from Circlist are aroused by the actual act of circumcision?

Was I saying that? However it was, that appears to be fair assessment of the site, indeed its very raison d'être, by all accounts.

> If they have a fetish about the circumcised penis how are some anti-circ people any different (though with a preference for an uncircumcised penis)?

Well, basically, some people like dining at a restaurant, some people like playing in shit. It's all the same food to start with. Call me pretentious if you must, but I'll take the restaurant.


Answers: