[ ARC forum 2 ]

Simple concept for Paul...

Written by AJ at 28 Feb 2003 13:53:48:

As an answer to: One more try to help AJ grasp the concept. written by Paul B. at 28 Feb 2003 13:07:23:

>Then you will be able to cite these?

Masters and Johnson for one. For other instances ask your tutor at the Nursing College it is suggested you attend for more material.

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

I understand the term fetish. However, I do not agree with how you understand and apply the word. Take this Merriam-Webster definition of the word:

c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression

You argument and criteria for the application of the word fetish do not work or apply within the context of the above definition. You may not be able to understand this so let me help make it simple for you:

“an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification” – with anti-circer people in question it would be the presence of the foreskin and for Circlist people (as proposed by your colleagues) – the absence of a foreskin.

>My description of it as a "sexual mutilation" was intended in the context of "mutilation of a sexual organ",

So you agree that your description of “sexual mutilation” is inaccurate and should have read “mutilation of a sexual organ”. That’s good.


>> 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.

That’s right Paul. It is as I said above.

>> 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?

What is to know? Have seen my original question? How are anti-circers that are turned-on by the presence of a foreskin any different from the Circlisters that your colleagues propose are? They’re not. Yet the label of fetish is applied to only one party. That is odd and a staple hypocrisy from many with the anti-circ community.


Answers: