22,328
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
added Is ''Circumfetishist'' an ad hominem attack?
|accessdate=2011-03-08
}}</ref>
== Is ''Circumfetishist'' an ad hominem attack? ==
In discussions, some people who can be classified as circumfetishists criticize that the term is an insult to their person as an ''ad hominem'' attack. Is the term ''circumfetishist'' in fact an insult?
''Insult'' is the infringement of another human's honor by whatsoever means of expression, in particular an offensive statement or gesture communicated, and is a crime in some countries. The distinction between insult and defamation is that, from a focussing point of view, the former ascribes a value whereas the latter attributes or imputes a fact.<ref>{{REFweb
|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult_(legal)
|title=Insult (legal)
|publisher=Wikipedia
|accessdate=2020-09-13
}}</ref>
''Circumfetishist'' is a descriptive term for a person with an obvious fixation on circumcision as described above. So it cannot be an insult. Can it be a defamation then? This depends on what the person has done, said or written in this context. If a person has obviously and objectively understandable acted in a way which is consistent with the above fetish description, it is obvious that the attribute is a fact, not a defamation. If it can be shown that the person had never acted in such a way that the above description of circumcision fetish fits the actions, it would be defamation as a false assertion of fact to assign the term circumfetishist to that person.
Some of the persons attributed this way reply by trying to insult the discussion partner as ''foreskin fetishist''. Is that a valid insult or defamation?
This conflict mostly occurs in circumcision debates where circumcision proponents and opponents of circumcision collide. So one can presume that the person attributed as a ''foreskin fetishist'' is in fact an [[intactivist]]. By definition, intactivists are human rights activists who stand up and speak up for the human rights of helpless children who cannot defend themselves against medically not indicated genital mutilation. This dilemma is primarily about the inalienable human rights of defenseless children. The body parts that are to be damaged or removed during genital mutilation are only of secondary importance. Since intactivists basically want to protect all children from genital mutilation, it is not only about the foreskin, but also about parts of the female genitalia or intersex genitals.
Since intactivists also want to prevent other medically not indicated physical injuries in children, such as tattoos or piercings, the third line is not about the male foreskin, but about other parts of the body.
In the end, it can be stated that intactivists are not foreskin fetishists, but at most human rights fetishists, because they do not want to see that children should not have the same human rights as adults. However, since the definition of fetish does not include standing up for human rights, intactivists cannot be foreskin fetishists. Therefore, the term ''foreskin fetishist'' is not an insult, but simply nonsense that you can endure relaxed.
== Circumfetish groups ==