Changes

''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.

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.

Mutilating the genitals of others has a deep sexual motive. This motive combined with the urge to control people when, in the nineteenth century, doctors first introduced "medicalised" circumcision in the vain attempt to prevent [[masturbation]].<ref>Moses MJ. The value of circumcision as a hygienic and therapeutic measure. ''New York Medical Journal '' 1871;14:368-74.</ref><ref>{{REFjournal