14,843
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Is Circumfetishist an ad hominem attack?: Wikification.
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.