Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congradulations Jake on a very sensible article. Didn't know you had it in you.  ;} Sirkumsize 15:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Reading the article in conjunction with the original research

First of all, Jake, congratulations for the work that you have done. You will notice that I have added a caution to suggest that people follow the links to the reports of the original research. I hope you'll agree that this is an appropriate and sensible thing to add to the article. Michael Glass 12:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll adjust the wording, Michael, since it's not up to us to dictate what use people make of material. Jakew 13:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed your changes to the wording, Jake. However, I would class my wording as advice rather than an order. Michael Glass 13:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


Concerned Cynic, 22.10.05: I submit that if the title of this entry is taken as a question, it has no answer. There is no scientific instrument that records sexual sensations in numerical form. The random assignment of several hundred men to the categories "circumcised" and "intact", who would then be followed up for the rest of their lives, would be at once unethical and very expensive. Most or the respondents to the questionnaire circulated by the O'Haras were women recruited through ads in anti-circ newsletters and the like. This is not the way to do careful objective social science.

I do not know what to make of claims by some women that the foreskin makes a big difference either way in their enjoyment of intercourse. I think that the length and quality of foreplay, the woman's admiration of her partner, and many subtleties of mood and hormones (even her menstrual cycle) all play major roles in how a woman responds to a particular sexual episode. If I am correct, the foreskin slides into insignificance, especially given that most American women cannot distinguish circ from intact when both are fully erect.

When comparing the sensitivity of both kinds of men, one can only carry out measurements on tissues and erogenous zones retained by both. This evades the crux of the matter: intact men have extra nerve endings located on the underside and tip of the foreskin (about which the neuroanatomical work of Taylor and coauthors is convincing). Hence a comparison of the penile sensitivity of the two sorts of men cannot be carried out.

I predict that American parents are slowly coming to the opinion that circ makes intercourse less enjoyable. Any year now, that will become the conventional wisdom pushed by Cosmopolitan and the sex columnists in other women's magazines. I do not wish to assert that it is necessarioly true. But if I am correct, the rate of routine infant circumcision in the USA is about to go into free fall.

As they should. Sirkumsize 15:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stubbing

This is regarding the current quality offensive on circumcision, of which this is a sub-article.

I'm making this article a stub to further encourage addition of material. I have already voiced concerns that studies alone on the topic of circumcision unfortunately have little meaning, as for example it is not possible to make truly double-blind tests for obvious reasons. Also, several psychological factors are also notable, like cognitive dissonance. The impression that I am having from reviewing a few studies is that circumcised men tend to "brag" more about their sexual exploits than those that did not undergo the procedure, and as most studies inherently rely on males reporting things, are only of dubious reliability.

I would like more real material added to this article, rather than just a table. What are the sexual effects of circumcision? Dabljuh 09:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As should be apparent, the effects (if any) are controversial and the evidence conflicting. The table summarises the results clearly. Jakew 11:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
As few experiments are totally objective, it would be interesting if the table, (and a jolly good one it is too!) included a column stating where these studies were performed. I have a hunch that the results may be skewed according to what the normal practise is in the study country. (i.e. studies done in countries where circumcision is the norm will tend to be pro-circumcision and vice versa.) This may not be the case but it would be good to see that info. These studies, (as stated above) can never be objective. Almost everyone knows whether they are circumcised or not, so the study can't even be "blind" yet alone "double blind". --Dumbo1 17:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Practical experiment to demonstrate a possible effect of circumcision

Unfortunately this can only be done by uncircumcised men, but give it a go, and report back here if you like. Firstly retract the foreskin. Secondly keep it like that for a couple of days. Do you report any changes? I have tried this and in my case the glans became dry, (it is normally kept moist and lubricated as it is covered by the foreskin.) Secondly, after an hour or so, the glans became less sensitive. Unlike circumcision this is easily reversable, by rolling the foreskin back over the glans. Normal sensation returns soon, depending on the amount of time the glans is exposed. If any men who have recently been circumcised are reading this, did they experience the same loss in sensitivity? And with time did this sensitivity return? I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I couldn't find anywhere else. If there is somewhere more suitable, please let me know. Thanks! --Dumbo1 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

USENET, perhaps? Jakew 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course these are all "do it yourself" experiments. Here's another. Pull your foreskin back and then try to jerk off by just rubbing your glans. Comfortable, eyh? Dabljuh 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
They don't have to be "do it yourself". You could try it on someone elses penis and ask what it feels like. Joking aside, I remember as a teenager (some time back) discussing such things with circumcised and uncircumcised friends, and the difference in masturbatory techniques, and for one circumcised friend, lubrication (I think handcream) was used, as he did find the sensation uncomfortable. Anyway I did have a question that I will repeat otherwise it will get lost: "do men who have been circumcised as adults experience a decrease in sensitivity, either in the short or long term, similar to the decrease in sensitivity they experienced when rolling back the foreskin for a number of hours?!--Dumbo1 18:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to ask me on my talk page, Dumbo1. This page is really for discussion about the article. Jakew 18:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, but the decrease in feeling in the glans due to the removal of the foreskin is a Sexual Effect of Circumcision and masturbation is a sexual act. JakeW, would you still rather me ask you this on your User page? If this is a common sexual effect of circumcision, then we should reflect it somewhere in this article eventually, if there are references.--Dumbo1 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Where you want to know about my personal experience, rather than source-based research, I would think it would be appropriate to ask on my user talk page, yes. Sorry to be picky, but I would like to see one on-topic article discussion page. :) Jakew 22:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course, JakeW, you are correct. I shall take this to User pages. But joking aside, and on a slightly different point, which I have requested above, it would be good if the info in the article showed which countries each study took place, and if possible whether circumcision is the norm in these countries. It would be good for the article if it was included, as the source of information helps us to understand the information itself. I would feel bad if this request got lost because we went off the point a bit because it was Friday night! I think I'll go back in time and repeat myself in the next posting: --Dumbo1 23:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, rather than answer anything to do with my practical experiment, I'd rather have some more info according to my posting in the section above: i.e. it would be good to see the locations and information about the populations which produced the results on the page"Sexual effects of circumcision". --Dumbo1 21:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You probably want do some own "research" on the subject ;), because the topic is somewhat underrepresented in english medical literature. You might want to check [1] and [2].

[edit] Provenance of the Studies

It would fundamentally improve the article if it was stated, for each study, the "circumcision behaviour" of the study population, i.e. for each study was the population usually circumcised or uncircumcised? At the moment we don't know whether these are all the studies or just a sample of samples and if so, how was it determined that the results were or weren't included in the article. If they are just a sample of studies, then potentially this article could fall foul of many Wikipedia guidelines, depending on how those studies were chosen for inclusion. It may also be neccessary to enquire into what the purpose of each study was and the funding behind each. This may sound extreme but for many years I have been following the study of studies into the efficacy of Homeopathy, which is full of potentially similar pitfalls. In any case as the article stands it is just a list of studies and results, rather than an encyclopedia article on the sexual effects on circumcision and therefore contributes little, although it was a good idea. I understand that this is a very "hot" topic and as ever I aim to contribute through discussion on the talk pages to get consensus before changing the article. --Dumbo1 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have at various occasions tried to point out the flaws of using systematically not double-blind studies and sometimes even freaking internet surveys in determining the sexual effects of circumcision. There are too many psychological aspects involved with circumcision, infant and adult, and the genitalia in general to trust them, even when not taking the cultural norm into account. I have marked this article as a stub, as it is my own conviction it requires expansion. A much more trustworthy and informative approach, in my own assessment, to determine the sexual effects of circumcision is a priori research, meaning, determining the biology of the foreskin and, in addition, researching the history of circumcision. Dabljuh 06:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
At most, such an approach could only postulate sexual effects. Jakew 12:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Just like studies can also only postulate anything. Dabljuh 13:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It depends on the design, but often, studies actually measure effects rather than predicting them. Jakew 13:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Rationale and Empirics must always be consistent. Rationale must suggest models, empirism is there to eliminate models. But empirism without rationale is nothing, and rationale without the failed attempt to verify it, is nothing either. Models (theories, hypothesises, whatever you call them) can only be judged by one factor, that is how well they work - how well they explain or predict things.
A hypothesis like "Circumcision has effect X on sexual pleasure" is, unfortunately, inherently hard to verify/falsify, for psychological reasons. Circumcision is a procedure that is mostly irreversible, and effects like buyer's remorse can play into or dominate when assessing an empirical study purely questioning satisfaction.
Example: Several studies have shown that there is a slight increase in average time to ejaculation. This could be viewed as a strong argument that circumcision reduces penile sensation. But alternatively, penile sensation may be increased but the specific ejaculatory trigger may be reduced.
Lets make it a different way, instead of measuring time or reported pleasure, measure something relevant: Chemical energy per climax.
I would suggest the following study: Have a large group of circumcised people and intact people do some sort of wanking contest. Now what you check is the average chemical energy expended by either - Circ'd wanking in my own experience is a lot more violent, louder, and energy consuming. If now a carefully designed study would figure out that circ'd people do indeed expend more energy per climax than intact, I would say this is a definite hint that sexual sensation is greatly reduced, because the amount of energy expended to get 1 orgasm is much higher. Dabljuh 00:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal testimony moved from article

  • This Wikipedia contributor was circumcised as an adult, at the age of 22. As I approach the decade anniversary of my circumcision, I remain grateful for my circumcision, due to its (admittedly subjectively) greater pleasure during fellatio, and the complete alleviation of frequent phimosis and balanitis problems which I had experienced prior to my circumcision. Purely in the sexual arena, I no longer have a foreskin to roll over the head and mute all sensation during the "out" stroke. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any glans desensitization, though my foreskin was naturally short and generally left my glans at least partially exposed. More detailed personal testimony is available at Circlist.
Thank you for giving us the benefit of your experience, but this really is just a case of WP:OR, and so not suitable for an article. Benami 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it OR. It just isn't exactly encyclopedic material. As long as there's a link to circlist in the external sources, I guess its ok Dabljuh 11:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
If it's not verifiable in reliable sources, it's original research. Jakew 11:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that circlist is a legitimate source (as opposed to a notable external site). And I don't see how unverifiable personal testimony about one's own penis could be anything but OR.But Dabluh's right that it's not encyclopedic (whoa - you aren't changing your mind about WP being an encyclopedia, are you?). I can't remember ever seeing a contributer's personal testimony in an encyclopedia before. Benami 11:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. The articles on Wikipedia should be encyclopedia-like, not encyclopedic - because due to the freely editable nature of Wikipedia, the latter is simply impossible. I do not find personal testimonials not to satisfy even "encyclopedia-like" quality standards. On a side note, a personal testimonial cannot be Original Research, it simply is just a personal testimonial. And for a personal testimonial - if they were anyhow encyclopedia-like - A personal webpage would suffice as an RS. It simply isn't material that's worthy to be included. What I could agree to was to dumb it down to some weasel phrase like "Some circumcised men however refuse the notion that circumcision would reduce the sensual sensitivity of the penis during intercourse". But: If we can find arguments why the sensuality of the penis would not be reduced as a whole, proposed if possible by scientists in WP:RS! That would be even better! Although, as long as we would have absence of such material, I would argue that the weasel phrase should be left in the article. I prefer more information and valid opinions over less. Here's a reliable source on why the sensuality of the circumcised penis would not necessarily be decreased in intercourse. And interestingly, that article is from D.O.C. members. Dabljuh 12:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a good source/article, thank you. More is usually better, and readers (maybe especially with ED) should be informed that circ can be a potential treatment for ED.TipPt 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The table should be removed

The Senkul study is likewise misrepresented.TipPt 03:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Alienus 04:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
On what grounds? Jakew 09:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The findings were "differences in the mean BMSFI scores were not statistically significant in any of the five sections." Saying "no difference" in the table is inaccurate and misleading. The text cite is OK.TipPt 16:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok then, we can say "no significant difference". Happy? Jakew 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The proper thing to say is "no finding." It generally is ignored, for obvious reasons.TipPt 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
No, there was a finding, and it was that there were no significant differences. Jakew 16:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The table should not be removed as it gives us a brief overview of research findings. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree, though I'm happy to improve it. Jakew 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The table makes false study conclusion statements. It is contains grossly inaccurate or irrelevant information, and must be removed.TipPt 15:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It's tabulating findings, as the heading states, not conclusions. Anyway, could you be more specific? If you identify specific problems, they can be fixed, but if you're vague, we can't move forward. Jakew 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
In general, words like "no difference" "favors..." are opinion, and inaccurate for tabulating scientific findings.TipPt 16:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, we can negotiate over the choice of words. I've suggested above changing 'no difference' to 'no significant difference'. Jakew 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
So far I have detailed Mastood, Senkul, and here's Denniston (2004) (in the Wiki citation for its use in the table and text) "...carried out a survey of 38 adult males who were circumcised at least 2 years after they commenced sexual intercourse. Thirteen men felt that sexual intercourse was better after circumcision, but 22 felt that intercourse was worse and would not have the circumcision again, because of loss of sexual pleasure."
The table misleads when Denniston is missing from the Overall satisfaction section.TipPt 16:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You haven't mentioned Masood here. If you want to discuss it, you'd better comment here. Otherwise you'll just confuse editors with this page but not other pages on their watchlist.
As for Denniston, I'm hesitant to include it without having the text of the original paper to hand. I guess we could, but since it's not peer-reviewed anyway, it might be more sensible to remove Denniston altogether. Jakew 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is in the universal mischaracterization of the study results ... ALL OF THEM.TipPt 15:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Mastood (2005) study is correctly cited in the text, but wrongly in the table.

In the Summary of Research Findings table, this study is listed three times stating that the "Finding" was "no difference," or "favors circumcision." In fact the "finding" in all three should be the study conclusion "CONCLUSIONS: Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision. The poor outcome of circumcision considered by overall satisfaction rates suggests that when we circumcise men, these outcome data should be discussed during the informed consent process."

Basically, the 61% "overall satisfaction" was considered low, given the disease state prior to circumcision.

Nowhere in the study do the authors state "no difference," or "favors circumcision." At best, someone is trying to interpret results.TipPt 16:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You can quibble about the wording, but Masood's study is represented fairly, I think. The table clearly discusses findings, not conclusions. Let's examine these.

Under 'erectile function', the table states "No difference No; p=0.40"

To quote Masood: "The mean total IIEF-5 score of the 84 patients at baseline was 22.41 ± 0.94 compared to 21.13 ± 3.17 after circumcision. The difference between pre- and post-circumcision patients was not statistically significant (p = 0.4)."

If you like, we can change it to 'no significant difference'.

Under 'penile sensation': "Favours circumcision in 38%, non-circumcision in 18% Yes; p=0.01"

Masood: "Only 18% of the patients complained about loss of/or altered penile sensation, whereas 38% found better sensation (p = 0.01)."

Under 'overall satisfaction': "Favours circumcision (61% satisfaction) Not stated"

Masood: "Sixty-one percent were satisfied with the circumcision (p = 0.04). ... Fourteen patients (17%) were not satisfied with the circumcision, but only 1 patient in this group had any obvious post-operative complications (bleeding)"

Jakew 16:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You play a good game Jakew. But totally lost is the truth. Your table representation more than distracts from the intended study focus.
The Masood study is titled "Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men correctly?"

The authors choose that title.

They conclude "The poor outcome of circumcision considered by overall satisfaction rates suggests that when we circumcise men, these outcome data should be discussed during the informed consent process."
The MAIN POINT in the study results is totally lost in the table.TipPt 02:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a conclusion, not a finding. Jakew 09:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you appreciate the limitations of statistical methods, and the value of the authors concluding statements (which take into account all the statistics and study variables.TipPt 02:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
By all means discuss it in the text. The table tabulates findings, not interpretations. Jakew 09:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The table should be removed until it's fixed

The Table should be removed because:

  • It generally interperts and misrepresents study results.
  • It is labeled a "summary" but excludes partner studies, studies showing neurological changes, and studies on infants and boys.
  • It is not a summary of the above text.
  • It gives the false impression that there is fairly extensive research in the area of sexual effects, and that the research is generally relevant to circumcision as it is primarily practiced.
  • It "finds" "no difference" or "favors...," when all you can say is "no finding" because the results were not statistically significant. If there is no finding, it should not be listed.
  • The word "peer reviewed" is misused. Peer review can (did) occur after publication for at least one of the studies listed as "no."
  • Your complaints so far seem to be trivial at best, only requiring minor changes to language.
  • It is fair to call it a summary, since it summarises studies that have directly investigated sexual effects. It is speculative at best to link neurological changes to sexual effects, and obviously studies on infants and boys have not investigated sexual effects. As for partner studies, which would you propose including?
  • No, it is a summary of the studies.
  • I disagree. It identifies the relevant studies, leaving the reader to decide for themselves whether this is extensive. If you wish to speculate that it is irrelevant to circumcision as practiced, you'd better be prepared to find sources.
  • "No finding" means that no result was reported. A result of no statistically significant is not the same, and often gives a lot of information.
  • Which study was peer reviewed after publication?
The Masters.TipPt 02:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

None of these constitute worthwhile reasons for removing the table. Jakew 16:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If any other editors are looking in ... I can demonstrate a double standard here.
Sounds like you will at least fix the Masood problems. Or, should I do it?

When they say they didn't find a stastically significant result, that is all you can repeat. "No finding," or "Failed to identify," or ... simply leave it out if it's not in the study conclusions.

I recommend a list of known studies and a short quote summarizing their conclusion(s) statements. It's all there, it's the most relevant condensed information from the authors, and it's not subject to bias. The reader gets the full benefit of their judgement.TipPt 02:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
No, a finding of no significant difference is a finding, and it should be reported. Feel free to add a list of studies and their conclusions, too, if you like, but the table gives a valuable summary to the reader and should remain.
The "finding" of "no difference" was not statistically significant. That's how you say it. Seems silly to list it.TipPt 17:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
As for Masters and Johnson, what was the nature of this post-publication peer-review? Jakew 09:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware of the study problems, other than all they studied was the glans. I'll try to find it again.
You should know, I don't care much about the table. I just wanted to demonstrate to observers what you do in here.TipPt 17:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I made the mistake of assuming good faith, and took you at face value. If, at some point in the future, you actually mean what you say, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll assume that you're just indulging in theatrics to waste my time. Jakew 20:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to work in good faith with you Jakew. The Masood study is clearly misrepresented.TipPt 00:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching, and you've certainly succeeded. Alienus 17:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I especially like the part where he removed a whole section of this Talk page, to hide his dishonesty. Too bad there's a whole history. Alienus 03:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
One problem with failing to assume good faith is that you look really foolish when you accuse someone of hiding things whereas in fact he just moved text to a more appropriate location, and then adjusted a link so that it correctly points to it. Jakew 10:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)]
Thank you for adjusting the link. That was nice.
I hadn't said it before, but the fundamental problem with the table is that the stats are presented out of context. The end result is a reader that is mislead.
The pervasive bias in the topic seems purposeful and unconscionable; so I say you act with bad faith. You control this topic.TipPt 16:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about a section on sexuality for context?

This article is an excellent effort, but I feel that it is predicated on an extremely limited conception of human sexuality, ie one in which the physiological aspects are dominant to the exclusion of other factors. Circumcision and sexual experience involve more than just physical factors; they both include social, cultural, and psychological factors as well, and social scientists widely agree that these factors can override apparent physical constraints in a variety of contexts. As such, I intend to work up a section on sexuality to set the stage for the discussion of circumcision's effects.Zandrous 08:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that this might be original research. Please make sure that you summarise published work by others on the subject of the sexual effects of circumcision, rather than forming novel ideas. Jakew 16:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
My thought was to add something about the relationship between physiology and sexuality because I think that's appropriate introductory/background information for an article treating the sexual effects of a procedure that modifies a physiological feature. My goal is to add some context to help clarify why the sexual effects of circumcision are so poorly understood. Do you think that's not appropriate for this entry? Because I thought it would help to make the lack of concensus on the sexual effects of circumcision easier to understand. And I'm not sure I understand your concern about original research; if you think general information about the relationship between physical factors and sexuality doesn't fit in this entry that's one thing; but is there something else about it that I'm missing? If you think such ideas are too novel, maybe have a look at human sexuality, which presents some of the various non-physical factors that affect sexual experience. Anyway, thanks for the tip, I'm still quite new to Wikipedia, so I appreciate your help. Zandrous 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Zan, if the material is relevant, well-cited and relatively brief, then it should be fine. Alienus 16:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Note also that the studies are primarily relevant to outcomes from elective or therapeutic ADULT circ's, and therefore mislead the reader with respect to neonatal circ's.TipPt 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I won't get around to adding this, although I urge anyone to take into consideration the relevance of non-physiological factors on sexual experience, check human sexuality the basic points made there I think would add a helpful dimension to this entry. I'm simply too busy with work to justify time spent editing here in wiki right now, Ciao Zandrous 11:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion, and a false citation; thus removed

Not all agree, however. Genital integrity activist and author Kristen O'Hara argues that the glans is the "male clitoris", with the foreskin maintaining at best a supporting role during sexual intercourse [3].TipPt 23:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed the 'Not all agree, however.' because it was uncited. It could be that Kristen O'Hara made the statement attributed to her in some other place. If so, an appropriate comment could be inserted. Michael Glass 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stats

Maybe I can explain my Table reservations more clearly. The results are frequently "not statistically significant," but you insist on saying "no difference."

At a min., you need to say "not statistically significant" when you say "no difference." Right now, the table is a violation of neutrality.

But, the point I wanted to make is ... when you have small samples (especially with poor participation rates) and LOW VARIABILITY within those samples you frequently get insignificant results. For example, a study where guys generally say "I'm went from a 1 to a 2", or "5 to 3" or "7 to 6," will provide weak correlations relative to studies where guys range "1 to 4," and "2 to 9," and "3 to 7," and "7 to 1."

There simply isn't enough information in several of those Tabled small study samples to say anything including "no difference." The proper thing to say is simply "insignificant results," or "not statistically significant." Most readers don't understand the limitations of regression analysis, and saying "no difference" without lengthly qualification is introduces bias.TipPt 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed inserted POV

I've removed the inserted claim that "Furthermore, research results from studies involving adults and adult circumcisions are less applicable to understanding potential sexual effects of circumcision on neonates and boys." This is obvious uncited POV; original research at best. Please ensure that claims are all neutral and cited from reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph added ...

Circumcisions that reduce the frenulum, or that involve a frenectomy remove tissue that is "particularly responsive to stimulation," "very reactive," and "seems particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft." The frenulum is a primary site for eliciting ejaculatory response.[4][5][6]TipPt 23:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inherent flaws in several of the studies

Several of the studies have inherent flaws in the selection of their polling group - that is they selected men who were circumcised as adults because it was (thought to be) medically neccesary. This will certainly skew those results Lordkazan 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Either a) you're making this remark because you intend to add it to the article (which would violate WP:NOR, or b) you're abusing this talk page, the purpose of which is to discuss improving the article. May I ask which? Jakew 16:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Jake: I assume you have read the literature and so are well placed to answer this question, if I had the time I would read the papers myself. Do all the papers that study adult circumcision patients use people who needed the procedure for medical reasons? One might have thought that there would be a large enough number of people electing to undergo the surgery for perceived cosmetic or religious reasons to allow a study that perhaps might be more less skewed. If there is such a difference in the sample groups I would suggest it might be beneficial to include such details in your table.
I'd also like to congratulate you on a good article, it seems pretty balanced as a whole, especially given much of the literature arguing both ways is so suspect. |→ Spaully°τ 13:07, 12 December 2006 (GMT)
Spaully, thanks for your comments. The problem is that this information is sometimes available, but often it is not (or at least, not in English). It would be very difficult to add it to the table without making it a complete mess, which I'd prefer to avoid.
It would certainly be interesting to statistically analyse studies to see whether there is any evidence that such differences might skew the results. Jakew 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems I got my words a bit muddled there, but it doesn't effect your reply I would think. It's a shame that isn't available for these papers as I think it would help lend credibility (or not) to them for the readers; as it stands I feel many of them are likely to be inherently flawed from their sample groups and survey techniques. Such is science in these areas. Thanks for the reply. |→ Spaully°τ 00:13, 14 December 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Sexual effects of foreskin amputation

I believe this article may need to be renamed. Since a foreskin can be amputated in more ways than only that of the medical procedure called circumcision (in an accident, for example), this article should be renamed to "Sexual effects of foreskin amputation", with eventual subsections on eventual differences on sexual pleasure in the ways a man can lose his foreskin (circumcision or accident). 87.78.177.164 15:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Every source cited refers to circumcision, not "foreskin amputation". Furthermore, as far as I know, there are absolutely no sources upon which we could draw to produce your proposed section on differences between situations. Jakew 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"Every source" sounds like you know "every source", is that so? Nevermind. I just made the proposal of those sections in case someone came up with suitable sources. I think you'll agree that getting circumcised is basically not the same thing as losing the foreskin in an accident. Otherwise this article would be in need of either a suitable title reflecting all possible ways of losing the foreskin ("foreskin amputation" is one option I see) or else someone has to come up with at least one proper source about the difference between circumcision and accidental foreskin amputation in regard of sexual effects. That is to say: This article either needs subsections as I proposed OR it needs proper naming, because there are sources that explicitly tell of accidents resulting in the loss of foreskin - and those men suffer or benefit from maybe very similar effects as circumcised men although (and please relate to this fact) they never have been circumcised in the proper medical meaning of the word. So, if nobody comes up with a valid counterpoint, I propose renaming the article, because the sources refering to "circumcision" do not need to be reflected in the article name and only inappropriately narrow the scope of the article. 87.78.177.164 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, I have read every source, as it happens.
As far as broadening the scope goes, which sources did you have in mind that refer to loss of the foreskin without circumcision? Unless any scientific evidence actually covers that, and documents sexual effects of such, I can see no reason to rename. Jakew 20:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You're mixing things up. Scientific evidence is not needed for the renaming, just one modest example from literature that such an accident has actually occured (and which I can provide) is enough for that. You are the one in need of scientific evidence if you wanted to maintain the article in its current state instead of widening the scope. See what I mean? It's two entirely different things. I opt for renaming instead of waiting until someone comes up with said scientific evidence that would make a seperate article on "Sexual effects of accidental foreskin amputation" necessary. Those two articles would probably be merged anyway and they could not be merged under the title of "circumcision" as I pointed out earlier. So far, you haven't been reasoning against the reasons for renaming I already gave. So, I will come up with that source speaking of something like "an accident involving the loss of a foreskin" (tomorrow, though, it's been long working hours today) and then the scientific evidence thing is on you if you want to keep the name. Agreed? 87.78.177.164 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] This should be merged with Circumcision

This should be merged with Circumcision to reduce the current pro-circ pov of that article that has been created the the huge ammount of text dedicated to supposed benefits of circumcision, why the detriments have been largely neglected and down played in that article. Lordkazan 04:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It would really be a lot better to break the pro-circ POV sections into their own articles. Circumcision is already far too large, It needs to get smaller not the reverse.Christopher 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That would work too - especially if we can get non-biased information into the medical section Lordkazan 15:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/x/Talk%7ESexual_effects_of_circumcision_513c.html"