Talk:Gliding action (coitus)/Archive/0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"It is, therefore, free to slide up and down the shaft of the penis during sexual intercourse."

This seems to imply that the foreskin turns "inside out" during intercourse, rather than sliding over the glans penis, and being rolled back to rest behind the glans. If this actually happens, I would be most surprised! -- Karada 13:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ah. The original author may be implying that the rolled-up foreskin is being pushed up and down behind the corona glandis, which makes more sense. If this is what is meant, the sentence should be clarified. -- Karada 13:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

errr well as a doctor, i think the shaft is where the sliding occurs. not the corona. but I share MNH's prudishness on this one. it may be a more graphic description than is really needed. Erich 07:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

NPOV requires the presentation of various points of view. Apparently Robert the Bruce and Jakew only want to allow one point of view. Robert Blair 02:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Sadly once again this is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. The article is about the so-called gliding action (a fiction in itself as it is being sold by anti-circumcision and foreskin admirer groups). So to compund this fiction with additional off topic nonsense as a content filler serves little or no purpose (other to expose more anti-circumcision propaganda, of course). - Robert the Bruce 05:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents

"Variation" argument

Is it the position of those who argue against gliding action that it never occurs or that it doesn't always occur?

this theory is seen as speculative at best by some observers and a gross misrepresentation by others.

Does anyone have any references for these observers? They should certainly be included. —Ashley Y 10:53, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

  • This would set a standard that the anti-circumcision activists/foreskin admirers would be unable to meet. Their POV is full of such innuendo ... but alas never any proof. - Robert the Bruce 17:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So there are no observers, then? Given that, should the para not be deleted? —Ashley Y 21:05, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Yes, this smells like pro-circumcision propaganda. If reasonable references cannot be provided to support this statement, it should be deleted. Robert Blair 12:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Issues

No arguments are actually being offered against gliding, beyond mere denial. In particular:

1. Do the anti-glide people claim that gliding never occurs or that it only sometimes occurs?

2. Do the anti-glide people claim that the skin of an intact erect penis isn't loose? For loose penile skin, it's pretty hard to see how some sort of gliding wouldn't occur.

3. Who are these "observers" who see gliding as "speculative at best" and/or "a gross misrepresentation"? What do they say actually happens when a penis with loose skin slides inside a vagina? —Ashley Y 21:05, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

I am not sure there is such a thing as "anti-glide" people. The evidence indicates that the term "Gliding action" has been created by people who are advocating a certain viewpoint. The best service to the readers of Wikipedia is to include information about who is promoting the term and the issue they are trying to promote with this term. The reader can then draw his/her own conclusions. Johntex 21:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that there's no-one out there who denies that some kind of gliding is going on? —Ashley Y 22:01, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
No, I am saying that
  1. The term "anti-glide" is misleading as it implies that someone believes in gliding and is against it.
  2. All the sources quoted on "Gliding action" are promoting non-circumcision and it is in the readers' interest to know this fact when they learn about the term. References to the POV of the proponents are relevant to the article.
  3. Similarly, the image is distributed by intactivists, so that is also a factual statement that should not be removed.
  4. I also believe the phrase "gross misrepresentation" is needlessly POV unless it is a quote from a source - so I am removing that phrase.
Johntex 22:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, I merely meant "glide deniers". Is the argument against gliding that it never occurs or only sometimes occurs for intact men? —Ashley Y 22:19, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
Hi Ashley. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your question because I am not in that camp. I am just trying to help the article maintain NPOV. Striking the right balance to achieve NPOV would be that the "gross misrepresentation" phrase needs to go, and the informtion on the origin of the picture needs to stay. I suspect there are a lot of glide-benefit skeptics that doubt there is any benefit to "gliding action", whether it exists or not. If this article did not contain so much information on the purported benefits of gliding action, I doubt people would be interested in arguing for or against the existence of the phenomenon. Johntex 22:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of the effect of gliding on sexual response, if there is a consensus that gliding exists, then "hypothesized" etc., should be deleted. —Ashley Y 22:42, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
Reading the comments on this talk page, it does not seem that there is consensus here that the action exists. Johntex 23:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Existence of Gliding

The effect of gliding on sexual response may be contended, but the simple existence of gliding should not be. Unless someone can provide an alternate description of what happens when a penis with loose shaft skin slides in a vagina that doesn't involve some kind of gliding, I shall remove "hypothesized" etc. —Ashley Y 00:48, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

  • No. The onus is upon those who think up such hypotheses to provide evidence that it is more than a mere figment in the mind. The factors that have been mentioned, such as the length, girth, the length and looseness of the foreskin and each individual vagina serve to make this action rare occurrence at best. That is common sense. But when POV is involved common sense flies out the window. The motivating force behind the promotion of this gliding mechanism is to attempt to sell the presence of the foreskin as an essential and necessary component to enjoy sexually satisfying intercourse. It fails as it has been recognised as merely imaginative propaganda. To continue we see the desperate attempts to insert Taves' nonsense into the argument, that of so-called "intromission". Again one needs to consider the value of a sample of one study based on the use of a Styrofoam cup (obviously a tongue in cheek piece) before attempting to force it into an encyclopaedia article. A simple question to those who wish to keep the Taves stuff. What percentage of uncircumcised men at the point of insertion (and one assumes after some degree of foreplay) have a foreskin remaining in a forward position which will then retract with the ease Tave reports? Wikipedia should not contain this sort of junk science. - Robert the Bruce 03:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, I am interested much more in what physically happens than in any "motivating force behind the promotion".
Secondly, the "factors that have been mentioned" imply nothing of the sort.
Thirdly, it's not the foreskin per se that's relevant here, it's the looseness of skin on the entire shaft of the penis. You are aware that the skin on the whole shaft of the uncircumcised penis remains loose when erect, aren't you?
Finally, we do have evidence in the form of articles published in medical journals. I have yet to see any dissenting citations. —Ashley Y 04:35, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)


Foreskin / shaft skin

A recent edit changed the into paragraph to say "...The foreskin and shaft skin is attached to the penis only near the symphysis pubis and behind the glans penis. " I believe the point being made is probably that the foreskin is the most distal portion of the shaft skin, and that there is more to the shaft skin than just the foreskin. However, I think this wording may confuse a reader since it mentions two "parts" are connected to two "places". This may lead the reader wonding which part connects where. Is there any objection to the following change?

"...The foreskin/shaft skin is attached to the penis only near the symphysis pubis and behind the glans penis... " Johntex 04:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No objection from me, that would be better wording IMO. —Ashley Y 05:01, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Proposal for making the article more factual

The first paragraph reads:

Gliding action is the term used to describe the hypothesized motion of the foreskin which some believe reduces friction during sexual intercourse. The foreskin and shaft skin is attached to the penis only near the symphysis pubis and behind the glans penis. Some believe that the foreskin alternately everts and un-everts as it glides (rolls) back and forth, an effect that may be more likely in those males with longer foreskins.

Since evidence supports the existence of gliding action (none offer any evidence that it does not exist, while all of these articles exist supporting its existence), I propose we change it to:

Gliding action is the term used to describe the motion of the foreskin which reduces friction during sexual intercourse. The foreskin and shaft skin is attached to the penis only near the symphysis pubis and behind the glans penis. The foreskin alternately everts and un-everts as it glides (rolls) back and forth.

The below paragraph has no backing at all:

Some critics doubt that any gliding action of the foreskin could provide any real benefits to sexual intercourse. They point to the number of possible variations including penis size (both length and girth), the relative tightness of the vagina, and the variations in length and looseness of each individual foreskin and assert that any benefits would be relevant to an individual situation.

I say we delete it in accordance with what Robert the Bruce calls Theresa's Rule. None give even one link to support this paragraph. ¿Can anyone name just one of these critics?

Unless anyone gives to me a reason not to make the changes, I shall make them this weekend.

--

Ŭalabio 06:50, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. I fully support the application of what Robert the Bruce calls Theresa's Rule. —Ashley Y 07:01, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
The weekend begins on 2005-01-15T00:00:00 UTC. I shall be fair and give people until then to respond. If you want just to go ahead and make the changes now, I would not object.

--

Ŭalabio 07:13, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the word "hypothetical" from the first paragraph. The other changes I definitely do object to. The fact that there are critics here participating on this page leaves zero doubt that there are critics. No further proof is needed. If you really want to make the article factual, you could remove all purpoted benefits of gliding action and have this article focus purely on the physical movement. The benefits are already enumerated on other pages promoting non-circumcision. Johntex 07:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I believe it's a question of evidence. There is evidence, whether or not conclusive, that the gliding action has a sexual function. That evidence is referred to on the page. There's no evidence provided against this. Moreover, the "variation" argument is no more than vague hand-waving, and might equally be used to support the idea of a sexual function. —Ashley Y 07:56, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
Those benefits have genuine quotable people behind them. At any rate, gliding action exists and reduces friction. Readers researching sex and coming across gliding action will want to know who these critics are. I see two solutions:
  1. Delete the paragraph
  2. Use the critic on this page as a reference

The second would look like thus:

Some critics doubt that any gliding action of the foreskin could provide any real benefits to sexual intercourse. They point to the number of possible variations including penis size (both length and girth), the relative tightness of the vagina, and the variations in length and looseness of each individual foreskin and assert that any benefits would be relevant to an individual situation. [1]

¿Does not this violate the principle of no original research on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org?

--

Ŭalabio 08:13, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

A quick google search finds many references on both sides of the question of whether or not circumcision impacts sexual intercourse. For example: In his book "Babywatching", Desmond Morris says circumcision "has no effect, one way or the other, on the sexual performance of the adult male." ISBN 0224060112 Johntex 08:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But unless Desmond Morris mentions gliding action he can't be considered a "critic that doubts that any gliding action of the foreskin could provide any real benefits to sexual intercourse" when it's more likely that he's merely ignorant of it. Who are these critics? Exactly who is "pointing to the number of possible variations"? Or is this original research? —Ashley Y 08:48, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
I agree with what Ashley Y wrote above. For one thing the Morris does not specifically address gliding action, and for another the statement is so idiotic that we can safely ignore it:

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt." -- Mark Twain

The very idea that one can amputate a large portion of an organ without effecting sensation and function is so ludacris as to be safely ignored. Only Rumsfeld visiting the wounded veterans with various limbs amputated would make such a statement.

At any rate, you reach. ¿Why not just concede that the paragraph is unqualified, as no citable person specifically "doubt that any gliding action of the foreskin could provide any real benefits to sexual intercourse."?

--

Ŭalabio 11:03, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Ŭalabio, it is you who are reaching. You show your true colors by first desiring a reference and then dismissing a reference to a published book in broad circulation when it is provided. You prove you are pushing an agenda by saying "The very idea ... is so ludacris [sic] as to be safely ignored." Clearly you will try to dismiss any reference that agrees disagrees with you. Your logic is tainted by your agenda. Your thoughts can not be taken seriously when you blatantly point out that you will not take opposing arguments seriously. Your completely off-topic remark about United State Secretary_of_Defense Rumsfeld is further indication of the fact that you are more interested in arguing your points of view than in contributing to a balanced and beneficial encyclopedia article. Johntex 17:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ashley Y., you are overlooking a point of logic relating to subsets. To paraphrase by way of example; if someone says, "This choice provides no benefit" then they are not allowing that any portion of the choice or side effect of the choice will provide a benefit. Coming back to this actual case: Morris dismissed all purported sexual benefits from remaining uncircumcised. Enhanced gliding action is one purported component of remaining uncircumcised. Therefore, he is clearly dismissing any purported benefits from enhanced gliding action, because it is a component of remaining uncircumcised. The part is contained within the whole. We may agree or disagree with Morris, but we have to accept that he is a critic on any purported benefit from gliding action. Johntex 17:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, as Ŭalabio says I think you are reaching. Firstly when one says someone "doubts that any gliding action" etc. it implies they are aware of it. This isn't the case for Morris. This is backed up and made more specific by the next sentence, "They point to the number of" etc. which clearly rules out Morris. The best we can do for Morris is rewrite the paragraph as

Some critics doubt any sexual benefit to remaining uncircumcised, though they may not be aware of the gliding action.

Is there anyone out there who 1. specifically doubts the benefit of the gliding action as the first sentence says, and 2. points to variations as the second sentence says? Otherwise this must surely be considered original research. —Ashley Y 23:20, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

You are confusing what I said with what the article says. Morris says circumcision "has no effect, one way or the other, on the sexual performance of the adult male." That means he thinks the entire proceedure of circumcision has no effect on sexual performance. He has made his evaluation of the entire proceedure, and all its side effects and consequences, and formed his opinion that there is no effect on sexual performance. I only pulled up the Morris example to show that there are reputable people who doubt that there is any sexual-effect downside to circumsision, and that includes gliding action. It doesn't matter what he was and was not aware of, he knew/believed what ever he/knew believe and published accordingly. To speculate on what he was or was not aware is not producive. BTW I did not write the original paragraph. I do agree that the paragraph as written (with the references to lenght/girth variances) is not supported by Morris alone. Johntex 01:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Current proposal

I propose removing all "hypothesized" etc., since there are no references against the simple existence of gliding action. Whether or not the action has a sexual function is still contended, of course.

The fact that some particular Wikipedia user doubts the existence of gliding action is irrelevant, since Wikipedia is not a place for original research.

I propose replacing the dubious paragraph with this:

Some critics doubt any sexual benefit to remaining uncircumcised, though they may not be aware of the gliding action.

...since it seems the most accurate statement of affairs. —Ashley Y 00:33, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

It seems that much happened while I slept and worked. I really should rebut the response of Johntex, but Ashley Y rebutted so well that my rebuttal would be redundant.
The proposal of Ashley Y is excellent. I second it.
Since we have consensus about changing the first paragraph now, I shall do so now. Unless someone gives to me a reason not to do so, I shall replace the the other paragraph with the version of Ashley Y on schedule when it will be after 2005-01-15T00:00:00 UTC.

--

Ŭalabio 00:56, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Ah, Ŭalabio, very nice. You second the proposal and then decide that constitutes consensus. Another example of your rush to defend your POV and make it part of Wikipedia. It is another distortion to say that Ashley Y "rebutted" my response to you, when she does not mention at all the main point of my statement to you. The main point is, by your own quote here, you say we can safely ignore ignore references that do not agree with your POV. Your exact quote was "...the statement is so idiotic that we can safely ignore it:" This is a widely circulated book that you say can safely be ignored. There is no reference that will satisfy you. Johntex 01:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ashley Y, I have no objection to rewording the final paragraph to remove the talk about variation in length/girth, etc. This is not spoken to by Morris. If someone else finds a citation like this we can put it back in. However, I do object to the sentence you wrote - because what Morris did or did not know is not our place to speculate. He examined a topic, formed an opinion, and published it. It is pure speculation what he may not of known, and it does not change the opinion he formed and published.
Surely the fact that Morris doesn't actually mention gliding action is relevant if his claim is to be included in an article on the subject of gliding action? —Ashley Y 02:08, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
He speaks of circumcision in the entirety of its effects. This article claims a change in gliding action is one of those effects. Therefore, it is in fact covered in what Morris spoke about. It may be helpful to step back and think of a different (if contrived) example. Please imagine the following hypothetical quotes:
  • Published Author: "Eating fruit does not diminish sexual performance"
  • Scurvy Article: "Eating fruit cures scurvy, and without scurvy, sexual performance would be diminished"
Does the first quote contradict the second? Yes it does. It does not matter whether the Author mentions scurvy or not. The Author mentions sexual performance, which is the subject of the claim in the scurvy article. Therefore, the first quote is relevant if the second quote is used. If the scurvy article avoids mentioning sexual performance, then the first quote would not be relevant. Perhaps the best solution would be to describe the physics of gliding action and remove all links to arguing about its benefits or lack of benefits. Johntex 02:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In your example it would be appropriate to say in an article about scurvy "Author claims that eating fruit does not diminish sexual performance, but may not be aware of scurvy" if the author doesn't specifically mention scurvy. I can't see how "may not be aware of the gliding action" is irrelevant or why it should be removed. —Ashley Y 03:03, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
Thank you for considering the example. I disagree with your conclusion because it is not our place to speculate that that the author may not have been aware of scurvy. On the other hand, if there was evidence that he did not know about scurvy, that would make a difference. For example, if he had said "fruit is not related to any disease", then I could see including the phrase "but may not have been aware of scurvy". Johntex 03:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Surely it's particularly relevant to mention the fact that "he may not have been aware of scurvy" if the discovery of scurvy post-dates the Author's statement? —Ashley Y 03:24, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
That does not follow. Again, he examined fruit and reached a conclusion. There are lots of things about fruit that he may or may not have known, but unless we have evidence, we should not speculate. To bring us back to this article for a minute, is it suggested that gliding action was only discovered recently? This seems like a strange claim given how long foreskins have been around.Johntex 03:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, ignore my post-date thing. But we do have evidence, given that there's a reasonable expectation that he would mention it if he knew about it.
No problem. I would agree it is an interesting thing to wonder about. However, there are so many possible explanations. For example, he may have considered it too obvious a thing to comment on. He may have commented on it elsewhere in a reference that has not been presented here. We don't have enough facts to know for sure either way. Johntex 03:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In that case, we should mention the possibility. Instead of saying "was unaware" (which would be unwarranted speculation), say "may be unaware". —Ashley Y 03:52, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
I hope that is enough colons to indent correctly!  :-) I disagree. If we had good, but not-conclusive evidence that he "was unaware", then we should use "may be unaware". Right now, the only evidence we have is that he considered the phenomenon of circumcision. Gliding effect is part of that phenomenon, so he considered it. Directly or indirectly, we don't know. Johntex 03:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's start over with the colons. Let's replace the paragraph with this:

Some critics doubt any sexual benefit to remaining uncircumcised.

—Ashley Y 04:04, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. We should add the link to Morris as a reference after the sentence you propose. Johntex 04:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, you add the Morris link. —Ashley Y 04:15, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

POV dispute

It is clear that with we continue to have serious a POV dispute over the content of this article. I note Ashley Y is as much of a POV warrior as I have been accused of being. We need to accept the situation for what it is and work our way towards a resolution. I have reverted the recent edits which Ashley Y has made in that they constitute an attempt to sanitize the anti-circumcision movement through word manipulation. - Robert the Bruce 04:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John, I do not mean to be harsh but you are being silly. Please calm down and take a step back for a moment. Take a deep breath. You gave it the old cllege try by finding someone, who by inheritance, supports the paragraph, but the vast majority of people in the know, have going back thousands of years, like Rabbi Maimonides, have stated otherwise.

If you like, we could put the article up for peer-review. The result of peer-review would probably end up looking like the compromise of Ashley if we did. ¿Do you wish to place the article in Wikipedia:Peer_review, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, or some such? I did not think so. I have no intention in going to a mediator or peer-review. The point is to get you to step back. If you are so certain that what Morris states supports the paragraph and that I and Ashley are wrong, you are free to request an outside mediator or peer-review, but I honestly doubt that would go in favor of supporting the paragraph the way you like it.

This is what happens when I grab some dinner. I wonder how things will look when next I shall look.

--

Ŭalabio 04:57, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

While I wrote the above message, the parties reached consensus. When I added this, it was obsolete. ¡I am sorry!

--

Ŭalabio 06:26, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Thank you, Ŭalabio. Best wishes. Johntex 06:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am glad that you understand. I was rather silly. I planned to drop a message on your talk-page like I did for Ashley, but you found the message. I am glad that we have no hard feelings.

--

Ŭalabio 08:13, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Robert, we decided on this version of the sentence because the paragraph that was there was unsubstantiated. If you object to the paragraph being removed, you should provide references for it. But if it's just your ideas about "possible variations", etc., it must be considered "original research" which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. —Ashley Y 05:33, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Agreed. Johntex 06:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To express the fact that the hypothesis has not been proved, I have incorporated appropriate language. For clarity, I have also used the term "anti-circumcision activists" rather than the rather baffling (and POV) term "genital integrity advocates". Everyone will instantly understand the former, while the latter is less than intuitive. Consequently, the former should be preferred. I have, however, left links to intactivism and genital integrity in place. - Jakew 12:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jakew, there isn't anyone who "points to the number of possible variations". It's pure "original research". I'd revert this, but I'm all out of them for today. —Ashley Y 12:36, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
I'm less bothered by "anti-circumcision" vs. "genital integrity", though I certainly think "activist" is more POV than "advocate". —Ashley Y 12:41, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
I edited again in efforts to keep a good, balanced use of the various terms. I left one instance "activist" but made the other one "advocate". I also made sure the Genital integrity link appears before the intactivist link. I hope others agree it is a reasonable balance. Johntex 16:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jakey, we've debated "points to the number of possible variations..." and no one has produced a source, so I am deleting again. At the same time, it seems sensless to rebut a rebuttal, so I am deleting Ŭalabio 's introduction of a rebuttal to Morris. Johntex 00:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Well it is amazing just how wrong one can be. The foreskin variations are to be found at Schöberlein which is cited on the Foreskin page. That done we will have no more wikicrime relating to the innuendo that this gliding action (if it does exist) is more than a minority experience. Now what do you need to know about penile variation? The wide range of penile length and girth is self evident to the extent that if anyone doubts that there is a significant variation in penile length and girth then they better produce some orignial research in this regard. Now what is needed to be explained about vaginal size variation? Is the level of sexual (heterosexual) experience so low that there is no understanding as to this variation and the need to adapt positions to both suit individual preference and compensate for any penis/vagina mismatch? - Robert the Bruce 11:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why fight this? Even people at CircList.Com admit it. [2] A CircListEr wrote:

"...he used to slide back and forth inside his foreskin..." Anonymous (USA)

Sure, a few people are born with missing or defective parts, but men over 90% ofinctact adult men experience gliding action:

8.8%*½=4.4%

Call it 5% out of generosity which leaves 95% which out of generosity I call >90%. I got the figures from your source of Schöberlein. Please remember that this fact is more true (>90%) than the fact that adults have 32 teeth (<90%). Ŭalabio 20:17, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • An anonymous poster to circlist could just as well be someone off your list, no? Now you would be able to substantiate your claim to 90% rolling foreskins, yes? How many citations would be needed to prove that ... and no, an anonymous letter to the editors of some journal will not do and neither will the misrepresentation of Schöberlein do. - Robert the Bruce 20:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Schoeberlein appears to describe the coverage of the flaccid penis, so it doesn't seem to apply, Walabio. - Jakew 20:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is what I meant by the misrepresentation of the study. - Robert the Bruce 20:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So, if, by your own admission, Schöberlein does not apply to erect penii, ¿why do you apply this to erect penii? You claim that the comment on CirList.Com is a plant. I do not believe so. I do know that Intact-L has a mole who is really a circumcision-advocate. Ŭalabio 22:14, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • If there isn't even enough foreskin to cover the glans when flaccid then there will certainly be none available to play "rolly-polly" as per the gliding action fantasy. As to lists. Yes can't be too careful ;-) - Robert the Bruce 05:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What has Intromission to do with the so-called gliding action?

The gliding action has nothing to do with intromission other than someone has "imaginatively" applied the term glide to the action on insertion of the penis to commence intercourse. If one looks at the diagram posted (per kind favour of anti-circumcision groups) one sees no depiction of the initial insertion. The paragraph relating to insertion, intromission and the imaginative use of Styrofoam cups is therefore off-topic and must be deleted. What is hilarious is that some demand "original research" while providing none themselves. For example Whiddon's letter is a mere opinion piece and not supported by "original research"in any way. Foley, produces an anti-circumcision rant and provieds no support to his claim whatsoever. Taves with his Styrofoam cup and sample of one is so ridiculous that I agree to keep it in the article only to ridicule the desperation of those to use anything to try to prove this ridiculous theory. Now all that said ... the whole paragraph goes on the basis of failing the "original research" test? - Robert the Bruce 11:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The existence of the gliding action of the foreskin has been known to men since the beginning of human existence. Every man with an intact foreskin knows of its existence. It would not be necessary for Whiddon, Foley, or Morgan to present proof of what is self-evident to every intact male on the planet and it should not be necessary to prove its existence here.

It is surprising, however, that the gliding action was not formally mentioned in the medical literatre until 1980. Use of such words as "hypothetical" only display the ignorance of the user.

Although the illustration does not depict the use of the gliding action during initial intromission, there can be no doubt of its value. Taves' original research is of value because it quantifies the force increase in the absence of the gliding action. Robert Blair 12:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • What you state is merely an opinion. I notice that while you claim something has been known "since the beginning of human existence" you are not able to supply any substantiation. In fact this is the very problem with the anti-circumcision argument in that it is high on speculation, innuendo and exaggeration and low on substantiation. People should know that. - Robert the Bruce 18:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Logical rebuttal to the statement of Morris

Since we throw a bone to the circumcision-advocates by letting them use the statement of Morris that circumcision does not effect sex one way or another, I feel it only fair to point out that specifically, gliding action requires plenty of free loose skin/mucosa, and the general statement that one can amputate part of the penis without effecting sensation/function makes no sense.

--

Ŭalabio 00:34, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

It happened again. After I made the change to the article, John made his change and I saw him undo my change, so decided to explain myself, but before I finished explaining myself, he explained himself. I shall contemplate whether we should have rebuttals to rebuttals. In the meantime, I am agnostic about what I wrote above.

--

Ŭalabio 00:53, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Thank you, Ŭalabio. In terms of balance, I think 3 quotes claiming a benefit, and 1 rebuttal quote claiming no benefit, is a pretty favorable mix. I don't think we should rebut the rebuttal. However, you were right about the consensus on "hypothetical". That should not have been one of my edits. I'm sorry about that. Johntex 00:58, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that you are right. We should be magnanimous in victory. After all, anyone can see the logical flaws in the rebuttal -- partial penile amputation having no effect on sexual function/sensation. The rebuttal is already outnumbered 3:1. ¡Let them have their rebuttal unrebutted!
Do not sweat POV-word "hypothetical", some tried to slip into the article. Much happened in the article in a little time.
I shall soon paste this onto the talk-page. After I paste it, I shall probably realize that that I missed a comment and have to strike it.  ;-)

--

Ŭalabio 05:29, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

If something has not been proven, it is - by definition - hypothetical. - Jakew 20:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We found man many sources supporting the claim, while you founded no sources. The præpuce-condom-theory (the theory that the præpuce always covering the glans is provably wrong). The fact is that the præpuce is a moving part.

--

Ŭalabio 13:18, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Weasel terms

This is be removed in accordance with Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms:

Some doubt that any gliding action of the foreskin occurs to any significant degree during sexual intercourse. They say that the sheer number of possible variations including penis size (both length and girth), the relative tightness of the vagina, and the variations in length and looseness of each individual foreskin would indicate that where in fact it occurs it may constitute a very small minority experience.

—Ashley Y 21:57, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

  • I disagree. The onus is upon those trying to sell this crock to prove that it is indeed a universal experience and not merely a fantasy exaggerated from a minority experience. - Robert the Bruce 04:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The policy page is pretty clear about this. You can't just say "some doubt" or "they say", you need to provide references so they can be evaluated. —Ashley Y 04:53, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
The intactivists have anecdotal evidence supporting gliding action in sexual intercourse going back thousands of years and specific studies going back decades. Besides, if gliding action occurs during masturbation (which it demonstratably does [3] ), then ¿why should sex be any different? Circumcision-advocates have no studies showing that the >90% of intact men with health normal præpucii -- which is more than the <90% adults with 32 teeth -- do not experience gliding action.

--

Ŭalabio 08:26, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)