Talk:Gliding action

---

---

This discussion is going nowhere

This thread is an exercise in futility. It has degenerated to a point where it is starting to smell like medieval theology. Here's what we know. All parts of the human body result from many millions of years of mammalian evolution, and as such should rightly enjoy the benefit of the doubt. This is especially true of those body parts that are involved with reproduction and how one gender appeals to the other. The movable foreskin on the penis is a case in point.

Does a movable foreskin make masturbation easier? Common sense says "probably yes"? Does it make masturbation more pleasant? We won't know until it will be possible to wire up masturbating men so as to record the nerve impulses up and down the spine.

Does a movable foreskin make intercourse more pleasant for a man? We won't know for sure until we can record and analyse the nerve impulses men put out while they bonk. Until then, reading stuff on the web suggests the following:

• A few intact men find intercourse not very enjoyable because of treatable mechanical problems with the foreskin and frenulum.

Does a movable foreskin make intercourse more enjoyable for a woman? This is the 64$ question, and once again we won't know the answer until we can study the nerve impulses women put out while in the throes of passion. Until then, we can only note the following:

• Some women who have known both kinds of men claim to find intact softer and gentler. I add that the research methods of O'Hara & O'Hara disappoint me;
• Quite a few American women simply cannot overcome their hygienic distaste for the foreskin, and this colours their perception of the sexual difference the foreskin might make. Women typically discover the male genitalia during childhood and adolescence, while taking care of their younger brothers or the baby boys of others. Millions of American women never see a foreskin in the flesh until well into adult life, when (if) they have intact lover, and were never told about it during their sex education. Even though the private parts are normally hidden, we feel far more insecure about them than the balance of our bodies. Note the many women who have admitted to deep shame about the length and colour of their inner lips.
• European women expect a foreskin, and find its absence distasteful.
• The foreskin makes it very easy for a woman to be an active participant in foreplay. I doubt that a man not a diabetic or drug addict can be impotent, if he has a foreskin and his partner is willing to manipulate it with her fingers.202.36.179.65

"Many people"

---

This is unacceptable as a weasel term. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.

Many people suggest instead that the foreskin is essentially immobile and does not glide.

If we cannot find a good reference to someone suggesting etc., this should be removed. —Ashley Y 10:09, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

I also move this page be unprotected.—Ashley Y 10:09, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Ashley Y, I am OK with keeping the sentence as long as a reference can be cited. Morris is definitely not one of them, but I'm sure Jakew has something on hand. DanP 18:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe there's an argument about this - my foreskin at least, certainly is not immobile and very manifestly does glide. jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)

Temp article

I have copied the article to Gliding action/temp. The only change I made was to remove the "protected" tag at the top. —Ashley Y 01:28, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Weasel terms

In line with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms I have removed claims using weasel terms. Please do not put these claims back in without attributing them. —Ashley Y 02:46, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

"Not all" is a weasel term. It suggests a relevant portion of the professional community, which seems absurd to me. The same goes for all the cited books. Writing a book doesn't make an author Yoda. I'm not going to change it, though. Do as you wish, all you weird circumfetishists, do as you wish. 87.78.178.102 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it just came over me and I removed all the very bad citations, none of which makes any contribution of value to the article, one of them going so far as to state that in preemptive self defense. Too stupid is simply too stupid. But still, change it back if you have to. Luckily, Wikipedia articles are not like foreskins, gone when they're gone... 87.78.178.102 17:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I knew it! JakeW (who else on god's green earth?) reversed it with the tag "rv deletion of substantial sourced material". This is so much fun.87.78.178.102 17:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Terminology, merging

A fascinating article. The Taves study is particularly interesting. But this term "gliding action" doesn't seem to have reached any major publications as a commonly-accepted term. Wikipedia is not the proper forum for creating or promoting neologisms; perhaps a better term can be found? In the meantime, I am moving this to gliding action (coitus) since I have heard those two word used together many, many times, and never in this particular context. +sj + 01:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the right thing to do is to merge this article with a related article with a more natural title; perhaps simply with Foreskin.

gliding action is also present in masturbation of intact penis not solely in coitus - MAZ

Does anyone know how to retreive the Archive from before the article was renamed? Johntex 23:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I shall fix it.

—

— Ŭalabio 23:49, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Dispute items

Jakew, these are the items I am disputing in your most recent version:

• OriginalResearch tag was slipped in without discussion, and until possibly the "preference" paragraph, this article did not use Wikipedia as a primary source, nor is there any evidence I know of that that is happening.
  • That wasn't my inclusion. Generally I am hesitant to remove any disputed tag(s), for the simple reason that a dispute over a dispute is evidence of a dispute (if you see what I mean).
    • OK, I do not see what the user was objecting to nor any efforts to continue that dispute since March, so I would leave it out.
      • Ok. I'm not passionate about the issue.
• "Opinion pieces by" This is unnecessarily a double-pejorative. The references simply say "report", and that is not making a claim of non-opinion or undeniability. Tacking on "Opinion pieces" is a cheap shot.
  • Disagree. There is a great difference between papers that report empirical data and those that express an opinion (Taves study, in contrast, was experimental). We can negotiate over the wording, certainly, but this information is important for people to evaluate the evidence.
    • Sure, that difference is important. My point is not to detract from the importance of opinion, but to note that the construct "opinion pieces by ... report" is a pejorative and confusing. Why not just say their "the opinion of ... is"?
    • Ok.
• Bailey,Muga,Poulussen,Abicht This is HIV research, and penetration is not mentioned in the referenced abstract. I have trouble even imagining how this one is defensible, as moving skin would have to be more rigid than fixed skin.
  • This is not DanPedia. Your disbelief is not acceptable criteria for rejecting information. The research, you may care to note, is on acceptability of circumcision, not HIV per se. Wouldn't you agree that partner pleasure is relevant to acceptability? It doesn't matter, anyway. You or anybody else can verify what it says, but you'll have to part with $30.
    • My disbelief wasn't the issue, only a friendly side note in hopes to get some speculation from you as to what really would make such a claim possible. The reference doesn't mention ease of penetration from what I can tell, so I am challenging it on that basis.
      • Please Google for: "Nearly all CSWs preferred circumcised men"
• Personal Preference section I can guess that this is true for some men, even without seeing the full text that is referenced. However, the paragraph goes on to say "bizzare" and like wearing a "condom", whereas such a similar metaphorical/subjective claim of a circumcised condition (such as those made by O'Hara) is one you'd certainly delete, as it is unnecessarily POV and we can describe the claims adequately without it.
  • We've got plenty of subjective claims already in the article. A subjective claim made by participants in a study is arguably more relevant than one made by the author. As for POV, Wikipedia is not opposed to representing relevant points of view, but we must not endorse one in particular. If a significant number of people believed that foreskins leap up and suffocate sleeping partners in the middle of the night, we should say so.
    • There is a diffence between describing a subjective claim in an objective way ("person X says claim Y"), and using vague adjectives and metaphors in the description ("person X says it's like"). For instance, if a personal preference that says "bizarre" and "like a condom" is permitted, then I propose that we reference O'Hara's descriptions that, without the gliding action, it feels like "banging" and "During my circumcised intercourses, I felt violated or used—like I was just a piece of meat—even with my husband." be added as a equally-colorful methaphorical claims to the preference section.
      • Are we happy enough as the article stands?
• Category:Andrology This should be under Category:Sexuality or both, since the disputed gliding action typically involves two partners, and only then during sexual activity.
  • Both, probably.
    • OK.

I hope this helps explain my objections to the article, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.DanP 21:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) I have also changed "sample size of one", as it is an awkward phrase atypical of any research involving small samples. DanP 21:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) It is a little awkward, but I can't find anything in Taves' paper saying that he experimented on himself. Have I missed something? Can we use "a single subject" as Taves uses?

Inserted responses in italics above. In an edit summary, I remarked upon changes without explanation. I hadn't seen this. Apologies. - Jakew 10:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have added further explanations as well.DanP 16:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further responses above. - Jakew 19:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the "Nearly all CSWs preferred circumcised men", it's worth mentioning. I'll put it back in, and otherwise I'm OK with the rest. DanP 03:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"possible" motion of the foreskin

Jakew, I see you've the edit in which I removed the use of the word "possible" to describe "motion of the foreskin". I think I may have misinterpreted the meaning of the sentence, but if so that's because it's ambiguous and needs to be fixed.

To be clear: it's not "possible" that the phenomenon exists, of course, it's a certainty. However I accept that some uncircumcised men may not experience it, and your reversion is reasonable in that sense. Anyway I'll remove the ambiguity soon. jamesgibbon 30 June 2005 00:26 (UTC)

Source Cited Does not Support the Claim

I have twice tried to delete a sentence that is not supported by the source cited after the sentence (I used proper edit summaries both times). Jakew has twice reverted me. The sentence and source are:

"Some people claim that the gliding action detracts from sexual activity, and feel that the gliding of the foreskin reduces from the pleasure they would otherwise feel from direct friction.[1]".

The first time Jakew reverted me, he invited me to read the full article, claiming that it supports the sentence. However, I do not have access to the full article, so I invited Jakew to provide a quote from the article that supports this sentence. He reverted me without comment. I maintain that this sentence needs to go unless it is properly sourced. I look forward to hearing from others. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 23:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The sentence is properly sourced, and nothing whatsoever is preventing you from going to your nearby medical library or even parting with money for a copy. Nothing in Wikipedia policy requires sources to be freely available on the 'net. If you would prefer not to link to the abstract, but to include the citation in the references instead, that is fine with me, but to remove it on the grounds that you haven't read it is wholly inappropriate. Jakew 09:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a citation would be nice. Oh Jakew, we rarely see eye-to-eye, but I do not doubt that some for some reason do not like gliding action. It is mine experience one can find some feeling any conceivable way about anything. As an example, I like to cuddle with my lover, but she says that one man she once dated did not. Although most people like physical contact with loved ones some do not. It is likely that although most prefer gliding action, some do not. None would make a big deal about the sentence it it did not cite a source not agreeing with it. Kristin and Jeffry O’Hara found that most women with sexual experience with both intact and mutilated men prefer intact men, itself implies that a minority of women prefer mutilated men, so this claim is not unreasonable. It is just that you cited something not supporting your claim.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 01:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Jakew has again reverted my change to the sentence. Jakew, the burden is on you to provide some evidence that the source actually says what you claim it does. All we are asking for is for you to quote the sentence from the article where this preference is discussed. Johntex\^talk 17:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Jakew has now left more complete information on my talk page:

This is from p217 of the full text ([2]):

...Youth also expressed that the foreskin 
reduced sexual pleasure for men. Some likened the presence of a foreskin to 
wearing a condom: "Some boys say that to them it is less sensational to have 
sex with the condom on ... the same way as when one has the foreskin 
intact ... unlike a circumcised man they don t experience maximum 
sensation"...

Based on this, I am updating the article. Johntex\^talk 20:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This statement seems to apply to the opposite if gliding action, phimosis:

> “Some boys say that to them it is less sensational to have sex with the condom on … the same way as when one has the foreskin intact … ”

If the præpuce is stuck like a condom, that is phimosis, the opposite of gliding action. Most phimosis is iatrogenic (basically, doctors order forced retraction and scrubbing between the glans and præpuce for causing damage so that they should have an excuse later for circumcising so that they should steal money along with a præpuce). Regardless of the cause, almost all phimosis can be cured by an hour of stretching daily (pull the præpuce away from the body while stretching wider the præputial orifice). This can solve the problem within a week, usually in a fortnight, but occasionally, requiring an whole month. The above citation says nothing about people not liking gliding action (the præpuce moving freely, rather than being stuck in place).

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 01:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't sound at all like phimosis to me. The reduced sensation comes from partial covering of the glans during intercource. Even CIRP grudgingly admit this, though they then try to spin it as causing premature ejaculation. "Lakshmanan & Prakash report that the foreskin impinges against the corona glandis during coitus.15 The foreskin, therefore, tends to protect the corona glandis from direct stimulation by the vagina of the female partner during coitus. The corona is the most highly innervated part of the glans penis." [3] (emph added) Thinking about it, we should probably cite Lakshmanan... Jakew 09:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe that to what the article refers is a way intact men can control sexual stimulation:

A man and his partner might want to enjoy sex for a while without the man finishing too soon. He can move just a little distance, thus deploying only about half of his glans and inner mucosal præpuce, none of his frænulum and corona, while stimulating none of the strainreceptors of the frænulum. After over an hour, he might decide that it is time to let himself orgasm and move his penis a sufficiently great distance for completely deploying his entire glans including the corona, all of the inner præputial mucosa, the frænulum, and by putting tension on the frænular ligament, stimulate its strainreceptors.

The only way a mutilated man can control orgasm is to stop moving, which is fun for neither him nor his paramour. This is circumcisiogenic premature ejaculation Oh well, many mutilated men have so little inner mucosa left and frænulum, that the suffer even in youth. With the exposed mucosa callusing with exposure to the cruel world, the incidence of circumcisiogenic delayed orgasm increases with age. Eventually, this leads to circumciogenic anorgasmia. When american urologists who steal much money for medically unnecessary circumcisions of adult men who believe that after circumcision, they can have sex with anything moving with no fear of AIDS, see middleaged men approaching retirement with circumciogenic anorgasmia, they lie and claim that men loose the ability to orgasm with age — ¡we all know that cutting off the only moving part of the penis along with over half of the mucosa and burying the remaining mucosa under calluses could not possibly alter sensation!

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 01:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If this were the case, Walabio, one would expect to see a significant difference in rates of ejaculatory disorders such as premature ejaculation and anorgasmia. Jakew 16:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And that is what one does see, as the very text you found demonstrates.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 22:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

But it does no such thing. Jakew 11:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Could I make a suggestion: if it's a quotation from the abstract, then a link to the abstract is no problem. However, if it's a quotation from the whole article that does not appear in the abstract, then this should be made clear in the text. Michael Glass 14:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does, just not in so many words. One can find better articles [4] such as Whither the Foreskin? — CAPT E. Noel Preston, MC, USAF which address this more directly.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 02:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I found an unambiguous reference to someone not liking gliding action.

[5]

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 01:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Poll

---

¿Should we include a quotation which almost certainly refers tothe opposite of gliding action, phimosis, “presence of a foreskin to wearing a condom”, which implies that the præpuce is stuck over the glans like a condom, or just an unambiguous anecdote about a man unambiguously not liking gliding action as relayed from his wife? A week, or until 2005-10-11T23:59:59Z should be sufficient time for resolving this issue

We should use the ambiguous statement despite it probably refering to the oppsite of gliding action, phimosis.

We should use a only use a source unambiguously referring to not liking gliding action.

2. — Ŭalabio‽ 11:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Option 3 - Ulalabio is attempting to stack the result of the poll by using slanted wording. The quote is not ambiguous and should stay in the article.

1. Johntex\^talk 16:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Jakew 20:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Option 4 - Ualabio is attempting to stack the result of the poll by using slanted wording, but that doesn't mean that his point is invalid.

1. ^L_Wizard @ 18:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• We should not cite a quotation of not liking gliding action which is more likely to mean its opposite, phimosis. — — Ŭalabio‽ 11:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

There are two things that I have specific objections to.

• First, there is the reference to an abstract of an article when the quotation purports to be from the article itself. There should be a clear reference to the article and not just a link to the abstract.
• Secondly, I object to a quotation from Circlist. It is not a reputable source of information.

Michael Glass 14:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I for one would be OK with changing the quotation into a different style quote that references the article as a printed source, rather than linking to the electronic version of the abstract (assuming no electronic version of the full article can be found - which would be even better). I am also OK with quoting from the full article and linking to the abstract. Admittedly, it is a little strange to link to something that does not contain the quote, but the abstract is useful for finding the article containing the full quote, so I am not opposed to leaving it the way it is, either. Johntex\^talk 21:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Reorganisation

I have reorganised the article to flow better and to remove some redundancies. I have also removed the link to an opinion expressed on Circlist. This is not a credible source of information for an encyclopedia.

For the moment I have taken on trust that the articles from Africa said what they are claimed to have said. It is not satisfactory to have a link to something that does not back up a quotation Michael Glass 01:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy?

Is even the basic assumption of the article accurate, that gliding action as described is dependent upon having an uncircumsized penis? Where is the source to justify this claim? Circumcision does leave some foreskin, enough even to produce an action very similar to that described. Indeed, phimosis would make this action impossible, and can generally be prevented by circumcision.

If one is lucky, the mutilator leaves sufficient skin and mucosa for gliding action. It is much more likely that the flaccid penis is centimeters shorter and erections are tight and painful with the scrotum and sometimes even the testicles riding up onto the penis. Phimosis is rare and can usually be treated with gentle manual stretching aided with creams containing steroids. A clumsy mutilation can lead to phimosis from the raw wound scaring to the glans (skinbridges). Although one can treat this by cutting the skinbridges, many urologists prefer to remove yet more tissue, leading to even tighter and yet more painful erections still.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 05:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Like a condom? and CSW preferences

The properly functioning foreskin is very un-condomlike; it observably slides. It not only allows exposure of the glans surface, but augments the glans' nerve endings with its own, esp. around the frenum and the ridged band, potentially enhancing the experience. Also, if CSW cited means "commercial sex worker", then their view is circumstantial; granted they will have encountered numbers of unhygeinic males in their careers, but proper education of the punter is more logical than mass surgery. Would any man actually contemplate circumcision to placate a prostitute? If the inference is that the CSW's preference applies to the man's partners, that is spurious; partners of an unhygienic male can initiate remedial action. The point seems to be missed that most male sex worldwide is solitary! A sliding foreskin seems ideal for that usage, but if preferred, the male can always retract it for that behaviour, emulating circumcision and exposing the corona. If he is unable, he likely has phimosis or frenulum breve, and generally requires preputial stretching, not surgery. Trevor H. 02:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, that paragraph is bullshit and should be removed. Cuzandor 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with a cited source is insufficient reason for removing it. Try looking for published criticism instead. Jakew 10:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's a cited source it doesn't mean it should be there. It's their opinion, so what? Should every article contain someone's own opinion on it? Like the cigarette article. Should it have a "A random trial study said that some random controlled trial kids like to remove cigarettes' filters before smoking them"? Cuzandor 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If we remove all opinions from this pseudo-scientific article, we will have very little left. So that seems a poor argument. Jakew 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Size does not matter. Cuzandor 18:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Condom use

This article seems to take it for granted that the circumcised man in question is not using a condom. Oughtn't the effects of condom use on the purported gliding action be mentioned? Benami 22:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph related to gliding action?

This paragraph:

Participants in a 2002 peer reviewed study by Bailey (link to abstract) reported: "...Youth also expressed that the foreskin reduced sexual pleasure for men. Some likened the presence of a foreskin to wearing a condom: 'Some boys say that to them it is less sensational to have sex with the condom on ... the same way as when one has the foreskin intact ... unlike a circumcised man they don't experience maximum sensation.'" [9]

... seems to be more related to the Sexual effects of circumcision article than the subject of gliding action. It looks like a maze of such articles, and that's why I'd like to contain it as much as possible to not spread into other articles. Again, gliding action describes the way how foreskin moves during intercourse. It sounds to me like that doesn't even start to touch if sexual pleasure is affected or not, and merely discusses the technical details of the foreskin and how it moves. If we are to start pulling in paragraphs about the foreskin's relationship to sexual pleasure, that seem to me it would imply tons of material lifted in here from the aforementioned article, more specifically from the circumcision advocates' side.

To summarize: even if there are any negative sexual effects from foreskin (which I doubt, and given its extreme sensitivity, it can hardly be compared to a condom), that would be negative effects from foreskin, not negative effects from a gliding action or the lack of such. Even circumsized males can sense a gliding action depending on the cut, which makes the paragraph above even more confusing how it found its way here to me. -- Northgrove 22:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The linked content doesn't even contain the quote... while it may be in the article, the article isn't available for confirmation of that content so I feel the link is inappropriate and the quotation should be removed Lordkazan 20:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You can easily purchase the article or check it at a medical library.

Actually, you don't even have to trouble yourself that much. You can confirm that the full article contains the quote by using Google Scholar: [6]

Jakew 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

according to Verifiability the burdeon of proof rests upon you. simple verification that the quote is actually in the text is insufficient. It must also be properly incontext, which is what i'm doubting. You have failed to prove that the quote is valid, it isn't my job to spend MONEY to prove your point - it's your job. Until you prove that the quote is valid and in context it should not be in the article at all. Burdeon of proof is on you to show it's valid, not on me to show it's invalid Lordkazan 20:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the concept behind verifiability. Citing an article is all that is required to show proof. It is not the editors fault that you are too lazy to acquire the article for yourself. From the policy: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources." This says the the articles have to be published. It does not say that a copy must be sent to Lordkazan for verification. The burden is on YOU to acquire the article. If wikipedia only allowed sources that were available on the internet, wikipedia would be severely limiting itself. This would be a serious limitation and a huge mistake.Christopher 05:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this quote from an article on HIV infections and circumcision should be removed. The quote is not a good one, even though some "youths" said it was like a condom, there is a lack of context for that quote (type of questioning, if these individuals were recently circumcised and possibly coerced, etc.), the point being that this quote may well be taken out of context. I would agree it should be removed.

"(see illustration)"

There is no illustration. —ptk✰fgs 09:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone edit back in the illustration, pretty please? It was very illuminating and describes the process much better than words do. I'd do it, but I'm afraid I'm not quite sure how one would go about it. 85.166.246.69

An edit (original heading deleted)

Another editor (edited) has reverted a change I made without sufficiently explaining himself here on the discussion page. I changed it again now but not just deleted the completely unnecessary POV pushing citations but adding to them. Please discuss, this is important, because there that certain guy is really destroying fruitful Wikipedia work pushing his won POV. 87.78.184.150 18:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (edited to delete personal attacks - Jakew)

This article is about a theory held by anti-circumcision activists. Your first edit deleted all the (sourced) disagreement with this theory, making the article far more POV.

Your second edit was blatant POV pushing, as explained in the edit summary. For example, you changed the neutral "Not all accept that the presence or absence of the foreskin makes any difference." to "There seems to be a minority who refuses to accept that the presence or absence of the foreskin makes any difference." Your edit thus introduced the strong implication that this 'minority' (if indeed they are - without surveys we have no way of knowing) are wrong, refusing to accept The Truth. Sorry, NPOV forbids presenting one side as truth - we have to respectfully present the views.

Additionally, you inserted a bunch of comments that do not belong in the article, though they would be appropriate comments to make here on this talk page. Jakew 18:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is about a medical fact, not a "theory held by anti-circumcision activists" (argumentum ad hominem, attempting to paint the subject as invalid because people who purportedly are the only ones to told the view). However his "there seems to be a minority..." is weasel words and should have been removed. So I agree with you on that particular action. Please refrain from using suggestions of being a minority view as an argumentum ad hominem. Lordkazan 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is a theory (witness the near-total absence of empirical support), and the people who have proposed or endorse it have indeed been anti-circumcision activists. The theory may be correct, or it may not - time will tell - but my description is accurate. Jakew 19:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But doesn't the half sentence "though he does not discuss gliding action specifically" explicitly admit that this citation does not fit into this article? The tight residual skin on the assumable average circumcised penis does create more friction and less gliding action than the skin on the assumable average intact (or uncircumcised, if you will) penis, is that a fact we can agree upon? So how does this citation fit into the topic of the article? Please explain. 87.78.153.226 13:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol.. near total lack of empirical research... mostly because it's BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY TRUE - when you're staring a fact in the face, you don't have to do a big study to know it. We've had intact men come on here and talk specifically about it. It's a known fact, only, who has an agenda, deny it. Again - the fact that the FIRST THING YOU SAID was an argumentum ad hominem based off a half truth is enough to condemn your opinion on this one. You are not an honest wikipedia editor, you are a POV Warrior. However our 87.78.n.n buddy does this two - BOTH OF YOU BEHAVE! Lordkazan 13:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I think I was having a bad day yesterday, but I know that's not an excuse for personal attacks. Sorry for that. But, all the more I'm interested in hearing your opinions on what I said before about "though he does not discuss gliding action specifically". Let's discuss! 87.78.177.164 13:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, accepted.

Regarding the article, in all fairness, it's currently a mess. It doesn't remotely approach the standard of quality that's required. It should probably be deleted or partly merged into foreskin; I'd nominate it for deletion myself if it wasn't for the fact that I know from past experience that a call-to-arms will go out on the 'net and anti-circ activists will crawl out of the woodwork to vote against the proposal.

The main problem, as I see it, is that the central term ("gliding action") is only used, as far as I can tell, by one paper: Warren and Bigelow (it's widely used on the net, but is uncommon in scholarly sources that are suitable for inclusion). This puts us in an unfortunate situation: we're basically citing authors using a variety of different terms, some similar, some less so, and in effect saying that they mean "gliding action". It's original research, and I'm not happy with the situation.

In essence, I think that the problem is much larger than just the Morris quote. I don't think that the existence of the article is compatible with policy, but realistically I don't expect to be able to solve that. If we must have a not-quite-conforming article, I think it's best to at least conform to NPOV, citing arguments from both sides.

As I said, I'm not particularly happy about the situation, and I would welcome alternative suggestions. Jakew 14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This SHOULD be merged with Foreskin .. i was rather suprised when i stumbled upon this article. Lordkazan 15:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My point was not about NPOV precisely (although it is naturally involved). I just think the Morris quote is not related to the topic of the article at all, unless someone claims that gliding action is an inherent part of "sexual performance" of an intact (or uncircumcised; you know I'm one of that crazy anti-circ activists...) male, but that would be OR. 87.78.177.164 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Jakew, Lordkazan, anybody want to contribute? 87.78.177.164 19:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Gliding action is a natural part of the "sexual performance" of an intact penis .... and it's not OR if we can cite sources.

"When the anatomically complete penis thrusts in the vagina, it does not slide, but rather glides on its own 'bedding' of movable skin, in much the same way that a turtle's neck glides in and out of the folder layers of skin surrounding it." - The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner, K. O'HARA and J. O'HARA, BJU INTERNATIONAL, Volume 83, Supplement 1, Pages 79-84 http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

Certain pro-circ editors can stick that in their pipe and smoke it

Lordkazan 20:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

An opinion no more, and no less, valuable than Morris'. Jakew 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A peer reviewed study published in the BJU! Lordkazan 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis" (Same citation as before, in turn they're citing Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumision. Br J Urol 1996; 77: 291-5 Lordkazan 20:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the work that they cite does not support their claim. It does, however, state that the 'ridged' part (tip) of the preputial mucosa is more densely populated with a certain type of rapidly-adapting, fine-touch receptor than the 'smooth' part of the preputial mucosa. But let's not get off-topic here. Jakew 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

READ THE CITATION - The citation is about the fine-touch receptors! Lordkazan 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have. We've discussed this previously. Try reading it yourself. You don't have to read far to see that I'm correct - in the abstract it states "This ridged band contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa..." Jakew 20:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Meissner's corpuscles (discovered by the anatomist Georg Meissner (1829-1903)) are a type of mechanoreceptor and more specifically, a tactile corpuscle (corpusculum tactus). They are distributed throughout the skin, but concentrated in areas especially sensitive to light touch" [Meissner's corpuscle] Lordkazan 20:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Now, let's take the quote from the abstract and substitute the definition: "This ridged band contains more fine-touch receptors than does the smooth mucosa..." Note the similarity between this and my original explanation above: "It does, however, state that the 'ridged' part (tip) of the preputial mucosa is more densely populated with a certain type of rapidly-adapting, fine-touch receptor than the 'smooth' part of the preputial mucosa." Jakew 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"The prepuce provides a large and important platform for several nerves and nerve endings. The innervation of the outer skin of the prepuce is impressive [16]; its sensitivity to light touch and pain are similar to that of the skin of the penis as a whole. The glans, by contrast, is insensitive to light touch, heat, cold [17] and, as far as the authors are aware, to pin-prick. Le Gros Clark [18] noted that the glans penis is one of the few areas on the body that enjoys nothing beyond primitive sensory modalities.""

Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumision. Br J Urol 1996; 77: 291-5

Connect the dots - the ridged band is the most innervated part of the foreskin and the foreskin is the most innervated part of the penis. FFS read the entire article and don't try to trick my with your half truths Lordkazan 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be fooled. Follow the references and you'll see that again, they don't support the claims (for that matter, grab a pin and test one yourself!). Furthermore, it's another apples and oranges comparison: Taylor et al studied the preputial mucosa, not the outer foreskin, and not the glans. To meaningfully compare the three, hard data would be required, but they do not provide this, but instead use selected subjective impressions to try to make their case.

To "connect the dots": the 'ridged band' is the most innervated (in terms of Meissner's corpuscles) part of the mucosal foreskin (no hard data, so we'll have to take Taylor's word for it). Is the mucosal foreskin more innervated than the outer? No data. Is the foreskin more innervated than the rest of the penis? No data. No conclusion is therefore possible. Jakew 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis" Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumision. Br J Urol 1996; 77: 291-5 Lordkazan 20:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And before Jakew cries "SELECTION BIAS!!!" -- "However, when the responses from respondents gathered from the mailing list of the anti-circumcision organization were compared with those of the other respondents, there were no differences"" Lordkazan 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Which surely must make one wonder how the others were recruited. But we're getting really off-topic here - the relevant quotes do not in any way depend upon their sample, but are opinions stated independently of their results. Jakew 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

they stated how they were recruited. Clearly you didn't bother to read the study. Lordkazan 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've not only read the study but a couple of years ago I even wrote to the author to get a more precise description than the incredibly vague "classified advertisements in magazines". The result? A very evasive reply. Jakew 20:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again: You are talking off-topic. Please relate to the thread! And what exactly is a "very evasive reply"? 87.78.177.164 21:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Both of you guys are totally off-topic. I'd like you to relate to what I said earlier: That Morris quote should be removed, because how does a quote stating "circumcision 'has no effect, one way or the other, on the sexual performance of the adult male'" contribute to an article about the phenomenon of gliding action, no matter if or not it occurs with only intact penises. Please give proper argumentation if you do not agree. 87.78.177.164 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In other words: If anybody wants to keep that quote in the article please provide proper sources for positive relation between GLIDING ACTION and sexual performance. 87.78.177.164 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You are more-or-less correct, but as I tried to explain above, we should strictly speaking remove all the sources from the article except for Warren and Bigelow, since only W&B actually specifically discuss 'gliding action'.

The available options, then, are: 1) delete the article since it can never be more than a stub, 2) merge usable parts of the article into foreskin, 3) delete all but W&B, or 4) put up with a non-ideal situation. Jakew 21:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

article should be merged with Foreskin Lordkazan 21:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging with foreskin has my vote, too. And I, too, suggest deleting all but Warren and Bigelow. 87.78.177.164 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

3/3 in favour of merging so far. Promising. Incidentally, if we merge into foreskin, the need for deleting the other sources no longer applies. Jakew 09:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you suggest putting them into the future gliding action section? They still wouldn't fit there as we figured out, although maybe elsewhere in the foreskin article. 87.78.148.84 13:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to have a new dedicated section, no (we don't have a 'chewing action' for teeth, or a 'not leaking all over the carpet action' for skin). We can just slot text from this article in as and where appropriate (mostly "functions", I guess). Jakew 13:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merging since Gliding Action is the whole point of the foreskin in the first place. The point of a foreskin is certainly not to remove it, anymore than with eyelids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veffari (talk • contribs)

1) Masturbation and 2) the article structure.

1) I believe that this may be the central reason for why boys get circumcised in the first place: "The point seems to be missed that most male sex worldwide is solitary! A sliding foreskin seems ideal for that usage..." In fact it is. And then there are all sorts of reasons found to justify a partial amputation of an otherwise healthy male childs penis. The practice of circumcision is a ritual to control behaviour in young boys. Same reason is used for mutilating female genitalia.

2) Article skeleton/discussion: I also find the whole structure of the article on foreskin and gliding action bizarre and misleading as it focuses a lot on the circumcision. An article about a foreskin needs to emphasise what a foreskin does, what it looks like, its structure etc. A foreskin is not about its removal. In other words since the foreskin is normal, the way a male is born, then the article should focus on the foreskin itself and what its purpose is, not focus on "justifications" for removing a perfectly normal part of the human body.

(Hope I am doing these comments properly as I am new to WIKI editing)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veffari (talk • contribs)

To establish the function or 'purpose' of something, you have to apply the scientific method. The most straightforward approach is to compare what happens when something is present to when it isn't. This is what the vast majority of sources have done; all we can do is to reflect them fairly. Jakew 10:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There are "sources" in the article claiming that a foreskin is like a condom. 'Some boys say that to them it is less sensational to have sex with the condom on ... the same way as when one has the foreskin intact ... unlike a circumcised man they don't experience maximum sensation.'" This is clearly ridiculous and has nothing to do with gliding action, although I can see that it may seem to make sense to 1) a circumcised individual or 2) someone not knowing what foreskin is or 3) for someone who for religious reasons may be promoting a partial amputation of chilrens genitalia. Why isn't this sort of nonsense comparison to condoms removed? Veffari 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)– — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → · §

It's generally inappropriate to remove cited material just because one editor disagrees with it. You could try searching for criticism of that article, and cite that instead. Jakew 16:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jakew. Lets compare then: If an article on eyelids described the functions of eyelids, it would be appropriate to contain the article to eyelids and its functions; wetting eyes, shielding from light etc. Then the act of removing eyelids (such as removing a foreskin) is not a part of the anatomical description of eyelids, but a separate issue and should not be promoted in the article on eyelids, as is clearly the case with someone quoting teenagers comparing a foreskin with latex rubber! This whole piece on "... some boys say..." is not neutral and should be removed altogether. thanks. --Veffari 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why an article on eyelids should exclude a peer-reviewed article that mentions their drawbacks. Indeed, your suggestion is like saying that Wikipedia's article on smoking should exclude any mention of carcinogenic effects. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral point of view, neither in favour of nor opposed to the subject matter. However, that does not mean that all sources should be neutral, only that they should be presented fairly, without endorsing any one as 'truth'. Jakew 16:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A foreskin is not at all comparable to a rubber latex condom. The speculation is not neutral. Even though this quote from individuals appears somewhere in the work studying HIV infections and circumcision, I suspect peer-reviewed for THAT purpose, it is still utter nonsense to liken sex with foreskin to sex with condoms. About Smoking: Carcinogenic effects are integral to the discussion on smoking. This can not at all be of the same caliber as saying that a human skin full of nerves and sensory spots is comparable to condoms. It falls flat on its face. --Veffari 03:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that you're going to have to accept the fact that you won't agree with every source. Jakew 10:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bailey Study

Jakew, please address my concerns about the paragraph concerning the Bailey study. I feel that this entire paragraph adds nothing to the article and is extremely low quality. If the quote was put in proper context and was a full quote instead of a collection of snippets, I would have considerably less issue. I will be unable to remedy this myself until my copy of the study arrives, perhaps you have access to one? As it stands, I question whether this is even an accurate quote from the study - what bearing does a random boy's opinion have on the correlation between HIV infection and circumcision? Christopher 01:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Christopher, the quote is actually copied verbatim from the study itself, ellipses included. The study in question held focus groups and personal interviews with Tanzanians "to investigate the reasons for increasing acceptance of circumcision."

Other interesting findings were that "it was mentioned that circumcision enhances the sexual pleasure of both partners. They believed that it reduces friction during sexual intercourse and increases the woman’s sexual pleasure."

Incidentally, Bailey wasn't involved. The principal author was Nnko. I've fixed the error. Jakew 12:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That does not address my concern that the quote is not related to the gliding action at all. It is however a very interesting illustration of how the placebo effect also applies to pleasure. Christopher 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment: foreskin-condom similarities

This is a long and ongoing dispute about the paragraph of the main article which states "Some likened the presence of a foreskin to wearing a condom: 'Some boys say that to them it is less sensational to have sex with the condom on ..." etc. As per the frequent debates listed above on this talk page, neutral comments are required to finally resolve this issue. -- CoolGuy 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• What does the full text of the cited article say? The abstract which the link points to does not mention this issue. Also, the very large section on "opinions" seems very POV against circumcision. In addition to all those content issues, it's clear the article would benefit from someone formatting the citations using cite.php. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• I've rewritten that paragraph describing the actual study more accurately, and cited properly. Hopefully this also helps the perceived POV issue raised about it, too. I don't think the details and analogies used by study participants are helpful, they tend to dramatize the matter. the key issue is, participants reported that circumcision was said to improve sexual pleasure, and this was felt to be so for both men, and also women. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

/* "Many people" */ I am pleasantly surprised by the claim of James Gibbon and would request him to upload some videos in support of his claim. I say this because I find it impossible for my foreskin to glide on the glans during vaginal intercourse. It rolls down the glans to the corona during insertion and then the glans remains naked during the entire thrusting. This is in contradiction to masturbation, which gives far more pleasure due to gliding skin action on the entire glans and shaft. Vini.84 (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)