Misplaced Pages

Talk:Circumcision: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:23, 23 February 2015 editDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,255 edits →When secondary sources have unfounded claims.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:49, 23 December 2024 edit undo104.163.174.55 (talk) →This page is not even neutral: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}} {{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg|long}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society|class=GA}}
{{censor}} {{censor}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Round in circles|search=no|archivelink=/Archive index}} {{Round in circles|search=no|archivelink=/Archive index}}
{{Calm}} {{Calm}}
{{faq}}
{{Article history|action1=PR {{Article history|action1=PR
|action1date=05:00, 3 February 2013 | action1date=05:00, 3February 2013
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Circumcision/archive1 | action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Circumcision/archive1
|action1result=reviewed | action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid= 536112161 | action1oldid= 536112161

|action2=GAN |action2=GAN
|action2date=10:39, 12 February 2013 |action2date=10:39, 12 February 2013
Line 17: Line 17:
|action2result=listed |action2result=listed
|action2oldid=537886384 |action2oldid=537886384
|action3=GAR
|action3date=09:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Circumcision/1
|action3result=delisted
|action3oldid=


|currentstatus=GA |currentstatus=DGA
|topic=biology and medicine |topic=biology and medicine
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Men's Issues|class=GA|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Men's Issues|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=GA |importance=Mid }} {{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=GA |importance=Mid }} {{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Body Modification|class=GA|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low|translation=yes|translation-imp=Top}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Low|class=GA}} {{WikiProject Body Modification|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Religion|class=GA|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}}
}}
{{Old moves
| collapse = false
| title1 = Circumcision
| title2 = Male Circumcision
| list =
* RM, Circumcision → Male Circumcision, '''No consensus''', 18 June 2008, ]
* RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, '''No consensus''', 13 August 2009, ]
* RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, '''Not moved''', 20 July 2010, ]
* RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, '''Not moved''', 10 October 2022, ]
}} }}
{{Press | subject = article | title = Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed | org = ] | url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613 | date = 18 July 2013 | archiveurl = | archivedate = | accessdate = 18 July 2013 }} {{Press | subject = article | title = Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed | org = ] | url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613 | date = 18 July 2013 | archiveurl = | archivedate = | accessdate = 18 July 2013 }}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} {{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
<div style="font-size:170%; line-height: 1.5; font-weight: bold;"></div> <div style="font-size:170%; line-height: 1.5; font-weight: bold;"></div>
{{faq}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 300K |maxarchivesize = 300K
|counter = 81 |counter = 85
|minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(45d)
|archive = Talk:Circumcision/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Circumcision/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archive box|index=/Archive index |auto=yes |search=yes | bot=MiszaBot I |age=10 |units=days | {{Archive box|index=/Archive index |auto=yes |search=yes | bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 |units=days |
<center>''']'''</br> <center>''']'''<br/>
''']'''</center> ''']'''</center>
}} }}
Line 54: Line 68:
__TOC__ __TOC__


==Misinformed page. ==
== Adverse effects ==

The article makes the bold claim "Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction". But we have newer research that show adverse effects.<ref></ref>
{{reflist-talk}}
<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::Please read ]. We use secondary not primary sources. This 2011 primary source does not refute the newer secondary sources we are using. ] (] · ] · ]) 08:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::: Yes, it does. And it also the first study on the effect on the partners so the 2011 study don't even address that aspect. // ] (]) 08:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::::It is a 2011 primary source. The sources we are currently using are newer than this. ] (] · ] · ]) 08:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::::: Agree: primary source, not usable (This Frisch guy seems to specialize in "bad news for circumcision" type articles - yet another reason why we need secondary sources to validate research). ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 08:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Liftarn please make yourself familiar with ] and in particular ] before continuing. Thanks... <code>]]</code> 15:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"This Frisch Guy" as this "Alexbrn guy"so objectively and respectfully describes him is an MD Phd DSc Professor of Epidemiology who publishes on a wide variety of subjects related to his field. The characterization of his work as "specializing in "bad news for circumcision" type articles" is inaccurate, contrary to WP policy on writing about living persons, and reveals more about the describer than the Professor. Also, yet again the trio of Zad=DocJames=Alexbrn repeat tendentiously their opinion that Primary Sources cannot be used in WP. They can. Here is the policy section that says so.

{{for|Misplaced Pages's policy on the use of primary sources|WP:PSTS}}

Here are three quotations from that policy ( but read the whole thing yourself !)

''''''Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.

'''Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.'''

'''Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.'''''''''

Some such as the above trio of editors express the opinion that the deleterious effects of genital cutting such as circumcision can only be considered from a medical perspective and so they prevent any mention of any of the many surveys and studies which have concluded that cutting a lot of skin off the end of the penis keratinizes (scars) and desensitizes the penis.
Others of us disagree strongly with this opinion. We maintain that circumcision, like all forms of genital cutting, is primarily a cultural practice.
--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


It is illuminating Seppi that you chose to let your own admitted personal opinion forum rant below stand as the last word here while hiding criticism of it below- Hmmmmm--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:My ''colorful'' statement below, in a nutshell, says that some people (e.g., you) have a bias and ] prevents them from contaminating articles with it; that's not an opinion, that's a fact (that's technically true for ] too, but I didn't mention it). Even so, if an uninvolved editor wants to move the tab up, I wouldn't oppose it if they did. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 00:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's laughable that an article about the removal of a useless flap of dick skin raises so much controversy (compare the sum total archive size of this talk page to any other controversial topic's talk page archive, I dare you); I suppose there's always a group of individuals who ] though, like anti-vaccers, intelligent design proponents, and, well, people who think a useless flap of dick skin is more than a useless flap of dick skin when medical reviews indicate that it's essentially a useless flap of dick skin. Thankfully, we use ] on Misplaced Pages to prevent the koolaid from spilling into our articles. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 09:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
{{cot|]|bg=white}}


Medical Science is one perspective on examining the loss of sensation caused by cutting off up to 15 square inches of skin from the tip of the genitals. It is interesting that the last editor chose to utterly ignore the arguments and the primary source policy question, and the point about the mainly cultural nature of male or female circumcision, and was instead at such pains to compare questioning the centrality and exclusivity of "Medical Science only folks" to not one but to three groups of obviously deluded folk. Overkill misdirect dude. This is the same tradition within medical science that gave us with similar certitude and arrogance Circumcision as a "cure" for masturbation not so long ago - though at least at that time Medical Science accepted that lopping off loads of skin off the male genitals causes as much loss of sensation as doing the same to a female, Lobotomy as a cure for mental illness and SSRIs currently for Personality Disorders ( see Dr. Marcia Angell for more on latter) Who then is drinking the Koolaid - surely the hysterics with the unquestioned beliefs.......--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:] - you should read it. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 22:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You should attempt to understand it--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

::::<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font><font color="Black">333</font> says that the foreskin is a useless flap of dick skin. Well, maybe it is, but maybe people should be allowed to chose wheter they want this useless flap of dick skin themselves. A tattoo might also be completely harmless. I wouldn't think it was okay if my parents tattooed a cross into my forehead when I was baby, just because they are religious morons. Circumcision symbolizes religious tradition to me, and therefore I want it gone.] (]) 22:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Although many people might feel as you do, please be reminded that Misplaced Pages article Talk pages are ] of personal advocacy. There are plenty of Internet forums for that, this isn't one of them. Thanks... <code>]]</code> 00:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::A much more serious issue, is that you and Doc James have hijacked a non-medical topic and made it into medical one. I have already complained at the talk page for "neutral point of view" about this issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Not_necessarily_a_good_idea_to_determine_weight_by_amount_of_published_review_articles.). ] (]) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

{{od}} That's not a medical issue; ergo, I wasn't commenting on that. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 22:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

::Which reliable medical or other secondary source refers to the foreskin as a "useless flap of dick skin' Or is that description further Seppi 333 Original Research ?--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:::If it appeases you and your unflinching systematic bias for whatever reasons you probably won't disclose (i.e., your kool-aid), we can call it "the holy site of worship at the temple of the penis"{{or-inline}} instead. Yes, "useless flap of dick skin"{{or-inline}} is my ] term for foreskin. And this is a talk page. Given all the pointless irrelevant whining, it's no wonder the archives for this page are so bloated. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 17:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::What is "useless" to you, might be considered very "useful" to other people. Lots of bold people do hair transplantations, and you can just as well argue that hair on the head is quite useless in our modern society. Of course, many women might prefer men with hair on their heads. Similarly, lots of women might prefer penises with foreskin, especially in countries where most people have foreskin. In other countries, where most people lack foreskin, women might prefer dicks without foreskin. And as for your medical research. I can guarantee you that if you force adult men to undergo circumcision, most of them will claim that they have reduced sexual pleasure. Similarly, you might expect adult men who voluntarily circumcise themselves to report equal or increased sexual pleasure. Because people are very prone to something called the placebo effect, and self-reporting from people isn't very good science.] (]) 18:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Ah, another opinionated individual arguing against conclusions of peer-reviewed medical literature reviews! <br />Tell me a little more about how vaccines cause autism and herd immunity is wrong - we should bloat the talk page archives with some of that nonsense too. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 21:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Against peer-reviewed medical literature? Yeah, in chemistry we prove things with NMR-instruments, not self-reporting from people. Your peer-reviewed medical literature is as valid as when people were determining chemicals by smell. You should also not talk to me about the irrationality of being against vaccination. Here in Europe most people are rational enough to understand that vaccines are good. Only in the US you have a problem with people that don't believe in vaccination, and people that believe in irrational crap ideas like intelligent design, creationism, religion, and circumcision. ] (]) 21:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}So, based upon the use of self-reporting of an arbitrary metric in any medical study, all medical research is faulty? Lolwtf? Bulletproof argument right there. In mathematical analysis, we actually use ''logic'' to prove things, not bullshit rants. By extension of your former conclusion, does Europe also understand that vaccines are good based upon peer-reviewed medical literature that is as valid as when people were determining chemicals by smell? Lmfao. I also like how you think I'm in the US. <br />Whining about how the medical evidence on circumcision is faulty is no different than an anti-vaccer whining about how the medical evidence on vaccines is faulty. ]? ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::How many people do you think circumcision have saved compared to vaccines? As far as I know, I don't think anybody has ever died from having foreskin here in Norway, but I can tell you that a lot of people have died from not having been vaccinated. Furthermore. Are we vaccinating people because of some religious tradition? Nope. Are people circumcising their babies because of religious tradition? Absolutely. Why aren't you people rather advocating for neonatal breast removal? I am sure much more lives can be saved by neonatal breast removal than by neonatal circumcision, because lots of women actually die from breast cancer. I know why you are not advocating for neonatal breast removal. Because it isn't in your religious tradition. ] (]) 22:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::How many people do you think circumcision have saved compared to vaccines? Not as many, but some. There are some legitimate medical reasons for circumcision, although it undoubtedly would be a rare operation if not for religious reasons. On the other hand, there are few, if any, documented adverse effects. — ] ] 09:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::You are probably right, but the question is: Should we make irreversible body modifications on children purely for religious reasons? In our modern secular world I think we only should make irreversible body modifications on children if it is absolutely necessary for medical reasons. Of course I would support circumcision if there were strong medical benefits associated with it. The medical benefits from circumcision are however very weak, and therefore we don't necessarily have any right to make this irreversible body modification on children without their adult consent. This is also why this article shouldn't follow ]. We are usually not performing circumcision on children for medical reasons. This article is actually very confusing, because it makes it look like we are circumcising children for medical reasons.] (]) 10:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{User:Seppi333/pasta}}"I know why you are not advocating for neonatal breast removal. Because it isn't in your religious tradition."
:::I've had this userbox on my userpage for months. Probably the only argument that you can make about my "religious tradition" is that I wear a pasta strainer on my head at times; fortunately, I don't take my (lack of) faith too seriously, so I never have. This article contains a substantial amount of medical content because it is a medical procedure. We also do not write articles with judgmental overtones or omission of relevant aspects, which is often what occurs when there are people with very biased opinions writing about a particular topic (e.g., I angered many ecstasy lovers when I rewrote ] and expanded coverage of its health effects in humans). Topical coverage of the religious aspects of a topic are what is necessary and sufficient in circumstances like this. Frankly I also do not give the slightest iota of a fuck about the religious reasons for circumcision because as I've repeatedly pointed out: the opinion of the medical community is that foreskin is a useless flap of dick skin, so nothing is lost from its removal.
:::Now, as I've already made my point about saying the medical evidence on circumcision is wrong is analogous to an anti-vaccer's argument, I'm more or less done on this talk page. Think that over for a moment if you plan to continue promoting that notion. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 05:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::You write "the opinion of the medical community is that foreskin is a useless flap of dick skin". So that gives you the right to remove it from other people? You think it is okay that parents make irreversible body modifications on their children as long as it doesn't have any negative medical consequences? What would you think if your parents tattooed a cross into your forhead? That doesn't necessarily have any negative medical consequences either. ] (]) 09:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} ] - you should read it. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 11:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::Is that the best counter argument you can come up with? Try to forumlate something with your own words. Or maybe that is too intellectually challenging?] (]) 11:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:::If you don't like having your entire argument invalidated by a 2 word rebuttal, perhaps you shouldn't use ]. {{P|2}} ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 22:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Logical fallacies? I bet you don't even know the difference between deductive and inductive logic, and I bet you don't have any higher education in the either mathematics or natural sciences. If there is a logical flaw in my argument, you need to pinpoint exactly where that flaw is in order to prove me wrong. If you published an article in a scientific journal, I would need to pinpoint exactly where you were wrong in order to prove you wrong. Nobody would take me seriously if I just said Seppi333's article is flawed, without specifying exactly where the flaw is in your paper.] (]) 20:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} You see, if you had read the link as I suggested, you would already have your answer. I'll let you take the initiative to click that link now and read ] to learn why it's a logical fallacy to argue against something I didn't say, much less even comment on, in a way that suggests/supposes I said it; this would probably be self-evident if there were less kool-aid in someone's diet.

Also, since this thread is now blatantly off-topic, I think it's time to collapse all this nonsense to keep this page & its archives less bloated. WP talk pages aren't forums after all; they're only for discussions directly relevant to improving/copyediting articles, something which this tangent is not. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 19:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
{{cob}}

Arguments can be good for wikipedia and we shouldn't censor them. Remember to assume good faith and DBAD. Try not to get emotional whether you're pro or con circumcision. ] (]) 05:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Seppi --Medical Science is one perspective on examining the loss of sensation caused by cutting off up to 15 square inches of skin from the tip of the genitals. It is interesting that Seppi chose to utterly ignore the arguments and the primary source policy question, and the point about the mainly cultural nature of male or female circumcision, and was instead at such pains to compare questioning the centrality and exclusivity of "Medical Science only folks" to not one but to three groups of obviously deluded folk. Overkill misdirect dude. This is the same tradition within medical science that gave us with similar certitude and arrogance Circumcision as a "cure" for masturbation not so long ago - though at least at that time Medical Science accepted that lopping off loads of skin off the male genitals causes as much loss of sensation as doing the same to a female, Lobotomy as a cure for mental illness and SSRIs currently for Personality Disorders ( see Dr. Marcia Angell for more on latter) Who then is drinking the Koolaid - surely the hysterics with the unquestioned beliefs.......- --—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

== HIV spread caused by Circumcision ==

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/17/circumcision-zulu-south-africa-hiv

When will the gatekeepers of this WP article see fit to permit mention here of these and other deleterious results of the practice of Circumcision ? Maybe a little irony in 80 deaths from 50,000 circumcisions in that part of the world where Circumcision is being sold most heavily for health. This other article even details rewards offered for those turning in those unwilling to be cut.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa

--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:That says the HIV is spread because in South Africa they are doing this in rituals with dirty knives, not in hospitals with trained staff. That seems common sense and this article does mention the studies recommend doing the circumcision with trained medical professionals, in terms of doing it for alleged medical benefits. This could be a good source for the article in terms of another source saying if circumcisions are to be done they should be done clean and safely. ] (]) 14:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

::I think the consequence of the over-emphasis on medical circumcisions and the scant mention of tribal, forced and non medical circumcisions has the effect of presenting an article here that paints an unbalanced picture of the wide variety of ways people engage in this branch of genital cutting all over the world and its varied consequences. If it is causing the spread of HIV in South Africa( and in many other places) then this fact is notable beyond being a mere confirmation that it is a good idea to use a sterilized knife. But thank you for replying.--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: the article doesn't say that tho. It says it carries HIV risks because they do the circumcision ritual on boys at 18 years of age when they have already been having sex, and should do it on babies instead. You said it was causing HIV. ] (]) 05:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

== This page needs a total overhaul ==

Not only is there not good info here but much of the claims are totally false. For starters Male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102 . Obviously the page is locked and there are clear biased interests at work here so I'm not going to bother to research and debunk all the other nonsense here. I recommend deletion and starting from scratch <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Good idea, let's work with a paper that fails ]. Think Misplaced Pages write something based upon this too? http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/abstract
:While we're busy revising this article with consecutive ]s to address your concerns, you should start a userspace draft on that paper. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 21:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::And while you think circumcision should follow ], more rational people understand that circumcision is much more related to cultural fashion, religion and tradition. But of course you are in denial. You can't accept that you were circumcised for religious reasons, so you need to make up some medical nonsense to justify it for yourself.] (]) 21:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I still have my useless flap of dick skin; I enjoy trolling people who drink too much koolaid - that would be you. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Why don't you try to chop it off, if you believe so much in religious traditions?] (]) 22:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::You can't circumvent MEDRS when you're making a medical claim by arguing about what the page topic is or isn't. The fact is, saying "Male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure" is a medical claim that must be backed up by MEDRS compliant sources. The primary study you cited above is not such a source. By contrast we have MEDRS-compliant sources that say that "The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction." ] ] 22:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::Everymorning I am a bit confused. Why is this source good, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309 , but this one isn't: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102 . . . they are both from ncbi. ] (]) 06:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::I wasn't the one who made the claim. I think it would be almost impossible to prove anything about how circumcision affects sexuality, because I don't believe in self-reporting. Maybe if you scanned the brains of people in an MRI instrument while they were having sex, you could compare the brains of people with and without foreskin. Maybe if you knew exactly which parts of the brains are more active in sexuality, you could compare the MRI results. I doubt there are any such studies, but if there are I might consider them to be valid proof.] (]) 22:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} You mean like these? - apparently no one has noticed yet, or they just don't care. You pick. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Do those studies compare the cut and the uncut male participants ?--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:They're reviews - ones you didn't bother to read. It's probably not possible to generate non-spurious results when comparing across participants as proposed (as opposed to "]" participants, as in the reviewed studies) for rather technical reasons that I don't feel like explaining. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 01:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Do those studies compare the cut and the uncut male participants ?--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 10:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
: No. ]? {{P|2}} ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 10:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Circus ?-Irrelevant histrionics are plain tedious.--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 11:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis" - amazing ! - with 90% of penis owning authors in WP:EN I would have thought that fell under 'common sense' - here a few selected sources that does describe why and how penile sensitivity is reduced due to circumcision :
* R. Crooks, K. Baur: Our Sexuality. 5. Edition. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing, Redwood City 1993, p. 129.
* J. R. Taylor, A. Lockwood, A. Taylor: The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. In: British journal of urology. Februar 1996, p. 77(2), p. 291–295
* M. L. Sorrells, J. L. Snyder, M. D. Reiss, C. Eden, M. F. Milos, N. Wilcox, Van Howe RS: Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. In: BJU Int. Vol. 99 Issue 4, April 2007, PMID 17378847, p. 864–869
* Why Masters & Johnson’s 1966 Circumcision Study is Flawed (1998)
* DaiSik Kim, Myung-Geol Pang: The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. In: BJU international. Volume 99, Issue 3, March 2007, S. 619–622. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x, PMID 17155977
* E. O. Laumann, C. M. Masi, E. W. Zuckerman: Circumcision in the United States. Prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. In: JAMA. 277(13), (1997)
* K. S. Fink, C. C. Carson, R. F. DeVellis: Adult Circumcision Outcomes Study: Effect on Erectile Function, Penile Sensitivity, Sexual Activity and Satisfaction.
] (]) 15:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:Best not to "select" sources, but just to reflect the highest-quality ones (as this article does). ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 15:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

::: What makes Crooks & Baur less reliable than let's say Sadeghi-Nejad ? ] (]) 17:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: It's 22 years old for a start. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 17:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::And circumcised penises have become more sensitive in the last twenty two years too. For a finish. --—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::::: I see too old fair enough - what about the British Journal of Urology study from 2013 "Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort"? ] (]) 23:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::::: now skin sensitivity is fairly easy to assess in threshold test like this one : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847 - I don't see any skin threshold test that contradicts those findings. So if we set aside the sexual pleasure thing for now (which is indeed much harder to quantify) can we move on the sensitivity part? ] (]) 23:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Of course this loss of sensitivity of cut penises missing their penis tips should be mentioned per the WP policy on primary sources as outlined above, and in the way that any other similar WP article, such as the one on Female Circumcision is permitted to do. But for some odd reason -not here ! not now ! don't ask don't tell --—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{replyto|ChristophThomas}} PMID 17378847 is eight-year-old primary research. Why on earth would we use that when there are recent secondary sources? Plese see ]. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 05:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Alexbrn}} do you find a more recent penile skin threshold tests? ] (]) 07:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Alexbrn}} is it really so hard to move the talk about one very specific question to the specific section below ?] (]) 07:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::The study in question has been considered (with others) in secondary sources, e.g. PMID 23749001 which states: "the majority of studies, including high-quality ones ... and ones with data arising from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ... show no difference or improvement in sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction after circumcision." We use secondary sources here to reflect ''accepted knowledge''. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 07:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: is that really accepted knowledge then, if the source says "the majority of studies say . . . " imoplying not all. And right now the article says "it appears that circumcision doesn't effect satisfaction". That language seems a bit odd to me. It appears? Just not sure what that means. ] (]) 06:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::I don't understand what Alexbrn means. He says the prior study has been included in the conclusion of the secondary source, but does a loss of sensitivity in the penis necessarily mean less sexual satisfaction? That is not necessarily clear. People might get orgasms in dreams without any penile stimulation at all, so it might be that people can experience equally high orgasm satisfaction with less penile sensitivity. Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction are two quite different things, although they might be related to each other. And if the secondary source claims there is no difference in penile sensitivity, then it must be referencing to some primary source with an opposite conclusion. If there are no primary sources claiming that penile sensitivity is equal for people with foreskin and circumcised men, then the conclusion about no loss of penile sensitivity in the secondary source is a big fat lie. ] (]) 19:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

== penile skin sensitivity & circumcision ==

moving the skin sensitivity part here to separate it from the sexual pleasure part --] (]) 00:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

now skin sensitivity is fairly easy to assess in threshold test like this one : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847 - I don't see any skin threshold test that contradicts those findings. So if we set aside the sexual pleasure thing for now (which is indeed much harder to quantify) can we move on the sensitivity part? ChristopheT (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
: Of course this loss of sensitivity of cut penises missing their penis tips should be mentioned per the WP policy on primary sources as outlined above, and in the way that any other similar WP article, such as the one on Female Circumcision is permitted to do. But for some odd reason -not here ! not now ! don't ask don't tell --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 00:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::Tumadoireacht ever POV-pushing against the knowledge found in good sources. Time to get this this disruptive ] dealt with. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 07:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:::Try to address the cogent point raised by Christoph please Alex, and desist from personal attacks and from ascribing bad faith. Your doing so is not in accord with the purpose of this page and is disruptive of its purpose which is improving the article. The primary study cited by Christoph clearly concludes

'''The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis.'''

and

'''The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.'''

and

'''Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.'''

( "ablates" means that circumcision " removes or destroys the function of (a body organ or tissue) --per dictionary.

The secondary study which you then cite Alex makes no mention of the sensitivity question -its conclusions are concerned solely with sexual functions. Is it possible that you failed to notice this this ?--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 09:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:So blinded by bias, incapable of reading or comprehending the very text I quoted. Or just trolling. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 10:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

::Once again Alex I must politely ask you to try harder to stick to content and its consideration, and to refrain from attack and aspersions. If you choose to continue with such you will be in contravention of WP policy and subject to consideration for restricted editing, or an outright ban.--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 12:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Once again, from PMID 23749001 &mdash; what part of "show no difference or improvement in sexual function, '''sensitivity''' and satisfaction after circumcision" (my bold) don't you understand? Your assertion that this source "makes no mention of the sensitivity question" is flat out false. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 12:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

::::: No - your quotation is not in the abstract reference which you are providing - which lists 7 male sexual functions pre and post the cutting off of the foreskin with the following caution "

"these results should be evaluated in light of the low quality of the existing evidence and the significant heterogeneity across the various studies. Well-designed and prospective studies are required for a further understanding of this topic."

The line you reference above is not there. Nor is there any other mention of the sensitivity question at all at all. Perhaps you are confusing it with a different study altogether Alex. Dunning–Kruger ? --—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 13:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:Well, you're either incompetent or trolling, either way, time to ]. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::::: Alexbrn did you post the wrong link by mistake? It's true that your quote is not there. ] (]) 06:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Please, please -enough with the compliments. As I said already the abstract which you yourself referenced makes no mention of penile sensitivity. The full article ( available here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/ ) does mention '''sexual''' function, sensitivity, and satisfaction but makes no mention of fine touch sensitivities of the cut and the non-cut penis as so clearly studied with such clear vivid results that it produced the three conclusion which I bolded above.

In its main text body the article which you cited speculates the following with no reference sources

"Theoretically, partial or total surgical removal of the prepuce leaves the somatic penis sensory fibres exposed to direct stimulation and in theory could benefit sexual function."

It is such an odd aside in the middle of a supposed objective systematic meta-analysis high quality secondary source.

On the shunning front- if you wish me or others to ignore your comments then please simply just say so --—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::I really don't understand this form of science. If you just managed to get a secondary source published in a well respected scientific journal, and your secondary source happens to be the latest one published in a well respected scientific journal, then the conclusions in this secondary source is regarded as scientific fact on wikipedia? I see much more room for subjectivity in secondary sources than in primary sources, as it might be somewhat unclear if they have put equal weight on all their primary sources. A biased scientist might be paying much more attention to primary sources supporting his/her own views, just like with documentaries where often all opposing views are completely ignored. Ideally, wikipedia should be much more like a secondary source itself, where all primary sources are taken into consideration. ] (]) 19:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

==Not improvements==
The edits by ] do not appear to be improvements. This one adds "with the majority endorsing the former" which is not supported by a high quality ref.

This was to the point "Evidence supports that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among ] in ]". This is not an improvement "Studies done in Africa have shown that there is evidence male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among ] in ]." ] (] · ] · ]) 14:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

::Perhaps we need to qualify that to
"''medical'' male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among ] in ]." As referenced above the evidence points to another form of circumcision greatly increasing HIV in the same area.--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::Not convinced that is needed. ] (] · ] · ]) 14:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me attempt to convince you and others DocJames.

I notice that your rejection of the idea took less than five minutes.
Did this give you sufficient time to find and read the two Guardian newspaper articles including the findings of the South Africa’s Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities ?
I offer the references here again just in case in those few minutes you had not time to form an informed opinion

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa

http://www.health-e.org.za/2014/06/25/half-million-initiates-maimed-knife/

The South African Human Rights Commission here calls it "endemic carnage"

http://www.sahrc.org.za/home/index.php?ipkArticleID=282

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/17/circumcision-zulu-south-africa-hiv

The 456,000 boys hospitalized from circumcision complications and the 419 deaths at circumcision are particularly noteworthy as is the 110 pound sterling reward per head( no pun intended) paid to those who turn in those who have escaped cutting so far.
It is difficult to see how we can devote such a large chunk of this article to possible positive effects of HIV in SS Africa and at the same time simply ignore the ongoing horror of the deaths, injuries and human rights violations by circumcision in the same territory.

The articles are long recent decent secondary sources with strong internal references which do not just discuss the damage by this type of circumcision but examine the merits and demerits of WHO and other medical circumcision promotion too. Perhaps there is there so much new pertinent information entirely missing from the WP article that it requires a big rejigging of the article and not the mere qualification adjective addition as I originally proposed. --—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

:The difference is that if you were to write a review piece for the Guardian and source your bias, it would probably be published; if you did the same with a pubmed-indexed medical journal, the editors would probably laugh at you. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 16:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

::You are missing the point - this half million of death and injuries and HIV infections is part of the '''non-medical''' circumcision phenomenon . So by a brilliant process of deduction we really do not need to consider the sense of humour of pubmed-indexed medical journal editors in deciding how to include this important information.--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your advocacy tuma, and I agree with you. This page does sound overly medical in nature, id say its 70% medical and 30% ethical,political,cultural etc, when its more the reverse. I understand there are other pages for those nonmedical areas in this overall topic, but I feel they are under reperesented on this page and considering that this is the main page for the overall topic of circumcision, that shows something is being omitted. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
And as for my adjustment of the first sentence in the paragraph on HIV, well I was being more specific, the "evidence" where studies done in Africa on sub Saharan Africans. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Evergreen Fir took it upon her/himself to delete the rest of your remarks Cirflow. And to label the removal with an opinion.I did not see any "perceived slights" I agree that this article is most peculiarly unbalanced and has been maintained in that unhealthy state for some time . How do you feel we can best address this problem so as to improve the article ?--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

:::When they do a circumcision, technically it's a surgical procedure. I do see in the articles third paragraph it talks about how it's very dangerous to do the procedure with unclean instruments, etc, and that is what is causing all of the problems in africa when tribal leaders order it. ] (]) 20:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

::::WE had this conversation further up this page PopishPlot. You made the same reductionist dirty knife argument. But if Circumcision is CAUSING hiv and hundreds of deaths and thousands of hospitalizations as well as human rights violations when many young men are forcibly circumcised or sold out for for money to the circumcisers then do you not think it more than a question of "please use a clean knife when you go to cut a willie" and do you not think it odd that when we mention the studies that indicate that Circumcision may reduce HIV that we do not qualify this by saying it is medical circumcision alone that may do this but that in the same part of the world many CONTRACT hiv through Circumcision, just as jewish infants have contracted herpes through circumcision in Europe, USA and in Israel. Did you get to read the two Guardian newspaper articles on the subject I referenced above ? --—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::it is an odd old tradition but "if" circumcision "causes" HIV, we'd need a source saying that. But the guardian source doesn't. It is causing infections due to dirty knives . . . this article does say that already.] (]) 06:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, but since the economic situation in third world countries is unlikely to change anytime soon, we might expect them to continue to use dirty knives and perform circumcision in an unhealthy way. In an ideal world, where everybody were rich Jews, we might expect most people to be circumcised properly with clean knives. But this isn't the world we are living in, and WHO might not be taking this into consideration when they are advocating for more circumcision in third world countries.] (]) 20:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::::sounds like crystal ballism. And mentioning term "rich jews" shows a certain POV which does us no good. Bottom line is what do the reliable sources say? Do you have more good sources we are missing? ] (]) 21:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Isn't it just as much crystal ballism to believe that routinal, proper, clean circumcision can be applied in third-world countries where most people don't have any access to basic health care facilities? And maybe we should try to establish a basic health-care infrastructure in third-world countries before we start advocating for circumcision? But then again, maybe many of the proposed health benefits of circumcision also can be achieved with better abdomen hygiene in third-world countries.] (]) 22:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::@84.210 - yeah I agree with Popish on "POV which does us no good"


:::::::@ Popish Plot--Perhaps i was unclear in saying "causing" thinking that you understood that to be shorthand for "causing the spread of" Now the headline of that article is

'''Thousands face agony or death after Zulu king's circumcision decree-

Health campaigners say the traditional manhood ritual, which carries HIV risks, should be replaced by operations in hospital''' and goes on to say

'''"We see horrific cases of rotting penises, septicaemia and inadvertent castrations," he said. "Others die from dehydration and hypothermia. HIV is spread because the same knife is used on large groups of boys.'''

'''We have had a disastrous year, with 80 deaths, including two suicides,'''

'''Certainly the risks of circumcision as practised by people such as the Xhosa are substantial and include the danger of developing septicaemia and other infections.'''

Do you feel Popish plot that these statistics and statements from health workers about the damage done by circumcision including but not limited to HIV has no business being mentioned in the circumcision article ?

The other article headline is

'''The death and deformity caused by male circumcision in Africa can’t be ignored'''

and
'''at least 419 boys have died since 2008, and more than 456,000 initiates have been hospitalised with complications.

Deaths commonly occur through dehydration, blood loss, shock-induced heart failure or septicaemia. And there are estimated to be two total penile amputations for every death. Countless numbers of participants are left with permanent scarring or deformity.'''

'''. Urologists describe seeing patients whose penises have become so infected and gangrenous they literally drop off.'''


The circumcision page on Misplaced Pages is grossly incorrect and biased. It states that there are basically no downsides, and no changes in pleasure. This is incorrect.
The WHO report mentioned


source:
http://www.malecircumcision.org/programs/documents/TMC_final_web.pdf


https://www.cirp.org/news/1997/1997-12-01_Mothering.php ] (]) 11:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
says


:This precise topic over whether circumcision decreased pleasure during sex was debated last year (see ]). After a prolonged and, at times, heated debate, it was decided to retain the statement involving pleasure.
'''male circumcision as a rite of passage into manhood has not been designed for the purpose of HIV prevention, and there are certain aspects of the practice that could undermine the potential benefits of male circumcision for HIV prevention, or even put people at increased risk of contracting HIV.'''
:To the topic of the specific reference you provided, the article was published in 1997 (so approaching 26 years old) and was authored by ], an anti-circumcision activist and a person who is "known for his unconventional medical view(s)". Additionally, there has been a great deal of research on the topic of circumcision and pleasure since that article was published. ] (]) 08:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::: Yes, it is grossly misinformed and obviously written in support of the US medical industry who support circumcision strongly for financial reasons. They write as if for example HIV prevention is functioning at a relevant level, and then only have a small added sentence at the end which mentions that it is not agreed upon. Misplaced Pages has an article which includes HIV prevalence, and in many western European countries the HIV prevalence is far lower than in the US where people are circumcised. This is FACTUAL EVIDENCE against the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing HIV.
::] (]) 11:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Discussions challenging the protective effects of male circumcision against HIV seem to come up every few months. The last one was in April to June of this year (see: ]).
:::{{tqi|Yes, it is grossly misinformed and obviously written in support of the US medical industry who support circumcision strongly for financial reasons.}}
:::Both US-based medical organizations (including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)), and international based medical organizations (including the World Health Organization (WHO), and UNAIDS) have all acknowledged that male circumcision offers a level of protection against acquiring HIV. The argument that circumcision is primarily supported by the U.S. medical industry for financial gain overlooks the substantial body of evidence that supports the claims of reducing the acquisition of HIV. The claims that "the US medical industry" strongly supports circumcision for financial reasons appear to be ].
:::{{tqi|They write as if for example HIV prevention is functioning at a relevant level, and then only have a small added sentence at the end which mentions that it is not agreed upon.}}
:::As per policy. The Misplaced Pages policies ] and ] require that due weight and proper balance be considered when editing articles. Misplaced Pages does not give equal weight to all points of view; it gives weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."
:::{{tqi|Misplaced Pages has an article which includes HIV prevalence, and in many western European countries the HIV prevalence is far lower than in the US where people are circumcised. This is FACTUAL EVIDENCE against the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing HIV.}}
:::The comparison of HIV prevalence rates between countries must consider a multitude of factors, including but not limited to sexual behavior, access to healthcare, education, and public health initiatives. The casual claim that Western European countries exhibit lower HIV prevalence than the U.S. does not account for these variables. For instance, South Korea presents a counterexample to these claims: it has an HIV prevalence rate that is significantly lower than that of many European countries, despite having a higher circumcision rate than the United States. Regardless, without ], your claims appear to be original research and not eligible for inclusion under the policy of ]. Even assuming you are able to locate sources to support this view, they would still need to be evaluated in conjunction with WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE policies discussed above. ] (]) 22:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Circumcision obviously increase frictions making sexual activity such as masturbation less easy due to the lack of skin, many circumcised man use lub to reduce that friction their lack of skin create, and
::::circumcision obviously make the glans keratinized discoloured and the mucous dry while all mucous are supposed to stay hydrated the glans is obviously made to stay hydrated and covered, not uncovered and dry,
::::those are obvious and observable facts we can all do by making comparisons to circumcised and not circumcised penises by thousands of pictures we can find online and experience. ] (]) 20:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection. Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.
::::https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6 ] (]) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-84
::::https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-85
::::https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-86 ] (]) 20:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Some circumcised men, like some uncircumcised men, use lubricants during sexual activity, but many circumcised men do not experience any issues without them. This point seems irrelevant to the article. If you are suggesting that circumcised men experience less sexual pleasure or decreased sexual function compared to uncircumcised men, the majority of studies indicate that circumcision does not lead to any decrease in sexual pleasure or cause sexual dysfunction, as referenced in the article. There has been extensive debate on this topic on this talk page.
:::::Regarding your claims about circumcised penises being "discolored" and the notion that they are "supposed" to have "mucous" (presumably referring to smegma), these views are not applicable to the article. Your personal opinion that penises "supposed" to be uncircumcised does not make it so and does not warrant inclusion in the article.
:::::It is crucial to consider the quality and context of the research. The first study you mentioned is a retrospective cohort study, which is generally regarded as one of the lowest quality of studies available (especially compared to studies like randomized controlled trials). It's first author is the open anti-circumcision activist, Morten Frisch, and numerous researchers have voiced their concerns about a large number of methodological issues in that specific study (see: ).
:::::Even if the study were conducted in a neutral and methodically sound manner, a handful of cherry-picked studies of questionable quality cannot substantiate biomedical claims in an article, as per ]. This is particularly true when there is a substantial body of evidence from high-quality randomized controlled trials that contradicts those findings. Again, Misplaced Pages articles give weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". ] (]) 08:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::No I’m not talking about smegma, and that’s not an opinion, circumcision obviously alters the penis appearance because just looking at thousands of different penises pictures the not circumcised ones are always averagely significantly more colorful appearance than circumcised on average ] (]) 01:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The foreskin has a "mucous membrane", but a healthy foreskin does not produce significant amounts of true "mucus". If someone is noticing a visible amount of "mucus" under their foreskin, it is likely smegma.
:::::::
:::::::You did not merely claim that those circumcised penises were differently coloured or appeared different; you claimed they were "discoloured" and were "supposed" to look a different way. The Cambridge English dictionary defines discoloured as "something that has become a less attractive colour than it was originally." The colour difference between circumcised and uncircumcised is due to the exposure of structures that are covered by the foreskin in an uncircumcised penis. The belief that a penis is "supposed" be uncircumcised or a circumcised penis is a "less attractive colour than it was originally" are subjective opinions. Misplaced Pages articles are not places to post "]", and all content must conform to Misplaced Pages's ] policy. ] (]) 11:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::So you are admitting that circumcision change the mucous color, to a paler color? And I meant mucous not mucus, and no a penis is supposed to have a foreskin this is part of the penis anatomy. ] (]) 05:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This is literally discoloured since a penis is originally not circumcised and a circumcised penis is slightly of a paler color for the exact reason I thought, due to exposure like you said ] (]) 05:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ok so you all misunderstood my says, I just said that anatomically speaking a mucous is a special skin whom is supposed to stay hydrated not dry, like lips vulva anus or any other place that are mucous and special skin made to being permanently exposed to humidity, the gland and half of the shaft are not skin but mucous and are made to stay hydrated, I never mentioned smegma, I said that circumcision is not natural for a penis since it’s a modification, that’s just anatomical facts not opinions, and you confirmed that circumcision do alter the mucous color of the penis due to permanent exposure, and I suppose I’m right about the keratinized thing since you said nothing about it. ] (]) 05:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I meant uncircumcised have more skin making the shaft more mobile making mouvements easier for masturbation as example, I never said uncircumcised men never use lubricant, but COULD be more frequent with circumcised men due to the fact they have less skin mobility increasing friction. ] (]) 06:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I never said circumcision decrease sexual pleasure. I know what we think about me, that I’m an idiot what rely on my personal opinions and trying to confirm my beliefs which is an idiot in my definition, that’s extremely delusional unrealistic and weak mentality strength ] (]) 06:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::Does not affect functions at all? Foreskin provide more skin which make the shaft mobile and make back and forth movement easier like masturbation. ] (]) 06:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Content not uploaded ==
'''.......men are more likely to become infected if their circumcision wound is not fully healed.'''


Of course it is not updated, anything not in favour of circumcision you will try to ignore it at best, News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection.
and
Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.


https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6
'''Regarding the effectiveness of traditional circumcision for the prevention of HIV, the fact that it is performed after sexual debut in some tribes compromises the potential benefits.'''
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-84
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-85
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-85
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-86


== Question because this place seems to be the most objective and scientific place for deep answers I will never have anywhere as I got one before and it was interesting and very informative. ==


Is it true that circumcision lightly alter the penis appearance? Because if we look at thousands of different penis picture we can see a tendency for uncircumcised penis to be on average slightly more pink in the thousands of penis pictures, I never seen a single circumcised penis being vivid pink or “purple” every individual are différents so it depends on the individual and it’s all relative but I’d say as example a circumcised men whom was supposed to have a “purple” glans will have it pink instead because circumcision seems to change the coloration a little bit. ] (]) 05:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
To conclude : we may be misleading readers when we speak of the HIV preventative power of circumcision if we do not qualify this by saying that this research result applies only to medical circumcisions.
We also ought to mention the violence and deaths and coercion around these other forms of circumcision. Otherwise we should rename this article "Medical Circumcision"--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::Since none of them are objecting, I think you should just go ahead and change it.] (]) 16:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


== When secondary sources have unfounded claims. == == This page is not even neutral ==


Who the fuck said circumcision affect cognitive ability?! You’re good to point out all obvious bullshit wrong that nearly nobody says BUT aren’t going to pointing out very popular pro-circumcision myths like the fact there’s no studies proving that circumcision is more hygienic, in this case you just don’t mention it, fuck you for not being neutral ] (]) 19:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I am wondering if you are allowed to cite statements from secondary sources, even if the secondary sources don't provide any references for their statements. In particular, I wonder if you are allowed to use the statement about no loss of penile sensitivity from the secondary source, even if it appears like the secondary source you are referencing to doesn't have any reference for this statement itself. You are very strict with references here on wikipedia, so shouldn't you expect the same demand for references in secondary sources?] (]) 16:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:No. See ]. We report what ] say and give ] to their contributions on the topic. We don't critique them. We don't ] from them. We just report on them. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 22:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
::Well, how do you determine if a secondary source is reliable? If secondary sources don't have references to primary sources for their statements, then of course they are not reliable. A reliable secondary source must have references to prove all its conclusions (just like you must have references here on wikipedia), otherwise the secondary source is just hogwash. ] (]) 23:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Please see ]. It answers those questions and folks on ] would be willing to answer any other questions you might have. You might be also interested to read ]. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 23:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Some include
#Recent
#Pubmed indexed
#Journal has a decent impact factor
#Reputation for reliability.
#Peer reviewed
] (] · ] · ]) 00:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:49, 23 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Circumcision article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85Auto-archiving period: 45 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
Page name

Editors sometimes propose that the page should be renamed to male circumcision, male genital mutilation, or male genital cutting. Consensus has rejected these proposals, because they are used in only a small minority of reliable sources. Most reliable sources refer to circumcision as "circumcision"; thus, in accordance with WP:TITLE, Misplaced Pages does the same.

Former good articleCircumcision was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 3, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
February 12, 2013Good article nomineeListed
March 14, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMen's Issues High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Translation Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconBody Modification (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification
WikiProject iconHuman rights Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • RM, Circumcision → Male Circumcision, No consensus, 18 June 2008, discussion
  • RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, No consensus, 13 August 2009, discussion
  • RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, Not moved, 20 July 2010, discussion
  • RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, Not moved, 10 October 2022, discussion
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Circumcision.


Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85
Archive guide
Sample PubMed

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.


Toolbox

Misinformed page.

The circumcision page on Misplaced Pages is grossly incorrect and biased. It states that there are basically no downsides, and no changes in pleasure. This is incorrect.

source:

https://www.cirp.org/news/1997/1997-12-01_Mothering.php 104.194.36.23 (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This precise topic over whether circumcision decreased pleasure during sex was debated last year (see Talk:Circumcision/Archive 85#"Circumcision does not affect sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure."). After a prolonged and, at times, heated debate, it was decided to retain the statement involving pleasure.
To the topic of the specific reference you provided, the article was published in 1997 (so approaching 26 years old) and was authored by Paul M. Fleiss, an anti-circumcision activist and a person who is "known for his unconventional medical view(s)". Additionally, there has been a great deal of research on the topic of circumcision and pleasure since that article was published. Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it is grossly misinformed and obviously written in support of the US medical industry who support circumcision strongly for financial reasons. They write as if for example HIV prevention is functioning at a relevant level, and then only have a small added sentence at the end which mentions that it is not agreed upon. Misplaced Pages has an article which includes HIV prevalence, and in many western European countries the HIV prevalence is far lower than in the US where people are circumcised. This is FACTUAL EVIDENCE against the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing HIV.
212.97.248.58 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussions challenging the protective effects of male circumcision against HIV seem to come up every few months. The last one was in April to June of this year (see: Talk:Circumcision/Archive_85#Lack_of_Consensus_on_HIV_prevention).
Yes, it is grossly misinformed and obviously written in support of the US medical industry who support circumcision strongly for financial reasons.
Both US-based medical organizations (including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)), and international based medical organizations (including the World Health Organization (WHO), and UNAIDS) have all acknowledged that male circumcision offers a level of protection against acquiring HIV. The argument that circumcision is primarily supported by the U.S. medical industry for financial gain overlooks the substantial body of evidence that supports the claims of reducing the acquisition of HIV. The claims that "the US medical industry" strongly supports circumcision for financial reasons appear to be WP:FRINGE.
They write as if for example HIV prevention is functioning at a relevant level, and then only have a small added sentence at the end which mentions that it is not agreed upon.
As per policy. The Misplaced Pages policies WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE require that due weight and proper balance be considered when editing articles. Misplaced Pages does not give equal weight to all points of view; it gives weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."
Misplaced Pages has an article which includes HIV prevalence, and in many western European countries the HIV prevalence is far lower than in the US where people are circumcised. This is FACTUAL EVIDENCE against the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing HIV.
The comparison of HIV prevalence rates between countries must consider a multitude of factors, including but not limited to sexual behavior, access to healthcare, education, and public health initiatives. The casual claim that Western European countries exhibit lower HIV prevalence than the U.S. does not account for these variables. For instance, South Korea presents a counterexample to these claims: it has an HIV prevalence rate that is significantly lower than that of many European countries, despite having a higher circumcision rate than the United States. Regardless, without WP:reliable sources, your claims appear to be original research and not eligible for inclusion under the policy of Misplaced Pages:No original research. Even assuming you are able to locate sources to support this view, they would still need to be evaluated in conjunction with WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE policies discussed above. Wikipedialuva (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Circumcision obviously increase frictions making sexual activity such as masturbation less easy due to the lack of skin, many circumcised man use lub to reduce that friction their lack of skin create, and
circumcision obviously make the glans keratinized discoloured and the mucous dry while all mucous are supposed to stay hydrated the glans is obviously made to stay hydrated and covered, not uncovered and dry,
those are obvious and observable facts we can all do by making comparisons to circumcised and not circumcised penises by thousands of pictures we can find online and experience. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection. Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-84
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-85
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-86 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Some circumcised men, like some uncircumcised men, use lubricants during sexual activity, but many circumcised men do not experience any issues without them. This point seems irrelevant to the article. If you are suggesting that circumcised men experience less sexual pleasure or decreased sexual function compared to uncircumcised men, the majority of studies indicate that circumcision does not lead to any decrease in sexual pleasure or cause sexual dysfunction, as referenced in the article. There has been extensive debate on this topic on this talk page.
Regarding your claims about circumcised penises being "discolored" and the notion that they are "supposed" to have "mucous" (presumably referring to smegma), these views are not applicable to the article. Your personal opinion that penises "supposed" to be uncircumcised does not make it so and does not warrant inclusion in the article.
It is crucial to consider the quality and context of the research. The first study you mentioned is a retrospective cohort study, which is generally regarded as one of the lowest quality of studies available (especially compared to studies like randomized controlled trials). It's first author is the open anti-circumcision activist, Morten Frisch, and numerous researchers have voiced their concerns about a large number of methodological issues in that specific study (see: ).
Even if the study were conducted in a neutral and methodically sound manner, a handful of cherry-picked studies of questionable quality cannot substantiate biomedical claims in an article, as per WP:MEDRS. This is particularly true when there is a substantial body of evidence from high-quality randomized controlled trials that contradicts those findings. Again, Misplaced Pages articles give weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No I’m not talking about smegma, and that’s not an opinion, circumcision obviously alters the penis appearance because just looking at thousands of different penises pictures the not circumcised ones are always averagely significantly more colorful appearance than circumcised on average 104.163.174.55 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
The foreskin has a "mucous membrane", but a healthy foreskin does not produce significant amounts of true "mucus". If someone is noticing a visible amount of "mucus" under their foreskin, it is likely smegma.
You did not merely claim that those circumcised penises were differently coloured or appeared different; you claimed they were "discoloured" and were "supposed" to look a different way. The Cambridge English dictionary defines discoloured as "something that has become a less attractive colour than it was originally." The colour difference between circumcised and uncircumcised is due to the exposure of structures that are covered by the foreskin in an uncircumcised penis. The belief that a penis is "supposed" be uncircumcised or a circumcised penis is a "less attractive colour than it was originally" are subjective opinions. Misplaced Pages articles are not places to post "opinion pieces", and all content must conform to Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
So you are admitting that circumcision change the mucous color, to a paler color? And I meant mucous not mucus, and no a penis is supposed to have a foreskin this is part of the penis anatomy. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
This is literally discoloured since a penis is originally not circumcised and a circumcised penis is slightly of a paler color for the exact reason I thought, due to exposure like you said 104.163.174.55 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok so you all misunderstood my says, I just said that anatomically speaking a mucous is a special skin whom is supposed to stay hydrated not dry, like lips vulva anus or any other place that are mucous and special skin made to being permanently exposed to humidity, the gland and half of the shaft are not skin but mucous and are made to stay hydrated, I never mentioned smegma, I said that circumcision is not natural for a penis since it’s a modification, that’s just anatomical facts not opinions, and you confirmed that circumcision do alter the mucous color of the penis due to permanent exposure, and I suppose I’m right about the keratinized thing since you said nothing about it. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I meant uncircumcised have more skin making the shaft more mobile making mouvements easier for masturbation as example, I never said uncircumcised men never use lubricant, but COULD be more frequent with circumcised men due to the fact they have less skin mobility increasing friction. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I never said circumcision decrease sexual pleasure. I know what we think about me, that I’m an idiot what rely on my personal opinions and trying to confirm my beliefs which is an idiot in my definition, that’s extremely delusional unrealistic and weak mentality strength 104.163.174.55 (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Does not affect functions at all? Foreskin provide more skin which make the shaft mobile and make back and forth movement easier like masturbation. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Content not uploaded

Of course it is not updated, anything not in favour of circumcision you will try to ignore it at best, News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection. Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-84 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-85 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-85 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-86

Question because this place seems to be the most objective and scientific place for deep answers I will never have anywhere as I got one before and it was interesting and very informative.

Is it true that circumcision lightly alter the penis appearance? Because if we look at thousands of different penis picture we can see a tendency for uncircumcised penis to be on average slightly more pink in the thousands of penis pictures, I never seen a single circumcised penis being vivid pink or “purple” every individual are différents so it depends on the individual and it’s all relative but I’d say as example a circumcised men whom was supposed to have a “purple” glans will have it pink instead because circumcision seems to change the coloration a little bit. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This page is not even neutral

Who the fuck said circumcision affect cognitive ability?! You’re good to point out all obvious bullshit wrong that nearly nobody says BUT aren’t going to pointing out very popular pro-circumcision myths like the fact there’s no studies proving that circumcision is more hygienic, in this case you just don’t mention it, fuck you for not being neutral 104.163.174.55 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: