Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision

Is too much weight is given to Williamson et al. by quoting them?

Williamson et al. conclude: "Not least among the considerations is the worth of sexual preference for male circumcision within the American culture as a valid reason for continuing the practice."

Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Female_arousal

Given that it is just one study to state as fact (albeit in quotes) that there is a sexual preference for the circumcised penis and that that is a good reason to perform the operation (obviously isn't) are two very big statements to hinge on one study. I say leave out the quote , the first sentence is good enough. Tremello22 (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

13th century French rabbi said circumcision promoted premature ejaculation, decreased libido and a more spiritual disposition in men

It is worth quoting the views on circumcision by Rabbi Isaac ben Yedaiah, a 13th century French rabbi:

"A man uncircumcised in the flesh desires to lie with a beautiful-looking woman who speaks seductively to attract him. He vexes his mind to be with her day after day, growing weary in his attempt to fulfil his desire through lovemaking with her."

"She too will court the man who is uncircumcised in the flesh and lie against his breast with great passion, for he thrusts inside her a long time because of his foreskin, which is a barrier against ejaculation in intercourse. Thus she feels pleasure and reaches an orgasm first. When an uncircumcised man sleeps with her, and then resolves to return to his home, she brazenly grabs him, holding on to his genitals and says to him, "Come back, make love to me." This is because of the pleasure that she finds in intercourse with him, from the sinews of his testicles—sinew of iron—and from his ejaculation—that of a horse which he shoots like an arrow into her womb. They are united without separating, and he makes love twice and three times in one night, yet the appetite is not filled."

"And so he acts with her night after night. The sexual activity emaciates him of his bodily fat, and afflicts his flesh, and he devotes his brain entirely to women, an evil thing. His heart dies within him; between her legs he sinks and falls. He is unable to see the light of the King's face, because the eyes of the intellect are plastered over by women so that they cannot now see light."

"But when a circumcised man desires the beauty of a woman, and cleaves to his wife, or to another woman comely in appearance, he will find himself performing his task quickly, emitting his seed as soon as he inserts his crown. If he lies with her once, he sleeps satisfied, and will not know her again for another seven days. This is the way a circumcised man acts time after time with the woman he loves. He has an orgasm first; he does not hold back his strength. As soon as he begins intercourse, he immediately comes to a climax."

"She has no pleasure from him when she lies down on when she arises, and it would be better for her if he had not known her and not drawn near to her, for he arouses her passsion to no avail, and she remains in a state of desire for her husband, ashamed and confounded, while the seed is still in her "reservoir." She does not have an orgasm once a year except on rare occasions, because of the great heat and the fire burning within her. Thus he who says "I am the Lord's" will not empty his brain because of his wife or the wife of his friend. He will find grace and good favor; his heart will be strong to seek out God. he will not fear to behold that which is beyond, and when He speaks to him, he will not turn away."

quoted by Marc Saperstein in Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth-Century Commentary on the Aggadah. Cambridge, Mass, and London, England: Harvard University Press, 1980: pp.97-98.--Orlando F (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that Rabbi Isaac ben Yedaiah was (and perhaps is) viewed as an authority on the subject of Judaism, but it seems strangely inappropriate in a medical/scientific topic to rely on an opinion piece by a 13th century rabbi. Frankly it seems beneath the standards of reliable sourcing. Jakew (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As an Orthodox Jew who has spent decades studying halakha, I am not certain that this one particular Rishon would be considered authoritative. The rambam, the Ramban, Rashi, the Rosh, the Rif, the Ravviah, the Rivash, Rabbenu Tam, the Riva, the Maharil, etc. would be more appropriate; although I would like to see the original text and from whence it is quoted. This way, I can try and see if it is brought as authoritative by later authorities. -- Avi (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I can say that it is unlikely that Marc Saperstein is any kind of authority on what is considered normative Jewish tradition. And I do not believe wikipedia should be quoting random 13th century people without some indiciation why that are notable enough. If we had some quote from Maimonedes or Rashi, that would be much different. -- Avi (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"I believe one of the reasons for circumcision was the diminution of sexual intercourse and the weakening of the sexual organs; its purpose was to restrict the activities of this organ and to leave it at rest as much as possible. The true purpose of circumcision was to give the sexual organ that kind of physical pain as not to impair its natural function or the potency of the individual, but to lessen the power of passion and of too great desire." – Moses Maimonides, quoted by L. deMause in The History of Childhood, Psychohistory Press, New York, 1974, page 24, quoted by James DeMeo in Saharasia, OBRL, Greensprings, Oregon, USA, 1998, page 119. See also more Maimonides quotes–Orlando F (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While I own a copy (multiple) of the יד החזקה, the quote you bring is sourced on CIRP to the מורה נבוכים, for which I will have to borrow one to check the accuracy of the translation into English, but at least Maimonides was a towering figure in Judaism and a better source than Rabbi Isaac ben Yedaiah for this purpose. -- Avi (talk)

Kim and Pang 2007

Is missing or not factual in this article. Specifically [[1]] needs to be added to Penile sensitivity and sexual sensation, Foreskin sensitivity, and Sexual practice and masturbation. The 20% statement in Satisfaction is not representative; pleasure decreased for 48%. Finally, the study is missing from the table.Zinbarg (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Already cited. See ref 28. Jakew (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's cited, but not used well in the text. A main finding is that circumcision often reduces masturbation pleasure, but I don't see that in the text.Zinbarg (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Masood 2005

The source states: "Sixty-four percent had no problem with premature ejaculation before or after circumcision. Only 13% reported improvement in premature ejaculation, whereas 33% found it worse." [2]

My version: "In a study of 150 men circumcised for benign disease, Masood et al. reported that 13% reported improvement in premature ejaculation after circumcision, 33% reported that premature ejaculation became worse, and 64% had no problem with premature ejaculation before or after circumcision"

I stated that as previously written, the statement implied that all men in the study had a problem with premature ejaculation. Jakew reverted back to this version: [3] "[...] disease, Masood et al. reported that 13% reported improvement in premature ejaculation after circumcision, 33% reported that premature ejaculation became worse, and 53% reported no change."

The 53% appears nowhere in the text of the article, and unfortunately the CIRP copy does not reproduce the table Jakew mentions. Jakew, could you describe what the table says that apparently contradicts the 64% figure above, and can you explain why you reverted to the words "no change" that imply that all of them had premature ejaculation?

I noticed that the statement is misleading as it implies that the percentages are of 150 men, when the source says "The mean total IIEF-5 score of the 84 patients at baseline was..." I'd suggest a reword based on that. Blackworm (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, Blackworm. Table 2 has four columns, labelled "Questions", "Better after circumcision n (%)", "Worse after circumcision n (%)", and "Same as before n (%)". The relevant row has the following information: "Premature ejaculation", "4 (13)", "10 (33)", and "16 (53)". This, then, is the source of the figures 13, 33, and 53.

A footnote to the table notes that "54 patients did not have premature ejaculation before or after surgery". This means, I believe, that the figures listed in the table exclude men who did not have this problem before or after circumcision. I would guess that these 54 are the 64% that Masood et al. refer to in their text, since 54 is 64% of 84 (54 + the 30 listed in the table).

I think it would be misleading to include the 13/33/64 figures, since they refer to different things. The first two figures (13 and 33) refer to percentages of the 30 men who had PE before and/or after circumcision, whereas the last (64) apparently refers to a larger group of men. (The sum of the figures is 110, not 100 as one might expect. The other set of figures sum to 99, which is probably due to rounding.)

It seems to me, though, that saying "in a study of 150 men..." is also misleading, since we should express that it is actually a study of a subset of those men. The simplest solution would seem to be deleting "150". Any thoughts? Jakew (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Indeed, I should have noticed something wrong. I think your interpretation is the most likely. I'll remove the "150" to address the other issue. Blackworm (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the library of rewording to make the prior issue clear: "In a study of men circumcised for benign disease, Masood et al. reported that of those who stated they had prior premature ejaculation, 13% reported improvement after circumcision, 33% reported that it became worse, and 53% reported no change." I hope this has your approval. Blackworm (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I hope that the library is safe and comfortable in your possession. Jakew (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Penile sensivity graph

The following graph has moved from Circumcision to Penis, and now to discussion here for the time being. What do others think about it's location here? Why, and why not?--Studiodan (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction and Sensitivity graph

The article requires an neutral introduction. The current vague sentence is POV.

The article must include that sensitivity graph.Zinbarg (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what is "POV" about the introduction. Jakew (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorrell's is in wrong section (glans), and info poorly conveyed.Zinbarg (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see that Sorrells et al. is cited four times: twice in the "glans sensitivity" section, once in the "foreskin sensitivity" section, and once in the "ejaculatory function". Jakew (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What about including a proper introduction?

Sorrell's should be in the Penile sensitivity and sexual sensation section.

The ejac function is a misquote ... it's not Sorrell's making that claim, it's Waldinger.

Where's the Sorrell's graph? Objective data is always neutral.

You have misquoted Boyle because et al his focus is more on sensation loss from damage or removal of the frenular delta and band. You've got a stupid vague sentence.

Where's Taylor???

Many of the survey studies had a very low rate of survey response. They are also frequently not statistically relevant results. The table should include a column stating relevance. You'd end up throwing half out. The table is therefore POV misleading (no significance means no finding, not no impact in "finding.").

You've produced a huge pile of POV.Zinbarg (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me address these questions one by one:

• "What about including a proper introduction?" That's a good idea. However, you've tagged the introduction with {{POV-section}}. I agree that it's too short, but that doesn't mean that it is POV. If there are neurality problems, please explain what they are. Otherwise, the tag should be removed.

I asked for an introduction, and you rejected my proposal as anti-circ.Zinbarg (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Sorrell's should be in the Penile sensitivity and sexual sensation section" Sorrells et al. don't really say much about sexual sensation, nor about penile sensitivity in general. They do make some specific claims about the sensitivity of the glans and foreskin, so it makes sense to cite what they say in those subsections.

Sorrell's is all about penile sensitivity and sensation, so it belongs in Penile sensitivity and sexual sensation.

• "The ejac function is a misquote ... it's not Sorrell's making that claim, it's Waldinger." See the 4th paragraph of Sorrells' "introduction" section. The full sentence reads: "A recent multinational population survey using stopwatch assessment of the intravaginal ejaculation latency time (IELT) found that Turkish men, the vast majority of whom are circumcised, had the shortest IELT." (emph added)

Sorry, I'm wrong.

• Where's the Sorrell's graph? Objective data is always neutral. Illustrating Sorrells et al. but not other studies would give Sorrells undue weight, as has been explained in several other discussions.

It's objective and relevant. WP:UNDUE is silly Jakew. Propose graphs you think are needed instead of rejecting one because you don't like it.

• "You have misquoted Boyle because et al his focus is more on sensation loss from damage or removal of the frenular delta and band. You've got a stupid vague sentence." As far as I can tell, these are exact quotes from Boyle et al.

Quote you selected is a vague generalization, instead of citing his specific impacts. POV

• "Where's Taylor???" Refs 17, 18, and 19, all cited in the "foreskin sensitivity" section, as you could easily determine for yourself.

Very biased or diluted Taylor. Please read [[4]] Maybe that's part of the intro though.

• "Many of the survey studies had a very low rate of survey response. They are also frequently not statistically relevant results. The table should include a column stating relevance."' How are you defining "relevance"?

You list the significance level, and many are no. But you also say no finding as though it really means something. It is misleading. If a study finding isn't relevant, it shouldn't be included. You know stats better than most. You mislead.

• "You'd end up throwing half out. The table is therefore POV misleading (no significance means no finding, not no impact in "finding.")." A finding that is not statistically significant can mean either a) that there is no association, or b) that the study failed to find a true association. Jakew (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, so why do you have studies that are one of those (no, or failed), but you have it as a "finding." POVZinbarg (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)