Talk:Foreskin

Unrepresentative photograph

I apologize for possibly not structuring this page correctly, but I wanted to suggest a new photograph. This photograph is of a man with an abnormally long foreskin and is not representative of what a foreskin normally looks like. Most foreskins just reach the end of the glans or end shortly before it. I do not have any and am loathe to find one online for copyright reasons, but I'm sure someone in the wiki community has a more representative photograph. Thanks. 208.127.100.19 (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I always thought it (the current photo) looked like a restored foreskin. I second the motion by 208.127.100.19 --Studiodan (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Foreskins are about as variable as vulvas: no two are alike. This one looks about as representative as any, and its appearance is not out of line with description in the text. I refer you to the photographs at the end, none of which show a "normal" foreskin, whatever that is. I suggest that the above users substitute photographs of their own "normal" foreskin if they are really bothered by the current image.Wandooi (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment. The photo should be updated to represent something that is a little more common. Nobody is suggesting that there isn't variation of foreskins anymore than they are suggesting that the one is question is not normal. But there is a difference from what is considered "normal" and what is in fact more "common". Most foreskins don't look like the one in the photo. I think a picture that is more representative of a common foreskin would be more appropriate. Captainbryce1 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did the old cover photograph go? If some think it was not representative of some kind of norm, fine, but move it to the "additional images" section. Redundant prepuce is fairly common and should be shown in a foreskin article. I'm fine if it's not shown as the norm, but to exclude it altogether underrepresents the variety of natural foreskin length! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.27.136 (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh...do we really need all that photograph at the bottom? I think the two in the article is sufficient enough... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.174.78.236 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is rather odd, please revise. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed two penis-photographs from the gallery; one which showed a shaved penis and added little or nothing to the article other than a certain strangeness with a total lack of pubic hair; the other which was of low-quality. I re-positioned the composite flaccid/erect photo into the article, replacing the composite erect/erect photo. The composite flaccid/erect photo demonstrates, well I think, how the foreskin typically appears in both situations, rather than the composite erect/erect photo. The three other gallery images of artwork and statues are harmless and probably add some value, so they remain. Tbmurray (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Erect penis

I might be wrong, but I believe showing a photograph of an erect penis constitutes pornography. It's stupid, I know, but as a UK medical student we are told that in case presentations and reports although it is ok to show photographs of vaginas or flaccid penises, showing a photograph of an erect penis (as opposed to a drawing/diagram) constitutes pornography and these pictures must go through several stages of verification before inclusion in reports, especially if they are going to be available online. In these cases it is always preferable to use a diagram/drawing. As such the picture (right) should maybe be removed. Just a thought.

I agree with you in principle, but see the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. Tbmurray (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Out of context statement

The sentence "The World Health Organisation states that there is little evidence for diminished sexual function, adding that studies have been inconsistent" just makes no sense in its paragraph. Diminished relative to what? It seems to suggest that having a foreskin produces a diminished sexual response. Either it should be clarified or removed.Wandooi (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree

someone without a foreskin has no way of comparing his experience. there are many other functions of the foreskin and benefits not mentioned nor detailed even on this page - yet. when i added the site containing the list as an external link to w. "circumcision" page... the fact is now the link is gone. (can you guess why?) i will cut and paste them here with ref and let you experienced wikis insert the supportable claims Tectaal (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC) i found the info from the site cirp which someone bashes on the circumcision talk page... so I quoted original sources:

"The functions of a foreskin:

1. protection 1.1 moist thus soft and sensitive 1.2 warm 1.3 clean and proper ph level

2. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.

3. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface. G. N. Weiss et al., "The Distribution and Density of Langerhans Cells in the Human Prepuce: Site of a Diminished Immune Response?" Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 29 (1993): 42-43.<\ref>

4. Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection. ref>P. J. Flower et al., "An Immunopathologic Study of the Bovine Prepuce," Veterinary Pathology 20 (1983):189-202.</ref>

5. It [the foreskin] contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis.

6. Sexual Functions in Intercourse: One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surfaces of the two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina nonabrasively inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's foreskin is missing. i would copy them with references to the circumcision page but somehow suspect it is a waste of time "could it be possible someone wants to hide information?"Tectaal (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this addition, for the following reasons:

1. "It [the foreskin] contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis." - this is not supported by the cited source (Z. Halata and B. L. Munger, "The Neuroanatomical Basis for the Protopathic Sensibility of the Human Glans Penis," Brain Research 371 (1986): 205-230), which does not, as far as I'm aware, even mention the innervation of the foreskin.
2. "Sexual Functions in Intercourse: One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal ..." is sourced to an unreliable source: an argumentative essay in a non-peer reviewed magazine (Fleiss, P. The case against circumcision. Mothering Magazine (Santa Fe). Winter 1997). See WP:MEDRS for appropriate sourcing requirements in the context of this article.
3. "Other functions of a foreskin: 1. protection 1.1 moist thus soft and sensitive 1.2 warm 1.3 clean and proper ph level" - again, this cites an unreliable source. Even if a reliable source could be found for these claims (which is doubtful), it would need editing so that it is in the form of prose.
4. "Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme." - the cited source (A. Ahmed and A. W. Jones, "Apocrine Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce," British Journal of Dermatology 81 (1969): 899-901) says nothing of the sort
5. "Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface." - actually, the cited source (G. N. Weiss et al., "The Distribution and Density of Langerhans Cells in the Human Prepuce: Site of a Diminished Immune Response?" Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 29 (1993): 42-43) reports almost the opposite: that the prepuce contains fewer of these cells than might be expected.
6. "Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection." - in the foreskin of the cow, perhaps, but that isn't the subject (P. J. Flower et al., "An Immunopathologic Study of the Bovine Prepuce," Veterinary Pathology 20 (1983):189-202)
7. "It [the foreskin] contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis." - this is a duplicate, see first point.

Jakew (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(the following comment has been moved by Jakew) even those circumcised who wish to normatise their condition that is no excuse to conceal information from the public. the page itself is denied public access in Israel can you guess why? hint: what is "normal" in israel?Tectaal (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC) sorry jakew but when there is a convergence of many medical proffesionals they verify each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tectaal (talk • contribs) 11:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I revised the article again so people can make informed choices with awareness of other medical views. dear jakew this is not the middle so please be polite. the information is based on doctors and medical journals with a convergance of verification. hiding the information is always bad and prevents informed decisions of alternative medical views.

thanx Tectaal (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be identical to your earlier edit, and hence the above problems still apply. Consequently your changes will again be reverted in due course. Reliable sources must be supplied to allow the reader to verify claims; those sources must make the claims attributed to them. That is Wikipedia policy. Jakew (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

the sources have been publishedTectaal (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the sources have been published. However, not all of them meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliability (see WP:MEDRS in particular but also WP:V and WP:RS). Fleiss' article in Mothering magazine is not a peer-reviewed article and hence is insufficiently reliable. Jakew (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest addition to 'functions'

Tbmurray (talk · contribs) has added the following to the 'functions' section:

• Some other organisations have stated more explicitly the functions of the foreskin. For example, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians stated in 2010 that the foreskin "exists to protect the glans" and that it is a "primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis."

There are three major problems with this addition:

• It is redundant. Both of these claims (that the foreskin protects the glans, and that it contains the most sensitive areas of the penis) are already documented in the "other" and "sexual" subsections, respectively.
• It is a misrepresentation. The RACP is an organisation, not "some other organisations".
• Most importantly, it violates WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to one viewpoint about the foreskin's functions. The introduction to the section should give an overview of the subject, including controversies. The current (single-paragraph) introduction to the section does this very well. Unfortunately, adding this new paragraph introduces imbalance by giving a great deal of prominence to one set of claims. Instead of providing a neutral overview, the introduction thus consists of a neutral overview plus the RACP's viewpoint.

For these reasons, I shall again revert the addition. Jakew (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Terminology proposal: "intact"

There's been ongoing edit warring over the use of the term "intact", so I'm going to step out on a limb with an opinion and proposal.
I don't view "intact" as a POV term; its most basic definition is "unaltered", and various reliable sources use it in place of "uncircumcised" (including one cited by the article); see example searches "intact foreskin" site:nih.gov and "uncircumcised foreskin" site:nih.gov. That said, as with WP:ENGVAR situations, existing text should (must) not be edited to change the term, which would suggest a preference, so I support Jakew's reversions - only not for his stated reason. However, "intact" should be a valid option for newly-written text. AV3000 (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. "Intact" is inherently non-neutral, having connotations of undamaged, unimpaired, etc ("Remaining sound, entire, or uninjured; not impaired in any way."[1]). Additionally, it is imprecise: consider, for example, whether a penis that has had a glansectomy but which has a foreskin is intact. As less extreme examples, what about a penis that has been tattooed or pierced? By some definitions, a tattooed penis is not intact, but it is uncircumcised. Hence if a source refers to (as an illustrative example) 30 uncircumcised men, we cannot claim that these are 30 men with intact penises — we can verify that they have foreskins, but we can't verify that they're intact. I would suggest that the term "intact" is justified if and only if the cited source uses it. Jakew (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of my opinion on the words "uncircumcised" and "intact", I think "uncircumcised" is probably a more common term and we should probably stick to that. –anemoneprojectors– 12:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Jakew, don't be rediculous. All boys are born intact. 90% of the World's men do not call themselves "uncircumcised" as if circumcised were the norm. It is not. Get with the program.

Current image caption

Instead of "A penis with a relatively short foreskin partially covering the glans" wouldn't "A penis with a partially retracted foreskin" be more accurate? –anemoneprojectors– 21:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That is probably a better caption. Having looked at it more closely the foreskin has probably just been retracted a bit, rather than being short. I personally wouldn't object you changing the caption :-) Tbmurray (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No argument from me. That would be much more concise. Jakew (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I just looked at it more closely and realised it was slightly pulled back. I shall change it. –anemoneprojectors– 22:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Addition of animated GIF?

Would the community support or object to the addition of an animated GIF to this article depicting a common masturbation technique? The one in question (right) demonstrates how the foreskin may be used in a regular masturbation technique. I believe this may be useful in showing readers of the article how the foreskin can play a role in masturbation. I am sure there are some visitors to this article that are curious about how uncircumcised males can use the foreskin while masturbating. Tbmurray (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is not censored, I'm inclined to view this as rather gratuitous in this article. Readers visiting say, masturbation might reasonably expect to find such an image, but here I think it might be rather too much. Jakew (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jakew –anemoneprojectors– 10:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)