Talk:Penile frenulum

Treatments for frenulum breve

I've searched the internet and I cannot find any site that recommends - or explains - manual stretching and using creams to treat FB. Everywhere I've looked says frenuplasty is the way to go. Could someone link some sites to this article relating to stretching techniques? 199.126.137.209 17:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The only medically relevant article I know of is the one linked here: http://www.male-initiation.net/frenulum_studies3.html#start by Hernaez Manrique, et al. "Elongación del frenillo balanoprepucial con una técnica muy sencilla" Arch Esp Urol 1990 Jan-Feb;43(1):78-9. As it is in spanish, and uses some kind of vascular clips, all it does for me is show that stretching does in fact work. Stretching manually takes a long time though (we're talking months of stretching, for 20-30 minutes at least, ever day), and if the frenulum is already thin it usually results in a tear rather than elongation. It is possible with dedication which should be obvious without any references. Any part of your body can be stretched or molded to some extent, and the frenulum is no exception. I think stretching should be added as a treatment option along with the others, but probably with a warning and/or information that it is time-consuming and unless care is taken, a tear is a very common occurrence. Any other inputs? Araziel (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to http://www.network54.com/Forum/244184. The site is an internet forum designed explicitly to explain foreskin and frenum lengthening techniques. Successful lengthening can be achieved by using simple finger-tugging exercises for periods of up to five minutes, twice a day. Tension on tender tissues is recommended to approach, but never exceed the threshold of pain, so skin tearing is not possible.

The full history of the site is available by clicking on numbered pages at the bottom of the current discussion page, allowing valuable access to all previous discussions.

Rood —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rood (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No mention of frenulum tying?

There also seems to be no mention of frenulum tying anywhere in this article, (eg. see Tying Up the Frenulum) which seems to be the least severe surgical method of dealing with frenulum breve. I am not a doctor, but I performed this procedure on myself several years ago (obviously I realise that self-surgery has risks and is not recommended!) and it was simple, virtually painless, completely effective, has left no scarring whatsoever, and appears to have had no negative effect on sensitivity, as well as several positive sensitivity benefits which I was unable to experience before.

I am incredibly happy to be intact (uncircumcised), and it seems to me that circumcision is total overkill for this when you can solve a short frenum just by tying it up very tightly and waiting about 5 days while the tissue severs. I have found that in general there is not much information on simple frenum tying available online, but I am very glad I thoroughly researched my options and found out about it. I would add the information to the wikipedia page myself, but am wary that it may not be considered "medically relevant" and will just be removed.

Perhaps someone with more of a medical background could add it and help spread the word about this simple procedure which does virtually no damage to the penis to completely rectify the problem? I feel a great sadness for any man who has been circumcised and lost all the benefits that having a foreskin brings, in order to cure frenulum breve, as a result of not knowing that other, simpler options are available and work just fine.

Naming

This article should be renamed to Frenulum (prepuce). The current name does not fit well with WP:NC. Tomer^talk 06:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it should be moved. Does anyone disagree? Jakew 09:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Before proceding, perhaps it would be a good idea to ask...are there any other frenula associated with the penis? This is almost diametrically opposite to my areas of expertise, so I'm very far outside my element here... but if there are no other such frenula, a better name would actually be Frenulum (penis). Tomer^talk 03:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so.

However, I've noticed that the other pages listed at frenulum all seem to use the Latin names. They should probably be changed per WP:NC(CN), but there may be a good reason for it. I really think we need to decide on something and then apply it consistently, so I'll leave a note at talk:frenulum. Jakew 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any frenula have "common names". I may be wrong, but I'd never even heard of the word until last year when I, against my wishes and better judgment, got dragged into a fight at Circumcision. Maybe it's a common word among ppl who talk about foreskins and frenula a lot, but it's not the kind of thing I think that comes up in normal discussion, as far as I'm aware. Of course, in the part of the world where I live, happily, most ppl don't even have penile frenula, so it's possibly understandable why I shouldn't have heard of it...I don't know, maybe people really do talk about this in England...I never have understood British "humour"... :-p Tomer^talk 03:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I was actually sort of serious, but I should explain. 'Frenulum' may not be in common usage, but it is commonly used by people interested in such topics (I would guess that there are common names in marketing, for example, that I've never heard of because I know nothing about the subject). Believe it or not, Google finds 259,000 pages that use the word. 'Penile frenulum,' on the other hand, returns 6,330 pages. Poor frenulum preputii penis returns only 786 pages. Google hits may not be the best measure of what people actually search for, but I hope you can see what I'm saying anyway.

Having said all that, I haven't heard of any common names for other frenula, so I may be being hopelessly and boringly pedantic. ;-) Jakew 12:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure people actually spend a lot of time searching for information on frenula.  :-p Tomer^talk 00:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's probably true. :) Jakew 12:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So, are we in agreement then, on Frenulum (penis)? If so, are you going to move it or shall I? Tomer^talk 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This particular frenulum is commonly known as the "banjo string".

They seem like minor changes

Jakew...What is it that you object to? Here's the two pages:[1]TipPt 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jakew... the context is now frenulum sensitivity. Researchers studying circumcision pain are in a position ... both professionally and pertinent to the reader ... to evaluate pain sensitivity.

The study looked into pain breakthrough at the frenulum. It's comments are about problems due to frenectomy, not circumcision. The context is frenulum and innervation. The Topic here is frenulum and sensitivity. Here's the whole comment:TipPt 19:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: Minneapolis appears to be the epicenter of the dorsal penile nerve block movement. Beginning with Gunnar's excellent work on the distress experienced by infant boys circumcised without anesthesia it now clear that circumcision is an extremely painful, physiologically stressful event. While dorsal penile nerve block lessens the pain and cortisone response, it is not eliminated completely. Some have anecdotally claimed a high failure rate of the anesthetic. Theoretically, the block should be effective. One possible explanation for the apparent failures is that the ventral surface of the penis may not receive a complete block. The highest concentration of nerves in the penis is located in the frenulum on the ventral surface of the penis. The severing the frenulum may be responsible for this pain breakthrough as well as most bleeding complications, meatal stenosis, and urethral fistulae. While this study sets aside the safety issue of dorsal penile nerve block, its overall efficacy may be over­rated. Currently, a physician has no excuse not to use an anesthetic when performing the procedure.

Tip, correct me if I'm wrong, but this paragraph doesn't appear to mention sensitivity. Jakew 21:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pain is sensed. Regional differences levels of pain is related to sensitivity ... concentration of nerves ... in that area.

Worring about you taking the sentence out gave me an idea ... we need a frenectomy risks and complications section.TipPt 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I find that the second picture down is not very sharp, in other words it's blurry and not very good quality, I'm going to add a better quality picture in the additional pictures. Respond to this comment if you want to comment. Nikon307 03:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a better image as well, I'm going to switch the two images. Mercurydweller 02:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Would everyone who is reverting pictures in and out, or who wishes to comment on which picture is better, please state clearly here which picture you're talking about and why you think it's better. Don't just revert without comment. Nikon307 and Mercurydweller, it's not clear to me what specific images you're expressing opinions about. Thanks. --Coppertwig 19:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the "state clearly before reversion comment", but it's obviously chubby internet guy pride that leads to chubby boner pics appearing in articles like this. Perhaps there should be a "you aren't attractive and nobody wants to see that" stipulation added to pictures involving parts of the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.219.104 (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Images of erect penises are unnecessary for this article, and are commonly classified as pornography. As such, they should not be visible here. Suggest changing them or removing them altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.29.211 (talk)

See note at the top of this page and WP:NOTCENSORED Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If Jesus Christ saw this articles about sex, he´d cry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.120.85 (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Frenulum breve jpg

The pictured penis with frenular breve displays chordee, and would undergo frenectomy during circumcision.TipPt 01:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Circumcised with a (part of) Frenulum

It would be a good idea to have a picture of a circumcised penis with the frenulum not directly removed, for fair comparison. Can someone do this?

82.46.151.84 (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm circumcised and I think I still have most of my frenulum. Is that possible? I'm sure I can find another image for comparison. --Moopstick (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

quarery

can this misng frenulum persons able to satisfy their wifes i mean they enjoy their sexual life normally also mention,that a virgin with above said problem can make something happen on his weddings first night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.63.149 (talk • contribs)

I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that men without a frenulum are unable to satisfy their wives. Jakew (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Does it have to be a fat guy's crooked erection?

Just sayin', you know, he doesn't need to be sporting, it's not like the frenulum disappears when flaccid. Also, creepy self-photos, ffs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.218.35 (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why fatness makes a difference, but probably that picture is being used here only because it is freely licensed and clearly displays the frenulum. You're right, a picture of a flaccid penis where the frenulum is still visible would be better, but we don't have one at this time. If you want to provide one, be my guest. -kotra (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just adding to this my view that the pictures need to be changed or removed ASAP. If there are no open-source pictures of a flaccid penis showing frenulum, then the article should be pictureless. The raw fact is that any picture of an erect penis is classified as pornography and should not be visible on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.29.211 (talk)

See note at top of this page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The raw fact is that any picture of an erect penis is classified as pornography -- wrong. and should not be visible on Wikipedia. -- wrong. -- Jibal (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Schober

I've reverted the addition of Schober et al., as this source does not mention the frenulum. Please note that policy does not permit us to impose our own interpretation on a source; it has to be directly related to the subject of the article and we must report what it says about the subject of the article. To respond to the edit summary "but they didn't say it. want a cite for the zone being the same?", unfortunately we can't use another source per WP:SYNTH, except where that other source explicitly refers to both the frenulum and Schober's paper. Jakew (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.norm.org/frenular.pdf

  Triggered by \bnorm\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Gallery

I'm not sure there needs to be more than one, maybe two images on this page: one in the infobox, and probably one illustrating a frenectomy (but definitely not several, as there is now). I've linked the Wikimedia Commons category, so a gallery here is largely unnecessary, in my opinion. clpo13_(talk) 00:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need ten images to demonstrate a frenectomy?

I feel like someone with a weird kink must've gone a bit wild here. There are more photos of dicks on this page than there are on the human penis page. I would've expected one or two and then some diagrams, but nope. Also one of the images is clearly a femme guy who's all dressed up and posing for a kinky nude. Not sure if it's unauthorised or perhaps he himself added it, either way it's not really appropriate in any way.

Definitely one of the more bizzare pages I've come across. I'd edit it myself but I don't really want to be the one to decide on the best dicks for a Wikipedia article.

Incorrect anatomical description, info missing in link

The term 'vernal mucosa' appears to be meaningless (Google results trace back to this page), not an accurate medical term. The frenulum doesn't attach to a mucous membrane, and the source cited for the claim that it connects to the vernal musoca doesn't use the term. Colonycollapse (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorrells et al. (2007) and other problematic sources

@Piccco: recently added widely disputed information unto the page that implied sexual dysfunction in circumcised men. Digging deeper into the weeds of this, it appears that the vast majority of these conclusions are based on resources from 1990s and 2000s anti-circumcision people that were subsequently rejected. The first piece cited is from Sorrells et al. (2007). A work that appears to be the work of several anti-circumcision activists (and predominately not actual doctors) in the mid-2000s.

AAP (2012) responded with:

There is fair evidence that men circumcised as adults demonstrate a higher threshold for light touch sensitivity with a static monofilament compared with uncircumcised men; these findings failed to attain statistical significance for most locations on the penis, however, and it is unclear that sensitivity to static monofilament (as opposed to dynamic stimulus) has any relevance to sexual satisfaction.

Recent studies are even more critical. The vast majority of which appear to outright reject its conclusions.

A 2007 study in San Francisco by Sorrells et al measured fine-touch sensitivity for 19 penile sites of 68 uncircumcised men, 9 of these sites also being on the penis of 91 circumcised men included in the study. The authors compared 4 foreskin sites with the ventral scar present on the penis of the circumcised men. They found that “the orifice rim” was the only site to exhibit higher sensitivity. The basis of the claim was a P value of just 0.014 after multivariate analysis. Although the data were age-adjusted, Waskett and Morris pointed out that the authors had failed to perform a correction for multiple comparisons. Waskett and Morris therefore performed a Bonferroni correction, and this rendered the difference nonsignificant. Further statistical naivety was also apparent. Waskett and Morris then used the data of Sorrells et al to compare, as those authors failed to do, the 9 locations found on both the circumcised and uncircumcised penis. No significant difference was found, even before undertaking a correction for multiple testing.82 The study design was also criticized for multiple reasons; one was modes used for recruitment of subjects. The discussion by Sorrells et al was deemed one-sided, and their claims about a role for fine touch in erogenous sexual sensation were questioned. Bossio et al also criticized the study, stating that, “fine touch pressure, which was only 1 of 4 stimulus modalities assessed [in Bossio et al 201664], activates nerve fibers that are likely less relevant for sexual pleasure than fibers activated by the other stimuli used in this study (stimuli that did not exhibit significant between group differences)”. Critical comments concerning the study by Sorrells et al were repeated in the articles by Morris and Krieger and Cox et al.

Similarly, the term "frenular delta" appears to be exclusive anti-circumcision lexicon as well. Sources that mention the matter predominately dismiss and discount the term. (A simple search online for the term reveals a multitude of anti-circumcision websites. Actual medical resources? Few and far between.) Outside of a few cherrypicked sources, it's another instance of wording that appears to be limited to anti-circumcision activists.

It also appears that other editors, @KlayCax: among them, are publishing and pushing similarly fringe resources upplaying the supposed functions of the foreskin. (The supposed "ridged band" of the foreskin.) This is despite a general agreement from editors in 2020 that there was not enough evidence to seperate it from rest of the foreskin or that the area in specific was erogenous. OntologicalTree (talk

Outside of anti-circumcision resources: is there any evidence that structures like the ridged band or frenular delta even exist? Much of this seems completely out of line with NPOV. OntologicalTree (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @OntologicalTree, I would advice you to read calmly and always assume good faith before making bold revisions, and throwing false accusations on other editors that simply try to improve wikipedia articles.

• You accused me that I imply circumcised men have dysfunctions. No! If you had read the paragraph carefully, you would've seen that the research was about both uncircumcised and circumcised men, who had undergone frenuloplasty and reported imporoved sexual function.

• You brought @KlayCax in a discussion that they were never involved in and used false accusations against them. Also, you started an irrelevant discussion about the foreskin etc. in the talkpage of this article. This is not related here.

• You used a lot of times the term anti-circumcision. No such intention here. I deliberately stated that the area around the frenulum is higly erogenous in both circumcised and uncircumcised men (which is compliant with all the sources), I added an image of a circumcised penis for more inclusivity in the page, and overall I tried not to bring any controversy in this article.

You brought all these circumcision related studies, but I didn't understand why. Did the article ever imply the opposite? The paragraph about the sensitivity stated that the area is erogenous for all men, regerdless of their circumcision status. Also, the paragraph did not focus only on the frenulum itself but the whole area around it: the underside of the glans & corona and the shaft/neck of the penis. The area is sensitive for all humans with a penis regerdless of circumcision. The Morris study you brought agrees that the nearby nerves of the frenulum can induce pleasure.

Overall, I think there was a big misunderstanding. If there are specific parts of the article you want to discuss about, you do it here. We don't just make bold revisions of sourced content. My intention is to improve the article in a way that is inclusive for all men and avoids controversy. No hard feelings. Piccco (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, @OntologicalTree I see that our disagreement is on the paragraph about the sensitivity of the structure. If you noticed, in the text I used terms like "the area" or "near the frenulum". That's because the already existing content, and the parts I added, did not to exclusively focus on the frenulum itself, but instead on the whole ventral area of the glans/shaft around it. Do we agree that this area is erogenous for all men? I think we do. Also, as for the frenular delta, I presented it as an area on the underside of the glans that exists and is erogenous in all men. I genuinely thought it was clear.

I'll state the things that I expect from this article +things I object to, in order to make myself clear and help us reach consensus.

• A mention about the sensitivity of the area in the lead, as it was before. An alternative wording that doesn't focus on the frenulum itself, but on the corona and the shaft around the frenulum as erogenous zones would do for me.

• I disagree with the sensitivity paragraph having contradictions and being unnecessarily presented as controversial. Instead, I'm in favor of a neutral and inclusive paragraph presenting the area as erogenous for both uncircumcised and circumcised men.

This could be fixed with re-wording the sentences: intead of "the frenulum" → "near the frenulum", "the area" etc. and with avoiding the contradictory parts. I'm curious to hear your opinion. Piccco (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Piccco:. I wasn't implying that you yourself had an agenda here. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear initially. I meant that this subject is filled is agenda-pushing.

The term "frenular delta" appears to be generally intactivist lexicon. There's a few minor sources that use the term, but the vast majority appears to not use it. A quick search online shows that the name was proposed by anti-circumcision activist and fringe pathologist in 2001. (Ken McGrath, apparently.) The only interviews or news articles about him I can find relate to a 2010 interview with an account named Bonobo3D, and a simple online and Google scholar search reveals that the term is used almost exclusively by anti-circumcision sources. Morris and a few other sources reject the notion that the frenulum or area around it is sensitive to fine-touch as well. They don't simply state that the nerves aren't on the frenulum. OntologicalTree (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@OntologicalTree, Just like you mentioned the anti-circumcision POV and kept it out of the article, there is also a pro-circumcision POV which should not affect the article as well. For example, Morris is openly a passionate supporter of neonatal circumcision. The notion about the frenulum not being erogenous (eventhough it is located on the glans and made of the same tissue) comes off as absurd and POV pushing. It is WP:Fringe considering that it differs from the mainstream view in medical literature, sexuality textbooks and studies (older or recent) that mention the frenulum as a highly innervated structure. It is obviously WP:Undue to give the notion disproportionate weight in the article (by presenting a non existent controversy) and it goes against the consensus of this article, which for years presented the area as erogenous.

My proposed neutral and inclusive wording presents the whole area as erogenous for all men and deliberately avoids POVs and controversies. Normally you should be satisfied with it. Your edits, on the other hand, (maybe even subconsciously) seem to be pushing a POV. The statement "there is disagreement in the literature" is exaggeration and undue.

I already stated that: 1) I expect a statement about the sensitivity of the area in the lead, and 2) a neutral, non POV pushing paragraph in wikivoice (see above).

If you have suggestions about alterations of wording, you can provide them here. Avoid another disruptive complete revision of content. My intention is not to edit-war with you, but to find a wording that keeps both sides satisfied. I expect you to understand and do the same. Piccco (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging editors who were actively involved in similar discussions in the foreskin talkpage for more opinions on the matter: @KlayCax, @Prcc27, @Thelisteninghand Piccco (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes 'absurd'. That word sums up WP on everything to do with the male sex organ. I'll add 'laughable'. WP says the foreskin is an Erogenous zone and reliable sources state it to be the most sensitive tissue of the penis. I completely understand why some people just cannot publish that, but we as editors of an encyclopedia should do better. The frenulum, whatever you wish to name it, is filled with free nerve endings branching from the dorsal nerve - my paraphrasing of the science in this RECENT ANATOMICAL STUDY which updates Morris at al. Please see WP:MEDDATE and WP:AGE MATTERS. The frenulum is known by the French as 'the sex nerve'. I wonder whether we can delete now all references (Morris et al still have concluding statements to each section of foreskin) that 'prove' the foreskin is insensitive, and vestigial - unsupported nonsense and, because his living is circumcision, Morris et al I firmly believe should be viewed as WP:COI and WP:deprecated source. Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

To add: the source I cite is a detailed anatomical study first published in the Journal of Anatomy in 2021, re-published on the ncbi website. The Morris paper is a meta-analysis of data pre-2016 which merely makes a 'suggestion' which supports his living - a text-book conflict of interest. So for NPOV, Morris should simply not be here at all. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC) For absolute clarity the COI is this: Wikipedia:Independent sources#Conflicts of interest Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

As the general consensus in the foreskin article was, circumcision related studies that push any type of pov about the procedure or other controversial/fringe views were to be avoided or minimized. My opinion about not raising controversies related to the procedure in this article remains the same.

The statement "non erogenous" seems reduntant, as it is not included in the quote and exaggeration, considering that erogenous areas can include the perineum, the nipples, the lips etc.

Similarly, the statement about the underside of the corona and the shaft around the frenulum being erogenous is supported by the all the sources in the article, including Morris et al. that talk about "erogenous sensations stemming from near by genital corpuscles". As I said, the aim is this article is to apply to all men without, however, including fringe and controversial views. Piccco (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed 'non-erogenous' should be deleted. Please will all editors read in full, as I have, the paper posted here on the sensory innervation of the prepuce. I repeat my argument that Morris et al should not be cited at all unless his vested self-interest is made absolutely clear to the reader. I can see no reason why he is required in this section. You can always find a quote from someone who will deny anything at all. What is the use of that? We do not routinely cite people who deny the moon landings in articles about the moon, for example.

Yet anti-circumcision editors are quoted in the articles as reliable? Many sources and medical organizations state that the foreskin is not sexually sensitive. OntologicalTree (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"The prepuce is a specialized junctional mucocutaneous tissue that provides adequate skin and mucosa to cover the entire penis during erection. The somatosensory innervation is by the dorsal nerve of the penis and branches of the perineal nerve. Autonomic innervation is from the pelvic plexus. There are encapsulated somatosensory receptors, both mechanoreceptors and nociceptors in the prepuce. This innervation of the prepuce differs from the glans, which is primarily innervated by free nerve endings and has primarily protopathic sensitivity. As a result of these differences, the inner mucosa of the prepuce is believed to be a part of the normal complement of the penile erogenous tissue." https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/prepuce Hope that helps.Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The American Academy of Pediatrics directly contradicts all of those assertations. @Thelisteninghand: They state that Sorrells is a flawed study and that, once corrected, there's no difference in fine-touch sensation. I'm not sure why you want to insert an unbalanced point of view into the article. There's certainly no consensus on whether the foreskin is sexually sensitive or not. OntologicalTree (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

70% of men have a foreskin and they will all say that it is highly sensitive. The AAP is wrong and so, with respect, are you. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia will follow the best available sources, and in this case that means the AAP. MrOllie (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Current wording

@KlayCax, just like some terms (like frenular delta), books and studies were removed from the article by OntologicalTree, because they didn't have wide coverage in literature (thus OntologicalTree found them contorversial or fringe), similarly an isolated statement by one circumcision related study with a stated Conflict of Interest, that differs entirely from the rest of the literature cannot be given disproportionate weight in the paragraph. It is given a one-sentence mention for compromisation and due reasons. I think more opinions by other editors would be necessary here (maybe even an RFC if we eventually still can't reach a compromise (not something I wish for))Piccco (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response. (I had something come up.) I'm going to be busy for a majority of the day @Piccco: but should be back later. I'll give a brief explanation in the meantime.

My reversion of your edit was due to the fact that it was an inappropriate synthesis (WP:Synth) of the sources and the talk page discussion. (I'm assuming this was to make @OntologicalTree: happy, which is understandable.) Note that the Cleveland Clinic statement directly contradicted the modified wording in the article that states: "The V shaped area on the ventral surface of the glans and the corona is reported to be highly erogenous in circumcised men and those who are not circumcised". That alone means that wording shouldn't be in the article.

In regardless to this whole situation (more like mess): I don't disagree with you that sources related to Morris are heavily biased towards the promotion of circumcision. It was outrageously inappropriate of @OntologicalTree: to blanketly delete your improvements. (I'm not going to even go into the personal statement he made against me.) Yet I'm honestly uncertain how we can objectively determine which side is the majority or minority outside of original research or a hunch. To be blunt: what's likely going to happen is OntologicalTree reverting and citing the AAP/Morris paper.

I think, ultimately, this boils down to an epistemological question. So I'm glad @Thelisteninghand: brought it up above. In a field of study (circumcision/sexually similarities and differences between men who are circumcised and not) filled with POV-pushing authors, contradicting claims from established sources, and a whole lot of controversy, how should editors approach the citation of sources? I think ultimately we have to make a decision here. Since, given cherrypicking, we could quote authors that state almost anything on these subjects.

Making these articles reliant on editors personal interpretation of the literature is going to lead to edit warring. (Which is already happening.) I don't know of an obvious, good solution here. Yet I don't see why it would be problematic to just quote a variety of sources as is: rather than awkwardly trying to mesh them together.

Tagging others involved in previous circumcision/foreskin-related discussions. @Prunella Vulgaris:@Prcc27:@Bon courage:{@MrOllie:@Firefangledfeathers: KlayCax (talk)

Hi @KlayCax, first to clarify about the Cleveland Clinic statement: The source includes this information: even if you are circumsiced a piece remains → It's often shaped like the letter V → It is sensitive especially to light touch, it is part of the sexual arousal process etc. Thus out of this I concluded that "The V-shaped area on the ventral side of the glans and shaft is reported to be highly erogenous in both uncircumcised and circumced men". Personally I thought it would've been okay.

Now the issue with the Morris et al. source is that, as you very correctly stated, it suffers from POV (circumcision advocate), COI (works at a circumcision clinic), and fringe (don't know of other sources, older or recent, implying that the frenulum is not responsive, non erogenous or something similar. In fact, majority of sources seem to say the exact opposite).

My initial logic was that, since a part of the frenulum exists in almost all men despite of their circumcision status, it'd be better to leave the circumcision related controversy and fringe views out and just present the whole area as erogenous for all men, even for those, whose frenulum is completely removed, either from circ, frenulectomy etc. since the area is still responsive. After all, the area is literally part of the glans and distal shaft(!). Saying that it is not erogenous is an inflammatory and absurd statement (especially if we make the analogy with other erogenous zones like nipples, lips, ears etc.), which is not directly stated even in the Morris quote. Personally, I didn't see a problem with my inital wording, considering that it was intented to be inclusive for all men and keep everyone satisfied. A WP:SYNTH issue as mentioned may have arised. When it comes to the avarage reader, however, I don't see why anyone would try to edit war that wording (OntologicalTree aside).

The two choices would be: • leave the extremely controversial/fringe views out (OntologicalTree already removed some studies and books, which he considered anti-circumcision, the Morris quote however remained). • Allow for a short mention of Morris (what I did in my last edit as a compromise) but without the personal interpretations and comments (the frenulum is non erogenous, there is debate). Starting the paragraph saying "there is debate in the literature" gives a fallacious impression that the literature is devided into two balanced sides, when in fact the Morris quote is only an isolated statement. Waiting for opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piccco (talk • contribs)

The Cleveland clinic's health library is an awful source and shouldn't be used for anything. It doesn't meet WP:MEDRS, and it says some absurd things - for example their entry for Acupuncture claims it can be used to treat cancer and infertility. - MrOllie (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This debate and the many others like it, would be entirely different if Jimmy Wales had lived in Wales when he incorporated wikipedia. We would have no requirement to conform to the unique US position on all of this but instead simply state the widely held 'common knowledge' that 70% of men in the world have. In that respect I personally find Wikipedia deeply offensive, in that it routinely denies human experience. Its only salvation is the comedy of reading that the foreskin has no role in intercourse!! (The reason I stopped donating also) As far as the non-independent source relied on for all this denial, molecular biologist Brain Morris, on youtube you can read these words: "Brian Morris is no longer taken seriously among people but since this was filmed before he lost his reputation, it is good to see." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id3M6gNju68&t=1s His reputation was 'lost' due to his association the Gilgal Society. https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Brian_J._Morris#cite_note-waskett2007-15 In my judgement we need to remove him and his associates entirely from this encyclopedia. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like the policies, you can try to get them changed, but we can't simply ignore them while they enjoy community-wide support. MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I am doing here and obviously they do not enjoy community-wide support. Here's Guy Cox aka James Badger, I've no idea why we cite him - he has no notability and writes dodgy fiction. https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Guy_Cox Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You're not going to get them changed on random article talk pages. You should head to WP:VPP - MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I've raised certain issues there already. I aim to raise awareness here. If you have any concerns for verifiability please support. Here is the controversial book authored by Guy Cox https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Airport_Encounter.html?id=DqU5zgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y I can also refer to this page in the future. Reliance on Morris, Cox, Krieger is entirely misplaced and somewhat disturbing. Thelisteninghand (talk)

Guy Cox isn't cited on this article that I can see. Please keep discussions on this article talk page focused on changes to this specific article. This isn't a place to raise issues about other articles or about policy in general. - MrOllie (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct. I had assumed Cox was part of the cite to Morris and Krieger as they generally work as a trio. Apologies. Policy may be discussed wherever it is relevant, surely? These authors are WP:FRINGE. Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

No, This talk page is for discussions specific to this article. If you want to complain about sourcing in general, WP:RSN is available. I won't comment on this tangent any further. MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

72% of respondents to the Global Survey of Circumcision Harms reported total or partial loss of frenulum. So there is misleading info in what has been published on Wikipedia to date, both here and in the Circumcision article.

http://www.circumcisionharm.org/results.htm

These results were subsequently published in the International Journal of Human Rights. # Tim Hammond & Adrienne Carmack (2017) Long-term adverse outcomes from neonatal circumcision reported in a survey of 1,008 men: an overview of health and human rights implications, The International Journal of Human Rights, 21:2,189-218, DOI: 10.1080/13642987.2016.1260007 Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't remotely meet WP:MEDRS, so not usable here. MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

No matter. It is useful to see in terms of the arguments about Morris and I thank the contributor. I aim for consensus that Morris is controversial. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Example: https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/22/journal-editor-resigns-over-firestorm-from-circumcision-article/ Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You've got to love Wikipedia. A handful (if that) of medical authorities (many of whom have vested financial interests in controlling this discourse) trumps 720+ out of 1008 victim/survivors of an unintentional (?) complete or partial frenectomy -- all as part of a non-consensual, non-therapeutic genital-surgical procedure euphemistically referred to as "circumcision." Now, that's gaslighting, and victim-blaming! Some of these Wikipedia boffins and their "experts" even argue (in these talk pages) that frenectomy is a separate surgical procedure to circumcision: good luck with that! To that end, please adduce one example of one man anywhere in the history of the world who has had a frenectomy, but not a circumcision. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Saw a ping. On sourcing, The Cleveland Clinic is not WP:MEDRS. circumcisionharm.org is not in the same universe at WP:RS. "Morris" is a person, not a source, and although he's a hot button person for anti-circ activists Wikipedia shall not discard high-quality MEDRS just because he's involved and editors are triggered. This has been much discussed. Bon courage (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

NB Morris has no medical qualifications, he's a molecular biologist. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter when he has coauthors and/or goes through peer review. MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Morris et al. quote

So, I'm opening a new section since the conversation in the previous ones went off topic and they became chaotic. Based on the discussion KlayCax and I had above, the question we need to focus on is: What do we do with the Morris et al. quote? Considering that he was included in that list, how much weight can we give to it? is it WP:DUE for it to remain in the article? Is it excluded as a fringe view? Let's focus on that only.

• I'll answer first: So, there used to be a page called Frenular delta, which KlayCax merged into this one (a good decision since they were both small articles). The content of the former, however, is now completely removed from this page as well -OntologicalTree found it fringe, anti-circumcision and cherry-picked. Considering this(1), the POV, COI and Fringe issues as mentioned above(2), and also the way we handled controversial/ debated views in the foreskin article (by removal)(3), I lean towards a similar handling of this debate as well, Which is removal of fringe, debatable views from both sides (anti-pro circ) for a more balanced NPOV content based on the mainstream views of the literature. Generally, I'm open for discussions. Piccco (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a systematic review in a quality journal, I see no convincing evidence that it is in any way fringe. MrOllie (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MrOllie, what I considered fringe is the notion that the frenulum may not be involved in sexual sensation, which is a view that is not very widespread in literature. If you consider that it could be included in the article, how much weight do you think it is WP:DUE to give it? Bon courage Tagging both, because you are experienced users and can help with the wording Piccco (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1079164114784714752

This Twitter page -- belonging to Oxford/Yale bioethicist Brian Earp -- draws attention to the fact that Morris et al. are prone to accusations of financial conflict of interest, across many fronts.

"Frenular delta" and "ridged band" merely identify hitherto neglected anatomical structures (erotogenic zones, secondary and primary, respectively) of the penis. These scientific findings are not controversial, but are replicable (or rebuttable) with the help of any microscope powerful enough to locate e.g. heavy concentrations of Meissner's corpuscles. The lead scientist who isolated these structures is not an anti-circumcision activist per se. Or at least, he wasn't prior to these discoveries (I don't know if he is by now, or not). His scientific inquiries were motivated purely by academic curiosity, as he explains on public record.

Consider that Anlgophone anatomy textbooks systematically excluded the penile prepuce, over several editions/generations of readers, by way of cultural context for such "controversial" findings. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"Neglected anatomical structures"

Meaning supposed parts of the penis that are apparently missing from anatomy textbooks. If circumcision truly altered or destroyed sexual function, why don't we see it in adult men who were cut? Why don't medical organizations hostile to the ethics of circumcision mention it?OntologicalTree (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

•Remove as WP:FRINGE as per evidence.Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The American Academy of Pediatrics and many other medical resources state the same thing. It's the majority viewpoint if anything. The current majority opinion states it isn't. What's the issue? The only thing I can imagine is point of view pushing. You know what's the funny thing about the ridged band and frenular delta? These concepts overwhelmingly only exist in the minds of anti-circumcision activists. Surely medical organizations hostile to the ethics of circumcision would have brought thus up or stated its existence. But they don't. Isn't that strange? OntologicalTree (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The conversation here emphasises only on the frenulum. Leave the foreskin out of the discussion. The role of the frenulum in sexual sesnation is what we discuss. Piccco (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The AAP and others make similar claims. It isn't saying anything exceptional.OntologicalTree (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Do you have an AAP source to back this up? If no major medical organizations back what Morris is saying, it very well may be fringe. Prcc27 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians do not share the view of Morris or the AAP https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/09/protection-offered-by-circumcision-does-not-warrant-lifting-ban-say-doctors . The NHS in the UK does not support it https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-men/. No specific mention of sensitivity, the Guardian article states the foreskin has a function, paraphrasing the RACP. The Journal of Anatomy paper I cited above has good evidence for the innervation of the frenulum but it is "primary source" according to the RS noticeboard editors (who then took the mick for even asking). Morris is the go-to author, he is used at the conclusion of several sections on foreskin but I maintain he is fringe. The arguments are made today in terms of the right to choose, while Morris simply advocates compulsion. I can't think of anyone more off the radar. We all know about his past associations with fetish websites and the organisations he helps - he profits directly by his outspoken self-publicising outrage; a textbook COI. I want to see him WP:BLACKLIST. I can add more references.Thelisteninghand (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC) NB Guardian also has a link to Morris's website - exactly as I say Morris fails this Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Conflicts_of_interest Thelisteninghand (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Reuters: "Overall, uncircumcised men reported between 0.2 points and 0.4 points higher sensitivity and sexual pleasure when their penis’s head - known as the glans - was stroked during arousal, compared to circumcised men." Thelisteninghand (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@OntologicalTree: Regarding your question "Why don't medical organizations hostile to the ethics of circumcision mention it?" In Britain the aim (in 2000) was to reduce medical circumcision from 3.8% to 2% because of the harm it does and because non-intrusive therapies are successful. Prevalence of circumcision#Europe. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10554847/Is-NHS-carrying-thousands-unnecessary-circumcisions-teenage-boys.html Although that's a deprecated source, the people interviewed are worth hearing. "According to the British Association of Urological Surgeons, 'almost all patients' will experience some permanent reduction in sensation in the penis." Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Since I cited it at deprecated source, here's the BAUS guidance PDF https://www.baus.org.uk/_userfiles/pages/files/Patients/Leaflets/Circumcision.pdf "After-effects [...] Permanent altered or reduced sensation in your glans penis [...] Almost all patients." Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

In conclusion, the answer to Prcc27's question is that, in the anglophone world, the position of the AAP and Prof. Morris, is unique. There is no other country which adopts the US policy: United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, all state a similar line "It is generally agreed among medical professionals that, except in a few instances, there is no medical reason for routine circumcision." As cited this is due to the "risks outweighing benefits". Therefore the position can be considered fringe and certainly is not a "majority" view among English speakers, it is a small minority. OntologicalTree states the AAP "and others" form this alleged majority. I can find no 'others' at all. Perhaps you can indicate who you are thinking of? It begs a bigger question which is who is en.wikipedia for? Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• There is a difference between a “fringe” viewpoint, and a “significant minority” viewpoint. If the AAP says the frenulum is not involved in sexual sensation, we may be able to include this in the article, but would have to make it clear that this view is in the minority. Prcc27 (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course. The AAP is a significant minority view, Morris is definitely fringe. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Name change revisited

Can we please change the name of this article to something that doesn’t make my ears bleed? “Frenulum of prepuce of penis” does not sound grammatically correct. And we should be using whatever the WP:COMMONNAME is. Prcc27 (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Prcc27: I agree, 'Frenulum of the penis" would be sufficient. We call the prepuce the foreskin in other articles, so it could be "Frenulum of the foreskin". But I'm pinging you on your comment above about Morris being fringe and I wonder if you agree? Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's the two "of"s in the title that make it a little weird. I guess "of penis" alone would also be fine. Piccco (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think “of the” sounds better than “of”, but I noticed the other frenulum article titles just say “of”.. Prcc27 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, same thing in the corona of glans penis, body of penis etc. I think if it is to change, frenulum of penis would be fine. Piccco (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It needs the definite article I think, and probably to be anatomically correct 'Frenulum of the foreskin' - maybe a doctor can confirm? Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Penile frenulum" seems the easiest. Does anyone object to me moving it there? @Thelisteninghand:@Piccco:@Prcc27:. KlayCax (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm with that. Seems a proper term used here: https://www.cuh.nhs.uk/patient-information/lengthening-of-the-penile-frenulum-frenuloplasty/ Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems fine to me too Piccco (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)