Talk:Gliding action

message: ----
This is unacceptable as a weasel term. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.
:Many people suggest instead that the foreskin is essentially immobile and does not glide.
If we cannot find a good reference to someone suggesting etc., this should be removed. —Ashley Y 10:09, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
I also move this page be unprotected.—Ashley Y 10:09, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
::Ashley Y, I am OK with keeping the sentence as long as a reference can be cited.  Morris is definitely not one of them, but I'm sure Jakew has something on hand. DanP 18:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Many people" 

message: In line with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms I have removed claims using weasel terms. Please do not put these claims back in without attributing them. —Ashley Y 02:46, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
:"Not all" is a weasel term. It suggests a relevant portion of the professional community, which seems absurd to me. The same goes for all the cited books. Writing a book doesn't make an author Yoda. I'm not going to change it, though. Do as you wish, all you weird circumfetishists, do as you wish. 87.78.178.102 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it just came over me and I removed all the very bad citations, none of which makes any contribution of value to the article, one of them going so far as to state that in preemptive self defense. Too stupid is simply too stupid. But still, change it back if you have to. Luckily, Wikipedia articles are not like foreskins, gone when they're gone... 87.78.178.102 17:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! I knew it! JakeW (who else on god's green earth?) reversed it with the tag "rv deletion of substantial sourced material". This is so much fun.87.78.178.102 17:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel terms 

message: Jakew, these are the items I am disputing in your most recent version:
*OriginalResearch tag was slipped in without discussion, and until possibly the "preference" paragraph, this article did not use Wikipedia as a primary source, nor is there any evidence I know of that that is happening.
**That wasn't my inclusion. Generally I am hesitant to remove any disputed tag(s), for the simple reason that a dispute over a dispute is evidence of a dispute (if you see what I mean). 
***OK, I do not see what the user was objecting to nor any efforts to continue that dispute since March, so I would leave it out.
****Ok. I'm not passionate about the issue.
*"Opinion pieces by"  This is unnecessarily a double-pejorative.  The references simply say "report", and that is not making a claim of non-opinion or undeniability. Tacking on "Opinion pieces" is a cheap shot.
**Disagree. There is a great difference between papers that report empirical data and those that express an opinion (Taves study, in contrast, was experimental). We can negotiate over the wording, certainly, but this information is important for people to evaluate the evidence.
***Sure, that difference is important.  My point is not to detract from the importance of opinion, but to note that the construct "opinion pieces by ... report" is a pejorative and confusing.  Why not just say their "the opinion of ... is"?
***Ok.
*Bailey,Muga,Poulussen,Abicht This is HIV research, and penetration is not mentioned in the referenced abstract.  I have trouble even imagining how this one is defensible, as moving skin would have to be more rigid than fixed skin.
**This is not DanPedia. Your disbelief is not acceptable criteria for rejecting information. The research, you may care to note, is on acceptability of circumcision, not HIV per se. Wouldn't you agree that partner pleasure is relevant to acceptability? It doesn't matter, anyway. You or anybody else can verify what it says, but you'll have to part with $30.
***My disbelief wasn't the issue, only a friendly side note in hopes to get some speculation from you as to what really would make such a claim possible.  The reference doesn't mention ease of penetration from what I can tell, so I am challenging it on that basis.
****Please Google for: "Nearly all CSWs preferred circumcised men" 
*Personal Preference section I can guess that this is true for some men, even without seeing the full text that is referenced.  However, the paragraph goes on to say "bizzare" and like wearing a "condom", whereas such a similar metaphorical/subjective claim of a circumcised condition (such as those made by O'Hara) is one you'd certainly delete, as it is unnecessarily POV and we can describe the claims adequately without it.
**We've got plenty of subjective claims already in the article. A subjective claim made by participants in a study is arguably more relevant than one made by the author. As for POV, Wikipedia is not opposed to representing relevant points of view, but we must not endorse one in particular. If a significant number of people believed that foreskins leap up and suffocate sleeping partners in the middle of the night, we should say so.
***There is a diffence between describing a subjective claim in an objective way ("person X says claim Y"), and using vague adjectives and metaphors in the description ("person X says it's like").   For instance, if a personal preference that says "bizarre" and "like a condom" is permitted, then I propose that we reference O'Hara's descriptions that, without the gliding action, it feels like "banging" and "During my circumcised intercourses, I felt violated or used—like I was just a piece of meat—even with my husband." be added as a equally-colorful methaphorical claims to the preference section.
****Are we happy enough as the article stands?
*Category:Andrology This should be under Category:Sexuality or both, since the disputed gliding action typically involves two partners, and only then during sexual activity.
**Both, probably.
***OK.
I hope this helps explain my objections to the article, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.DanP 21:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserted responses in italics above. In an edit summary, I remarked upon changes without explanation. I hadn't seen this. Apologies. - Jakew 10:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have added further explanations as well.DanP 16:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Further responses above. - Jakew 19:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the "Nearly all CSWs preferred circumcised men", it's worth mentioning. I'll put it back in, and otherwise I'm OK with the rest. DanP 03:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute items 

message: I have twice tried to delete a sentence that is not supported by the source cited after the sentence (I used proper edit summaries both times).  Jakew has twice reverted me.  The sentence and source are: 
:"Some people claim that the gliding action detracts from sexual activity, and feel that the gliding of the foreskin reduces from the pleasure they would otherwise feel from direct friction.".  
The first time Jakew reverted me, he invited me to read the full article, claiming that it supports the sentence.  However, I do not have access to the full article, so I invited Jakew to provide a quote from the article that supports this sentence.  He reverted me without comment.  I maintain that this sentence needs to go unless it is properly sourced.  I look forward to hearing from others.  Thank you, Johntex\talk 23:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is properly sourced, and nothing whatsoever is preventing you from going to your nearby medical library or even parting with money for a copy. Nothing in Wikipedia policy requires sources to be freely available on the 'net. If you would prefer not to link to the abstract, but to include the citation in the references instead, that is fine with me, but to remove it on the grounds that you haven't read it is wholly inappropriate. Jakew 09:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that a citation would be nice.  Oh Jakew, we rarely see eye-to-eye, but I do not doubt that some for some reason do not like gliding action.  It is mine experience one can find some feeling any conceivable way about anything.  As an example, I like to cuddle with my lover, but she says that one man she once dated did not.  Although most people like physical contact with loved ones some do not.  It is likely that although most prefer gliding action, some do not.  None would make a big deal about the sentence it it did not cite a source not agreeing with it.  Kristin and Jeffry O’Hara found that most women with sexual experience with both intact and mutilated men prefer intact men, itself implies that a minority of women prefer mutilated men, so this claim is not unreasonable.  It is just that you cited something not supporting your claim.
	—
	— Ŭalabio‽ 01:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This statement seems to apply to the opposite if gliding action, phimosis:
	
		>	“Some boys say that to them it is less sensational to have sex with the condom on … the same way as when one has the foreskin intact	…	”	
	
	If the præpuce is stuck like a condom, that is phimosis, the opposite of gliding action.  Most phimosis is iatrogenic  (basically, doctors order forced retraction and scrubbing between the glans and præpuce for causing damage so that they should have an excuse later for circumcising so that they should steal money along with a præpuce).  Regardless of the cause, almost all phimosis can be cured by an hour of stretching daily  (pull the præpuce away from the body while stretching wider the præputial orifice).  This can solve the problem within a week, usually in a fortnight, but occasionally, requiring an whole month.  The above citation says nothing about people not liking gliding action  (the præpuce moving freely, rather than being stuck in place). 
	—
	— Ŭalabio‽ 01:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It doesn't sound at all like phimosis to me. The reduced sensation comes from partial covering of the glans during intercource. Even CIRP grudgingly admit this, though they then try to spin it as causing premature ejaculation. "Lakshmanan & Prakash report that the foreskin impinges against the corona glandis during coitus.15  The foreskin, therefore, tends to protect the corona glandis from direct stimulation by the vagina of the female partner during coitus. The corona is the most highly innervated part of the glans penis."  (emph added) Thinking about it, we should probably cite Lakshmanan... Jakew 09:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 	I believe that to what the article refers is a way intact men can control sexual stimulation:
	A man and his partner might want to enjoy sex for a while without the man finishing too soon.  He can move just a little distance, thus deploying only about half of his glans and inner mucosal præpuce, none of his frænulum and corona, while stimulating none of the strainreceptors of the frænulum.  After over an hour, he might decide that it is time to let himself orgasm and move his penis a sufficiently great distance for completely deploying his entire glans including the corona, all of the inner præputial mucosa, the frænulum, and by putting tension on the frænular ligament, stimulate its strainreceptors.
	The only way a mutilated man can control orgasm is to stop moving, which is fun for neither him nor his paramour.  This is circumcisiogenic premature ejaculation  Oh well, many mutilated men have so little inner mucosa left and frænulum, that the suffer even in youth.  With the exposed mucosa callusing with exposure to the cruel world, the incidence of circumcisiogenic delayed orgasm increases with age.  Eventually, this leads to circumciogenic anorgasmia.  When american urologists who steal much money for medically unnecessary circumcisions of adult men who believe that after circumcision, they can have sex with anything moving with no fear of AIDS, see middleaged men approaching retirement with circumciogenic anorgasmia, they lie and claim that men loose the ability to orgasm with age  — ¡we all know that cutting off the only moving part of the penis along with over half of the mucosa and burying the remaining mucosa under calluses could not possibly alter sensation! 
	—
	— Ŭalabio‽ 01:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If this were the case, Walabio, one would expect to see a significant difference in rates of ejaculatory disorders such as premature ejaculation and anorgasmia. Jakew 16:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 	And that is what one does see, as the very text you found demonstrates.
	—
	— Ŭalabio‽ 22:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: But it does no such thing. Jakew 11:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I make a suggestion: if it's a quotation from the abstract, then a link to the abstract is no problem. However, if it's a quotation from the whole article that does not appear in the abstract, then this should be made clear in the text. Michael Glass 14:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 	Yes it does, just not in so many words.  One can find better articles  such as  Whither the Foreskin?  — CAPT E. Noel Preston, MC, USAF  which address this more directly.
	—
	— Ŭalabio‽ 02:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source Cited Does not Support the Claim

message: ----
	¿Should we include a quotation which almost certainly refers tothe opposite of gliding action, phimosis,  “presence of a foreskin to wearing a condom”,  which implies that the præpuce is stuck over the glans like a condom, or just an unambiguous anecdote about a man unambiguously not liking gliding action as relayed from his wife?  A week, or until 2005-10-11T23:59:59Z should be sufficient time for resolving this issue
	We should use the ambiguous statement despite it probably refering to the oppsite of gliding action, phimosis.
#	
	We should use a only use a source unambiguously referring to not liking gliding action.
#	
#	— Ŭalabio‽ 11:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one would be OK with changing the quotation into a different style quote that references the article as a printed source, rather than linking to the electronic version of the abstract (assuming no electronic version of the full article can be found - which would be even better).  I am also OK with quoting from the full article and linking to the abstract.  Admittedly, it is a little strange to link to something that does not contain the quote, but the abstract is useful for finding the article containing the full quote, so I am not opposed to leaving it the way it is, either.  Johntex\talk 21:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: I have reorganised the article to flow better and to remove some redundancies. I have also removed the link to an opinion expressed on Circlist. This is not a credible source of information for an encyclopedia.
For the moment I have taken on trust that the articles from Africa said what they are claimed to have said. It is not satisfactory to have a link to something that does not back up a quotation 
Michael Glass 01:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganisation

message: Is even the basic assumption of the article accurate, that gliding action as described is dependent upon having an uncircumsized penis? Where is the source to justify this claim? Circumcision does leave some foreskin, enough even to produce an action very similar to that described. Indeed, phimosis would make this action impossible, and can generally be prevented by circumcision.
:	If one is lucky, the mutilator leaves sufficient skin and mucosa for gliding action.  It is much more likely that the flaccid penis is centimeters shorter and erections are tight and painful with the scrotum and sometimes even the testicles riding up onto the penis.  Phimosis is rare and can usually be treated with gentle manual stretching aided with creams containing steroids.  A clumsy mutilation can lead to phimosis from the raw wound scaring to the glans  (skinbridges).   Although one can treat this by cutting the skinbridges, many urologists prefer to remove yet more tissue, leading to even tighter and yet more painful erections still.
	—
	— Ŭalabio‽ 05:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy? 

message: The properly functioning foreskin is very un-condomlike; it observably slides. It not only allows exposure of the glans surface, but augments the glans' nerve endings with its own, esp. around the frenum and the ridged band, potentially enhancing the experience. Also, if CSW cited means "commercial sex worker", then their view is circumstantial; granted they will have encountered numbers of unhygeinic males in their careers, but proper education of the punter is more logical than mass surgery. Would any man actually contemplate circumcision to placate a prostitute? If the inference is that the CSW's preference applies to the man's partners, that is spurious; partners of an unhygienic male can initiate remedial action. The point seems to be missed that most male sex worldwide is solitary! A sliding foreskin seems ideal for that usage, but if preferred, the male can always retract it for that behaviour, emulating circumcision and exposing the corona. If he is unable, he likely has phimosis or frenulum breve, and generally requires preputial stretching, not surgery. Trevor H. 02:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that paragraph is bullshit and should be removed. Cuzandor 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagreement with a cited source is insufficient reason for removing it. Try looking for published criticism instead. Jakew 10:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because it's a cited source it doesn't mean it should be there. It's their opinion, so what? Should every article contain someone's own opinion on it? Like the cigarette article. Should it have a "A random trial study said that some random controlled trial kids like to remove cigarettes' filters before smoking them"? Cuzandor 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we remove all opinions from this pseudo-scientific article, we will have very little left. So that seems a poor argument. Jakew 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Size does not matter. Cuzandor 18:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like a condom? and CSW preferences 

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

message: 1) I believe that this may be the central reason for why boys get circumcised in the first place:
"The point seems to be missed that most male sex worldwide is solitary! A sliding foreskin seems ideal for that usage..."
In fact it is. And then there are all sorts of reasons found to justify a partial amputation of an otherwise healthy male childs penis. The practice of circumcision is a ritual to control behaviour in young boys. Same reason is used for mutilating female genitalia. 
2) Article skeleton/discussion: I also find the whole structure of the article on foreskin and gliding action bizarre and misleading as it focuses a lot on the circumcision. An article about a foreskin needs to emphasise what a foreskin does, what it looks like, its structure etc. A foreskin is not about its removal. In other words since the foreskin is normal, the way a male is born, then the article should focus on the foreskin itself and what its purpose is, not focus on "justifications" for removing a perfectly normal part of the human body.
(Hope I am doing these comments properly as I am new to WIKI editing)
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veffari (talk • contribs) 
:To establish the function or 'purpose' of something, you have to apply the scientific method. The most straightforward approach is to compare what happens when something is present to when it isn't. This is what the vast majority of sources have done; all we can do is to reflect them fairly. Jakew 10:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's generally inappropriate to remove cited material just because one editor disagrees with it. You could try searching for criticism of that article, and cite that instead. Jakew 16:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see absolutely no reason why an article on eyelids should exclude a peer-reviewed article that mentions their drawbacks. Indeed, your suggestion is like saying that Wikipedia's article on smoking should exclude any mention of carcinogenic effects. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral point of view, neither in favour of nor opposed to the subject matter. However, that does not mean that all sources should be neutral, only that they should be presented fairly, without endorsing any one as 'truth'. Jakew 16:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that you're going to have to accept the fact that you won't agree with every source. Jakew 10:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1) Masturbation and 2) the article structure. 

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