This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The "gliding action" image appears to be seriously inaccurate, as it does not show the most dramatic anatomical feature of coition, namely the penis bending during vaginal insertion. Actual NMR imaging of sexual intercourse shows that the penis bends into a rather surprising boomerang shape inside the vagina. See [1] for a comparison of previous visualizations of sexual intercourse with actual NMR images of coition.
Given that this major feature is completely missing in the image makes me wonder about the accuracy of the more minor features in the image, and what, if any, actual evidence was used as a basis for creating the image. Comparison of the image above with the NMR images shows that it is mostly a work of imagination.
Note that I am not taking any stance on either side of the "gliding action" issue, although I would like to point out that NMR imaging is accurate enough to resolve the prepuce: actual clinical imaging should be able to resolve this issue once and for all.
Reference:
-- The Anome 09:39, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
It is unclear whether the penis in the BMJ illustration is naturally bent. If it is, then the vagina may have bent to fit the penis. In any event, the bending would not effect the gliding action. One, of course, could not experience the gliding action unless one had a foreskin.
The gliding action is well documented in the literature. Robert Blair 22:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Anome's evidence is persuassive. We should remove the image and look for one that is more anatomically correct that we can use. This does not mean we need to make any changes to the text. Johntex 00:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The NMRI is a combination of natural upward bend of the penis and position he tries to position his hips between her legs so that his butt should not hit the top of the imaging chamber while remaining in her -- I never understood why people like having sex in confined spaces). At any rate, the penis is not boomerang-shaped (a boomerang is a bell-curve -- if his erect penis truly would be boomerang-shaped, he would scream to get out of the imaging chamber).
The artist drew the image the way it is because:
If you really want, I can try to edit the image and add an upward bend at the base and a slight upward curve. That would be accurate. What would be inaccurate would be to treat the erect penis like a balloon-animal -- I have no intention of making it shaped like a boomerang, banana, et al.
--
Ŭalabio 01:18, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
I worked on the image for ten hours. I just am not a sufficiently good artist. I did optimize the image in other ways, but do to latency, I have trouble uploading the image. I shall get some help from peer review. ¡This is a silly tempest in a teapot over an upward bend of the penis at the base and an upward curve! Ŭalabio 09:01, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
Looking closely at the current status of this article: existence of any such a gliding action is an important component of the anti-circumcision argument. I can't envision a purer example of pro-mutilation filth that has polluted wikispace. Instead of treating this article with equal respect as other article, it has simply become a political toy for vile pro-circumcision hate speech. For that reason I am reverting many of the judgemental changes and hope you folks can discuss this rationally. DanP 19:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Dan:
I agree and second your remarks. Robert Blair 21:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Again folks, we should follow Wikipedia's rules. The ongoing "hypothesized" and "for what it's worth" contains hidden connotations and is against Wikipedia:Words to avoid. If this article is hit-and-run-reverted again to pro-mutilation propaganda with zero discussion points, it can only be interpreted as vandalism. Jakew and RTB, there is plenty of room in Wikipedia for both perspectives without trashing articles. DanP 18:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
O'Hara provides important explanations about the gliding action. There now seems to be little doubt about it. Perhaps men who were circumicised at birth have difficulty grasping the concept, but O'Hara's very clear explanation should make it clear.
If anyone wants to challenge this evidence, solid evidence to the contrary is needed. Robert Blair 02:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article is getting better and better as more data are added. Simply deleting data that one does not like is unacceptable. Robert Blair 12:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then it is up to you to produce alternate authorities to provide evidence that the foreskin does not glide. My foreskin is movable and glides very nicely, but I have not written a book about it. I think any argument that the foreskin does not glide is going to look pretty silly to the billions of males with intact foreskins on this earth.
Robert Blair 23:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
DanP, in your most recent edit, you have removed the TotallyDisputed tag from the beginning of the article. This was the only change made in your edit. However, in your edit summary, you misleadingly claimed "rv due to POV edit and uncited sources".
Would you care to explain how inserting a tag that states that "the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is disputed" is described as a "POV edit and uncited sources"?
Please justify your attempt to censor the fact that the article is disputed, or restore the tag. - Jakew 19:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My apologies. That was total inadvertent on my part. I will voluntarily refrain from editing this article for a while, even though there have been clear false statements in the article with regard to O'Hara's work which I have on-hand. DanP 01:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Removal of valid objective information on the grounds that it is POV is not helpful. It is simply censorship to prevent the public from getting information. NPOV requires that competitive viewpoints be presented without favoritism.
The proper action is to present credible references to support an alternative point of view.
Robert Blair 22:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fleiss and Hodges contribute to our understanding of the gliding action.
Robert Blair 23:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By providing additional descriptive narrative.
207.69.137.202 01:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Consensus having been reached, I have removed the totally disputed tag.
Robert Blair 04:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Robert Blair, you've removed the disputed message and have once again failed to explain your revert. Please? - Jakew 23:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please do not revert again without discussion. - Jakew 00:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Jakew 01:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just a minor change to the 2nd sentence, to give equal weight to reports on each side. Otherwise, no objections. - Jakew 01:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Understood. I just made the changes which I'm sure you'll review.
Dragons was a reference to the drawing, yes. I'm not totally happy about "who oppose infant circumcision", but not totally unhappy either, so I guess I won't object to it until I can think of something better. No major objection to ejaculation, as you have said 'possibly'. However, Senkul and Fink found the opposite effect, so it seems unlikely to me. In the long term, I wonder if we ought to move the discussion of 'pleasantness vs dulling' out of the introduction, and incorporate a lengthier discussion.
Additional (since I've got an edit conflict with Johntex): Agree to remove later links, and it seems that Johntex and I agree on conflicting claims. Let's make it a priority to either move claims below or link to a full discussion (med. analysis?). - Jakew 01:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi folks - I've not been by for a while. It seems like some progress has been made at keeping the article more neutral than it was before. Two things I'd like to bring up:
Johntex 01:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering what Masters and Johnson have to say about gliding action. Is this an appropriate reference? I don't have a copy of their book handy.
Also, I have made some non-substantive edits mainly conform to Wiki style.
Generally, I am satisfied with the article as its stands, but I think Baby watching could be removed elsewhere.
Robert Blair 14:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I raise objection to the following sentence that was added: For example in "Babywatching", Desmond Morris claims circumcision "has no effect, one way or the other, on the sexual performance of the adult male." ISBN 0224060112 This article is about gliding action, not sexual performance in general. Such a statement is more appropriate to the circumcision article, and will no doubt invite broader debate into this article. DanP 08:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The statement by Desmond Morris that circumcision "has no effect, one way or the other, on the sexual performance of the adult male" is beyond belief! How on earth can you cut off from an adult male's penis approximately 15 square inches of skin and mucosal tissue with a high concentration of nerve cells and not have some effect on sexual performance? Not just opponents of non-therapeutic circumcision of children disagree with Morris, circumcision enthusiasts also disagree. The men at Circlist discuss in great detail how circumcision affects sexual performance. In my opinion the quote from Desmond Morris is nonsense and should not be included in any article at Wikipedia. -- DanBlackham 23:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree his position is nonnsense but under NPOV he is entitled to be represented. But did he actually say anything about "gliding action". After all his book was published in 1991. It is 15 years out of date.
If we are more or less in agreement now, perhaps it is time to remove the totally disputed tag and leave this article alone.
Please tell me what Masters and Johnson said about gliding action in their 1966 book?
Robert Blair 03:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is really very simple. This article contains claims that (1) circumcision affects Gliding Action and that (2) Gliding Action affects sexual performance. If those claims are both true, then logic dictates that circumcision must affect sexual performance. The Morris reference is directly on point. In that book, he claims that circumcision has no effect, one way or the other, on sexual performance. Whether any of us believe it is "nonsense" is not germaine. The book represents one published viewpoint on the issue. It is an appropriate counterpoint to the references (currently 7) quoted here that are addressing one or both of the claims. Johntex 16:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't have access to "Babywatching" and am just wondering where Morris gets his claim from? What kind of study did he carry out, what are the exact figures etc. Since the article does not mention this, whereas it does with the other studies mentioned, it sounds it is just Morris' POV! Aside from this, I agree that the Morris example does not belong in this article anyway, for the convincing reasons others have already given. -- Raye 22:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Johntex, I have to disagree with you with regard to inclusive negations and inclusive affirmations. DeMorgan's law is being misapplied. While I see your point if it were based on actual fact and not a quote, it is not the nature of existential quantifiers that is the problem here. The problem is the fact that the Morris sentence is an opinionated universal quantifier which ought to be instantiated to only one form of harm. Instead it is overreaching (for all X, X is false -- even though the article is only about X-sub-1), so the inclusion of that sentence (intentionally or not) is automatically denying the existence of other forms of harm (such as loss of sensory nerve endings, and glans protection). I am not proposing the use of an existential quantifier to remedy this (ie. X-sub-2 is true,etc.) to separately affirm anything, but instead I'm proposing that mention of O'Hara might include a broader statement of equal universality (for all X). If we can overreach to unrelated topics beyond gliding actions in one viewpoint, then you need to permit all viewpoints to do this. To use your analogy, you are permitting some arbitrary opinion "no coins have monetary value" to justify the claim that pennies have no monetary value, which serves to further hint that nickels do not have value either as though saying so is merely a disjoint subset of no impact. This is clearly beyond attacking the penny, and the claim that "all coins have monetary value" is not magically less valid quotation, and asserts the value existance of nickels just as well as the other opinion discards them. How dare you devalue our nickel during your campaign against the penny! Seriously both statements are inclusive, not exclusive in their assertion. The negation is inside the quantifier, not outside. DanP 23:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The "gliding action" image appears to be seriously inaccurate, as it does not show the most dramatic anatomical feature of coition, namely the penis bending during vaginal insertion. Actual NMR imaging of sexual intercourse shows that the penis bends into a rather surprising boomerang shape inside the vagina. See [1] for a comparison of previous visualizations of sexual intercourse with actual NMR images of coition.
Given that this major feature is completely missing in the image makes me wonder about the accuracy of the more minor features in the image, and what, if any, actual evidence was used as a basis for creating the image. Comparison of the image above with the NMR images shows that it is mostly a work of imagination.
Note that I am not taking any stance on either side of the "gliding action" issue, although I would like to point out that NMR imaging is accurate enough to resolve the prepuce: actual clinical imaging should be able to resolve this issue once and for all.
Reference:
-- The Anome 09:39, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
It is unclear whether the penis in the BMJ illustration is naturally bent. If it is, then the vagina may have bent to fit the penis. In any event, the bending would not effect the gliding action. One, of course, could not experience the gliding action unless one had a foreskin.
The gliding action is well documented in the literature. Robert Blair 22:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Anome's evidence is persuassive. We should remove the image and look for one that is more anatomically correct that we can use. This does not mean we need to make any changes to the text. Johntex 00:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The NMRI is a combination of natural upward bend of the penis and position he tries to position his hips between her legs so that his butt should not hit the top of the imaging chamber while remaining in her -- I never understood why people like having sex in confined spaces). At any rate, the penis is not boomerang-shaped (a boomerang is a bell-curve -- if his erect penis truly would be boomerang-shaped, he would scream to get out of the imaging chamber).
The artist drew the image the way it is because:
If you really want, I can try to edit the image and add an upward bend at the base and a slight upward curve. That would be accurate. What would be inaccurate would be to treat the erect penis like a balloon-animal -- I have no intention of making it shaped like a boomerang, banana, et al.
--
Ŭalabio 01:18, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
I worked on the image for ten hours. I just am not a sufficiently good artist. I did optimize the image in other ways, but do to latency, I have trouble uploading the image. I shall get some help from peer review. ¡This is a silly tempest in a teapot over an upward bend of the penis at the base and an upward curve! Ŭalabio 09:01, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
Looking closely at the current status of this article: existence of any such a gliding action is an important component of the anti-circumcision argument. I can't envision a purer example of pro-mutilation filth that has polluted wikispace. Instead of treating this article with equal respect as other article, it has simply become a political toy for vile pro-circumcision hate speech. For that reason I am reverting many of the judgemental changes and hope you folks can discuss this rationally. DanP 19:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Dan:
I agree and second your remarks. Robert Blair 21:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Again folks, we should follow Wikipedia's rules. The ongoing "hypothesized" and "for what it's worth" contains hidden connotations and is against Wikipedia:Words to avoid. If this article is hit-and-run-reverted again to pro-mutilation propaganda with zero discussion points, it can only be interpreted as vandalism. Jakew and RTB, there is plenty of room in Wikipedia for both perspectives without trashing articles. DanP 18:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
O'Hara provides important explanations about the gliding action. There now seems to be little doubt about it. Perhaps men who were circumicised at birth have difficulty grasping the concept, but O'Hara's very clear explanation should make it clear.
If anyone wants to challenge this evidence, solid evidence to the contrary is needed. Robert Blair 02:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article is getting better and better as more data are added. Simply deleting data that one does not like is unacceptable. Robert Blair 12:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then it is up to you to produce alternate authorities to provide evidence that the foreskin does not glide. My foreskin is movable and glides very nicely, but I have not written a book about it. I think any argument that the foreskin does not glide is going to look pretty silly to the billions of males with intact foreskins on this earth.
Robert Blair 23:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
DanP, in your most recent edit, you have removed the TotallyDisputed tag from the beginning of the article. This was the only change made in your edit. However, in your edit summary, you misleadingly claimed "rv due to POV edit and uncited sources".
Would you care to explain how inserting a tag that states that "the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is disputed" is described as a "POV edit and uncited sources"?
Please justify your attempt to censor the fact that the article is disputed, or restore the tag. - Jakew 19:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My apologies. That was total inadvertent on my part. I will voluntarily refrain from editing this article for a while, even though there have been clear false statements in the article with regard to O'Hara's work which I have on-hand. DanP 01:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Removal of valid objective information on the grounds that it is POV is not helpful. It is simply censorship to prevent the public from getting information. NPOV requires that competitive viewpoints be presented without favoritism.
The proper action is to present credible references to support an alternative point of view.
Robert Blair 22:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fleiss and Hodges contribute to our understanding of the gliding action.
Robert Blair 23:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By providing additional descriptive narrative.
207.69.137.202 01:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Consensus having been reached, I have removed the totally disputed tag.
Robert Blair 04:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Robert Blair, you've removed the disputed message and have once again failed to explain your revert. Please? - Jakew 23:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please do not revert again without discussion. - Jakew 00:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Jakew 01:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just a minor change to the 2nd sentence, to give equal weight to reports on each side. Otherwise, no objections. - Jakew 01:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Understood. I just made the changes which I'm sure you'll review.
Dragons was a reference to the drawing, yes. I'm not totally happy about "who oppose infant circumcision", but not totally unhappy either, so I guess I won't object to it until I can think of something better. No major objection to ejaculation, as you have said 'possibly'. However, Senkul and Fink found the opposite effect, so it seems unlikely to me. In the long term, I wonder if we ought to move the discussion of 'pleasantness vs dulling' out of the introduction, and incorporate a lengthier discussion.
Additional (since I've got an edit conflict with Johntex): Agree to remove later links, and it seems that Johntex and I agree on conflicting claims. Let's make it a priority to either move claims below or link to a full discussion (med. analysis?). - Jakew 01:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi folks - I've not been by for a while. It seems like some progress has been made at keeping the article more neutral than it was before. Two things I'd like to bring up:
Johntex 01:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering what Masters and Johnson have to say about gliding action. Is this an appropriate reference? I don't have a copy of their book handy.
Also, I have made some non-substantive edits mainly conform to Wiki style.
Generally, I am satisfied with the article as its stands, but I think Baby watching could be removed elsewhere.
Robert Blair 14:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I raise objection to the following sentence that was added: For example in "Babywatching", Desmond Morris claims circumcision "has no effect, one way or the other, on the sexual performance of the adult male." ISBN 0224060112 This article is about gliding action, not sexual performance in general. Such a statement is more appropriate to the circumcision article, and will no doubt invite broader debate into this article. DanP 08:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The statement by Desmond Morris that circumcision "has no effect, one way or the other, on the sexual performance of the adult male" is beyond belief! How on earth can you cut off from an adult male's penis approximately 15 square inches of skin and mucosal tissue with a high concentration of nerve cells and not have some effect on sexual performance? Not just opponents of non-therapeutic circumcision of children disagree with Morris, circumcision enthusiasts also disagree. The men at Circlist discuss in great detail how circumcision affects sexual performance. In my opinion the quote from Desmond Morris is nonsense and should not be included in any article at Wikipedia. -- DanBlackham 23:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree his position is nonnsense but under NPOV he is entitled to be represented. But did he actually say anything about "gliding action". After all his book was published in 1991. It is 15 years out of date.
If we are more or less in agreement now, perhaps it is time to remove the totally disputed tag and leave this article alone.
Please tell me what Masters and Johnson said about gliding action in their 1966 book?
Robert Blair 03:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is really very simple. This article contains claims that (1) circumcision affects Gliding Action and that (2) Gliding Action affects sexual performance. If those claims are both true, then logic dictates that circumcision must affect sexual performance. The Morris reference is directly on point. In that book, he claims that circumcision has no effect, one way or the other, on sexual performance. Whether any of us believe it is "nonsense" is not germaine. The book represents one published viewpoint on the issue. It is an appropriate counterpoint to the references (currently 7) quoted here that are addressing one or both of the claims. Johntex 16:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't have access to "Babywatching" and am just wondering where Morris gets his claim from? What kind of study did he carry out, what are the exact figures etc. Since the article does not mention this, whereas it does with the other studies mentioned, it sounds it is just Morris' POV! Aside from this, I agree that the Morris example does not belong in this article anyway, for the convincing reasons others have already given. -- Raye 22:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Johntex, I have to disagree with you with regard to inclusive negations and inclusive affirmations. DeMorgan's law is being misapplied. While I see your point if it were based on actual fact and not a quote, it is not the nature of existential quantifiers that is the problem here. The problem is the fact that the Morris sentence is an opinionated universal quantifier which ought to be instantiated to only one form of harm. Instead it is overreaching (for all X, X is false -- even though the article is only about X-sub-1), so the inclusion of that sentence (intentionally or not) is automatically denying the existence of other forms of harm (such as loss of sensory nerve endings, and glans protection). I am not proposing the use of an existential quantifier to remedy this (ie. X-sub-2 is true,etc.) to separately affirm anything, but instead I'm proposing that mention of O'Hara might include a broader statement of equal universality (for all X). If we can overreach to unrelated topics beyond gliding actions in one viewpoint, then you need to permit all viewpoints to do this. To use your analogy, you are permitting some arbitrary opinion "no coins have monetary value" to justify the claim that pennies have no monetary value, which serves to further hint that nickels do not have value either as though saying so is merely a disjoint subset of no impact. This is clearly beyond attacking the penny, and the claim that "all coins have monetary value" is not magically less valid quotation, and asserts the value existance of nickels just as well as the other opinion discards them. How dare you devalue our nickel during your campaign against the penny! Seriously both statements are inclusive, not exclusive in their assertion. The negation is inside the quantifier, not outside. DanP 23:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)