![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
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)
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)
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.
This article should be renamed to Frenulum (prepuce). The current name does not fit well with WP:NC. Tom e r talk 06:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
So, are we in agreement then, on Frenulum (penis)? If so, are you going to move it or shall I? Tom e r talk 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
The pictured penis with frenular breve displays chordee, and would undergo frenectomy during circumcision. TipPt 01:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
\bnorm\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf 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 NotifyOnline 18:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
@ 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
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)
"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)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
@ 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)
"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.
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)
•Remove as WP:FRINGE as per evidence. Thelisteninghand ( talk) 22:04, 10 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." [1] Thelisteninghand ( talk) 02:17, 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)
References
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
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)
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)
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.
This article should be renamed to Frenulum (prepuce). The current name does not fit well with WP:NC. Tom e r talk 06:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
So, are we in agreement then, on Frenulum (penis)? If so, are you going to move it or shall I? Tom e r talk 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
The pictured penis with frenular breve displays chordee, and would undergo frenectomy during circumcision. TipPt 01:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
\bnorm\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf 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 NotifyOnline 18:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
@ 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
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)
"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)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
@ 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)
"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.
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)
•Remove as WP:FRINGE as per evidence. Thelisteninghand ( talk) 22:04, 10 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." [1] Thelisteninghand ( talk) 02:17, 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)
References
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)
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)