Sex As Nature Intended It: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 36:

== Critics ==

The [[circumcision advocate]] website [[Andrew Gross#Circumcision Choice|Circumcision Choice]] ~~debunked~~ the flaws and bias of O'Hara's study which is the basis of this book. While ~~most~~ of the counter-arguments by [[Andrew Gross#Circumcision Choice|Circumcision Choice]] seem to be valid, the refutation itself also uses wordings which expose the [[Bias| biased view]] pro circumcision of the ostensibly anonymous author of the refutation which seems to be [[Andrew Gross]].<ref>{{REFweb

The [[circumcision advocate]] website [[Andrew Gross#Circumcision Choice|Circumcision Choice]] challenged the flaws and bias of O'Hara's study which is the basis of this book. While some of the counter-arguments by [[Andrew Gross#Circumcision Choice|Circumcision Choice]] seem to be valid, the refutation itself also uses wordings which expose the [[Bias| biased view]] pro-circumcision of the ostensibly anonymous author of the refutation which seems to be [[Andrew Gross]].<ref>{{REFweb

|url=https://www.circumcisionchoice.com/single-post/ohara

|title=Sex as the researcher intended it

Line 81:

|DOI=10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1079.x

|accessdate=2023-01-06

}}

* {{REFnews

|title=A Cut Below

|url=https://www.cirp.org/news/2007/2007-07-15_SFChronicle.php

|last=Guthmann

|first=Edward

|init=

|author-link=

|publisher=San Francisco Chronicle

|website=

|date=2007-07-15

|accessdate=2024-07-28

|quote=People are vociferous on the [[foreskin]] question, none more than Kristen O'Hara, the author of "Sex as Nature Intended It" (2002), in which she claims women are more likely to enjoy intercourse if their male partner is uncircumcised.

}}

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 == Critics ==
-The [[circumcision advocate]] website [[Andrew Gross#Circumcision Choice|Circumcision Choice]] debunked the flaws and bias of O'Hara's study which is the basis of this book. While most of the counter-arguments by [[Andrew Gross#Circumcision Choice|Circumcision Choice]] seem to be valid, the refutation itself also uses wordings which expose the [[Bias| biased view]] pro circumcision of the ostensibly anonymous author of the refutation which seems to be [[Andrew Gross]].<ref>{{REFweb
+The [[circumcision advocate]] website [[Andrew Gross#Circumcision Choice|Circumcision Choice]] challenged the flaws and bias of O'Hara's study which is the basis of this book. While some of the counter-arguments by [[Andrew Gross#Circumcision Choice|Circumcision Choice]] seem to be valid, the refutation itself also uses wordings which expose the [[Bias| biased view]] pro-circumcision of the ostensibly anonymous author of the refutation which seems to be [[Andrew Gross]].<ref>{{REFweb
   |url=https://www.circumcisionchoice.com/single-post/ohara
   |title=Sex as the researcher intended it
@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
   |DOI=10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1079.x
   |accessdate=2023-01-06
+}}
+* {{REFnews
+ |title=A Cut Below
+ |url=https://www.cirp.org/news/2007/2007-07-15_SFChronicle.php
+ |last=Guthmann
+ |first=Edward
+ |init=
+ |author-link=
+ |publisher=San Francisco Chronicle
+ |website=
+ |date=2007-07-15
+ |accessdate=2024-07-28
+ |quote=People are vociferous on the [[foreskin]] question, none more than Kristen O'Hara, the author of "Sex as Nature Intended It" (2002), in which she claims women are more likely to enjoy intercourse if their male partner is uncircumcised.
 }}
 {{REF}}