Sexual injury of circumcision: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Delete Cortes |
||
| Line 641: | Line 641: | ||
== Sexual drive == | == Sexual drive == | ||
Several studies have investigated the effect of circumcision on sexual drive. Studies that did not find a statistically significant difference include Kim and Pang,<ref name="kimpang2006"/> Collins ''et al.'',<ref name="Collins2002"/> Senkul ''et al.'' | Several studies have investigated the effect of circumcision on sexual drive. Studies that did not find a statistically significant difference include Kim and Pang,<ref name="kimpang2006"/> Collins ''et al.'',<ref name="Collins2002"/> and Senkul ''et al.''.<ref name="senkul2004"/> \ | ||
== Satisfaction == | == Satisfaction == | ||
| Line 658: | Line 658: | ||
==Female preferences and response== | ==Female preferences and response== | ||
O'Hara and O'Hara argue that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and helping her achieve orgasm more quickly and more often. Without the foreskin's gliding action, they suggest, it can be more difficult for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse.<ref name= "OHara1999">{{REFjournal | O'Hara and O'Hara argue that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and helping her achieve orgasm more quickly and more often. Without the foreskin's gliding action, they suggest, it can be more difficult for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse.<ref name= "OHara1999">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=O'Hara | |last=O'Hara | ||