Alleged reasons for circumcision: Difference between revisions

WikiAdmin (talk | contribs)
m using template Gentry1890
Line 49: Line 49:
* Paralysis of the bladder - 1875: [[Lewis Albert Sayre|Lewis A. Sayre]]<ref name="Sayre1875"/>
* Paralysis of the bladder - 1875: [[Lewis Albert Sayre|Lewis A. Sayre]]<ref name="Sayre1875"/>


In 1958, [[Christine F. McDonald]] said "the same reasons that apply for the circumcision of males are generally valid when considered for the female."<ref name="McDonald1958">{{McDonald1958}}</ref>
In 1958, [[Christine F. McDonald]] said "the same reasons that apply for the [[circumcision]] of males are generally valid when considered for the female."<ref name="McDonald1958">{{McDonald1958}}</ref>


In 1966, Masters and Johnson erroneous claim that there is no difference in sensitivity between penises with and without foreskin.
In 1966, Masters and Johnson erroneous claim that there is no difference in sensitivity between penises with and without [[foreskin]].
: ({{NOTE}} Their work helps propagate the medical dogma that circumcision has no effect on sexuality go practically unquestioned for nearly the next four decades.)<ref name="MastersJohnson1966">{{REFbook
: ({{NOTE}} Their work helps propagate the medical dogma that circumcision has no effect on sexuality go practically unquestioned for nearly the next four decades.)<ref name="MastersJohnson1966">{{REFbook
  |last=Masters & Johnson
  |last=Masters & Johnson