Sexual injury of circumcision: Difference between revisions

Line 32:

}}</ref>

Masters & Johnson (1966) in their book, ''Human Sexual Response'',<ref name="masters-johnson1966" /> showed little interest or understanding of the human foreskin. One illustration, labelled normal [[penis]] anatomy, showed a drawing of a penis without a foreskin. A listing of penile pathology in their book included “[[uncircumcised]] penis”! Their work was done in St. Louis, located in the highly circumcised Midwest, and almost all of their subjects were circumcised. Their testing was quite limited. With regard to the foreskin, they said only:

Masters & Johnson (1966) in their book, ''Human Sexual Response'',<ref name="masters-johnson1966" /> showed little interest or understanding of the human foreskin. One illustration, labelled normal [[penis]] anatomy, showed a drawing of a penis without a foreskin. A listing of penile pathology in their book included “[[uncircumcised]] penis”! Their work was done in St. Louis, located in the highly [[circumcised]] Midwest, and almost all of their subjects were circumcised. Their testing was quite limited. With regard to the [[foreskin]], they said only:

Routine neurologic testing for both exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination were conducted on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penile body, with particular attention directed toward the glans.</blockquote>

Line 38:

With regard to the [[glans penis]], Masters & Johnson stated:

Routine neurologic testing for both exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination were conducted on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penile body, with particular attention directed toward the glans. No clinically significant difference could be established between the circumcised and the [[uncircumcised]] glans during these examinations.<ref name="masters-johnson1966">{{REFbook

Routine neurologic testing for both exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination were conducted on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penile body, with particular attention directed toward the glans. No clinically significant difference could be established between the [[circumcised]] and the [[uncircumcised]] glans during these examinations.<ref name="masters-johnson1966">{{REFbook

|last=Masters

|first=William L.

Line 65:

</blockquote>

Therefore, it appears that Masters & Johnson (1966) performed little or no testing on the foreskins of their few intact subjects and provided no useful information.<ref name="sorrells2007">{{Sorrells etal 2007}}</ref>

Therefore, it appears that Masters & Johnson (1966) performed little or no testing on the foreskins of their few [[intact]] subjects and provided no useful information.<ref name="sorrells2007">{{Sorrells etal 2007}}</ref>

The inaccurate reports of Kinsey (1948) and Masters & Johnson (1966) have long distorted ~~the American view of~~ the sexual effects of [[circumcision]] and the loss of the [[foreskin]].

The inaccurate reports of Kinsey (1948) and Masters & Johnson (1966) have long distorted and minimized the sexual effects of [[circumcision]] and the loss of the [[foreskin]] in the American view.

===The dawning of the light===

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 }}</ref>
-Masters & Johnson (1966) in their book, ''Human Sexual Response'',<ref name="masters-johnson1966" /> showed little interest or understanding of the human foreskin. One illustration, labelled normal [[penis]] anatomy, showed a drawing of a penis without a foreskin. A listing of penile pathology in their book included “[[uncircumcised]] penis”! Their work was done in St. Louis, located in the highly circumcised Midwest, and almost all of their subjects were circumcised. Their testing was quite limited. With regard to the foreskin, they said only:
+Masters & Johnson (1966) in their book, ''Human Sexual Response'',<ref name="masters-johnson1966" /> showed little interest or understanding of the human foreskin. One illustration, labelled normal [[penis]] anatomy, showed a drawing of a penis without a foreskin. A listing of penile pathology in their book included “[[uncircumcised]] penis”! Their work was done in St. Louis, located in the highly [[circumcised]] Midwest, and almost all of their subjects were circumcised. Their testing was quite limited. With regard to the [[foreskin]], they said only:
 <blockquote>
 Routine neurologic testing for both exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination were conducted on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penile body, with particular attention directed toward the glans.</blockquote>
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 With regard to the [[glans penis]], Masters & Johnson stated:
 <blockquote>
-Routine neurologic testing for both exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination were conducted on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penile body, with particular attention directed toward the glans. No clinically significant difference could be established between the circumcised and the [[uncircumcised]] glans during these examinations.<ref name="masters-johnson1966">{{REFbook
+Routine neurologic testing for both exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination were conducted on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penile body, with particular attention directed toward the glans. No clinically significant difference could be established between the [[circumcised]] and the [[uncircumcised]] glans during these examinations.<ref name="masters-johnson1966">{{REFbook
   |last=Masters
   |first=William L.
@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 </blockquote>
-Therefore, it appears that Masters & Johnson (1966) performed little or no testing on the foreskins of their few intact subjects and provided no useful information.<ref name="sorrells2007">{{Sorrells etal 2007}}</ref>
+Therefore, it appears that Masters & Johnson (1966) performed little or no testing on the foreskins of their few [[intact]] subjects and provided no useful information.<ref name="sorrells2007">{{Sorrells etal 2007}}</ref>
-The inaccurate reports of Kinsey (1948) and Masters & Johnson (1966) have long distorted the American view of the sexual effects of [[circumcision]] and the loss of the [[foreskin]].
+The inaccurate reports of Kinsey (1948) and Masters & Johnson (1966) have long distorted and minimized the sexual effects of [[circumcision]] and the loss of the [[foreskin]] in the American view.
 ===The dawning of the light===