22,335
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
using Template:Sorrells etal 2007
</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">{{REFjournal |last=Sorrells |first=Morris L. |init=ML |author-link=Morris L. Sorrells |last2=Snyder |first2=James L. |init2=JL |last3=Reiss |first3=Mark D. |init3=MD |last4=Eden |first4=Christopher |init4=C |last5=Milos |first5=Marilyn F. |init5=MF |author5-link=Marilyn Fayre Milos |last6=Wilcox |first6=Norma |init6=N |last7=Van Howe |first7=Robert S. |init7=RS |author7-link=Robert Van Howe |title=Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis |journal=BJU Int |volume=99 |issue=4 |pages=864-869 |url=http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118508429/PDFSTART |quote= |pubmedID=17378847 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x |date=etal 2007-03 |accessdate=2019-12-16}}</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]].