Talk:Gliding action/Archive/1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inaccuracy of the "gliding action" image

The "gliding action" image appears to be seriously inaccurate, as it does not show the most dramatic anatomical feature of coition, namely the penis bending during vaginal insertion. Actual NMR imaging of sexual intercourse shows that the penis bends into a rather surprising boomerang shape inside the vagina. See [1] for a comparison of previous visualizations of sexual intercourse with actual NMR images of coition.

Given that this major feature is completely missing in the image makes me wonder about the accuracy of the more minor features in the image, and what, if any, actual evidence was used as a basis for creating the image. Comparison of the image above with the NMR images shows that it is mostly a work of imagination.

Note that I am not taking any stance on either side of the "gliding action" issue, although I would like to point out that NMR imaging is accurate enough to resolve the prepuce: actual clinical imaging should be able to resolve this issue once and for all.

Reference:

  • W. W. Schultz, P. van Andel, I. Sabelis, E. Mooyaart. Magnetic resonance imaging of male and female genitals during coitus and female sexual arousal. BMJ 1999;319:1596-1600 ( 18 December ).

-- The Anome 09:39, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Of course it is a nonsense. But it is crucial to the anti-circumcision cause. It has been stated that the sheer number of possible variations and the incorrect (and probably dishonest depiction of the internal movement of the penis) all contributes to making this sexual fantasy a sad joke. The question is how to present this nonsense as a minority and somewhat off the wall view. - Robert the Bruce 18:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The degree and angle of direction and extent of bending depends on which position and the specific angle at the hips -- I do not know about you, but reverse cowgirl hurts me. All and all, the neutralness of the bend does not effect the accuracy of this image. if the couple in the NMRI could have one of them go into a more vertical angle (impossible in the imaging chamber), then the bowing would be less. As it is, the bowing can hardly be called "boomerang-shape." I see no reason not to restore the image. Ŭalabio 16:37, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
  • Well the point is obviously that this is yet another aspect of vaginal sex that has been misrepresented on anti-circumcision websites. Those who have (significant) experience in vaginal sex are fully aware of what a crock this all is. - Robert the Bruce 18:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


It is unclear whether the penis in the BMJ illustration is naturally bent. If it is, then the vagina may have bent to fit the penis. In any event, the bending would not effect the gliding action. One, of course, could not experience the gliding action unless one had a foreskin.

The gliding action is well documented in the literature. Robert Blair 22:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Anome's evidence is persuassive. We should remove the image and look for one that is more anatomically correct that we can use. This does not mean we need to make any changes to the text. Johntex 00:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand that the reason The Anome wants this removed is a matter of POV.
The direction and angle of bending of the penis during sex depends on many factors:
  • The innate vertical bend of the penis (most men have a penis which bends upward)
  • The innate bend of the penis in the horizontal plane
  • Iatrogenic bend caused from circumcision (hundreds of millions of men suffer from this)
  • The innate bends of the vagina (I never noticed any bend, for as far as I can tell both with women who had children and not, vaginas seem to go straight back into the pelvis)
  • Position (this really matters because, for me, positions like reverse cowgirl hurts the base of my penis)
  • Et cetera

The NMRI is a combination of natural upward bend of the penis and position he tries to position his hips between her legs so that his butt should not hit the top of the imaging chamber while remaining in her -- I never understood why people like having sex in confined spaces). At any rate, the penis is not boomerang-shaped (a boomerang is a bell-curve -- if his erect penis truly would be boomerang-shaped, he would scream to get out of the imaging chamber).

The artist drew the image the way it is because:

  1. The natural bend is not great
  2. Bending of the penis is irrelevant for the discussion of gliding action
  3. It is more easy to draw a straight penis than a bent penis

If you really want, I can try to edit the image and add an upward bend at the base and a slight upward curve. That would be accurate. What would be inaccurate would be to treat the erect penis like a balloon-animal -- I have no intention of making it shaped like a boomerang, banana, et al.

--

Ŭalabio 01:18, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

I worked on the image for ten hours. I just am not a sufficiently good artist. I did optimize the image in other ways, but do to latency, I have trouble uploading the image. I shall get some help from peer review. ¡This is a silly tempest in a teapot over an upward bend of the penis at the base and an upward curve! Ŭalabio 09:01, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • Shall we then just delete this "silly tempest in a teapot" then? - Robert the Bruce 01:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sheer vandalism of this article

Looking closely at the current status of this article: existence of any such a gliding action is an important component of the anti-circumcision argument. I can't envision a purer example of pro-mutilation filth that has polluted wikispace. Instead of treating this article with equal respect as other article, it has simply become a political toy for vile pro-circumcision hate speech. For that reason I am reverting many of the judgemental changes and hope you folks can discuss this rationally. DanP 19:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dan:

I agree and second your remarks. Robert Blair 21:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again folks, we should follow Wikipedia's rules. The ongoing "hypothesized" and "for what it's worth" contains hidden connotations and is against Wikipedia:Words to avoid. If this article is hit-and-run-reverted again to pro-mutilation propaganda with zero discussion points, it can only be interpreted as vandalism. Jakew and RTB, there is plenty of room in Wikipedia for both perspectives without trashing articles. DanP 18:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You might have a point on "for what it's worth", Dan, but a hypothesis is a hypothesis. It is inappropriate and POV to describe something as factual that has not been established. - Jakew 19:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're right. But why is "hypothesized" and "theoretically" blended in the same sentence on different verbs? And it is not the "motion" that was hypothesized, but it's effect or potential benefit. If you want to use these qualifiers, use them correctly instead of fraudulently applying them.DanP 19:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I approve of your change to the wording in the introduction, so I've kept it. I disapprove of your revert, so I haven't. And if you read this very page, you'll find out that even the motion is hypothetical. - Jakew 19:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My revert is due to the "anti" prefix under Loaded words. Are you suggesting that the foreskin doesn't move? This debate is about it's effect or benefit, is it not? Perhaps in your loose-skin, British, adult-chosen circumcision, skin might be mobile. American-style, it's often not and only a tube of KY jelly does the job, especially with some older guys. DanP 19:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You need to justify your hatred of the 'anti-' prefix. It has not been proven that the foreskin moves - that's the point. My own experience tells me that in men with a long foreskin, it does move to the extent shown in the diagram, but these are in a minority. When I had a foreskin, there was a little movement when erect, but not much more than the skin on my arm. As for my circumcision, I assure you that there is no movement of skin. - Jakew 23:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh Jake! Now you are putting a few facts in the way of a cute little "fantasy" some promote. How unkind. - Robert the Bruce 04:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Jake, I have no hatred of the anti- prefix per se. Only the alleged opposition to adult circumcision which you imagine exists among groups who are anti-circumcision only regarding involuntary practice. Even with my limited restored foreskin there is some "give" making penetration possible. So how can you claim there is no gliding action for any man at all, especially given that you admit its existance for long foreskins? DanP 23:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

O'Hara provides important explanations about the gliding action. There now seems to be little doubt about it. Perhaps men who were circumicised at birth have difficulty grasping the concept, but O'Hara's very clear explanation should make it clear.

If anyone wants to challenge this evidence, solid evidence to the contrary is needed. Robert Blair 02:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

O'Hara's "explanations" are more accurately termed "hypotheses". The source is nothing more than her imagination. After she had formed her opinions, she performed her "study", essentially asking other activists whether they agree. Unsurprisingly, they did. Now, obviously it is possible for a hypothesis to be correct by accident, and it is possible that proper research may yet validate her theories, but to point to her as some kind of authority on the subject is utterly laughable. You do understand the difference between science and fiction, don't you? - Jakew 16:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes isn't she just the most horrible person. Nowdays she is all over the web trying to sell her book ... smacks like money grabbing to me. Disgraceful. - Robert the Bruce 16:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Jakew, while I respect your right to object to OHara's work, you should do so by citing criticism of it. Not by inventing criticism and dropping it here. That is not a valid contribution in Wikipedia according to our policies. DanP 18:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Such arguments are invalid because they are arguments against the person. If one wants to provide an alternative POV one has to come up with evidence to support an alternative POV. So far this has not happened. There are now three book references to support gliding action. Let us have a book reference to show the non-existence of glding action if you have one or a medical journal article to support the non-existence of gliding action. If one can't do that perhaps one should simple concede that gliding action does exist so we can get on to other things.

This article is getting better and better as more data are added. Simply deleting data that one does not like is unacceptable. Robert Blair 12:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that references to books written by authors who invariably cite the same damn sources is helpful. What does it prove, other than the fact that the authors have all been duped? Can we prove that the world was created in 4004BC by some guy with a really cool beard by citing lots of books? - Jakew 00:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then it is up to you to produce alternate authorities to provide evidence that the foreskin does not glide. My foreskin is movable and glides very nicely, but I have not written a book about it. I think any argument that the foreskin does not glide is going to look pretty silly to the billions of males with intact foreskins on this earth.

Robert Blair 23:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removal of TotallyDisputed tag

DanP, in your most recent edit, you have removed the TotallyDisputed tag from the beginning of the article. This was the only change made in your edit. However, in your edit summary, you misleadingly claimed "rv due to POV edit and uncited sources".

Would you care to explain how inserting a tag that states that "the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is disputed" is described as a "POV edit and uncited sources"?

Please justify your attempt to censor the fact that the article is disputed, or restore the tag. - Jakew 19:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. That was total inadvertent on my part. I will voluntarily refrain from editing this article for a while, even though there have been clear false statements in the article with regard to O'Hara's work which I have on-hand. DanP 01:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removal of valid objective information on the grounds that it is POV is not helpful. It is simply censorship to prevent the public from getting information. NPOV requires that competitive viewpoints be presented without favoritism.

The proper action is to present credible references to support an alternative point of view.

Robert Blair 22:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fleiss and Hodges contribute to our understanding of the gliding action.


Robert Blair 23:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How so? - Jakew 23:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By providing additional descriptive narrative.

207.69.137.202 01:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consensus having been reached, I have removed the totally disputed tag.

Robert Blair 04:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More reverts

Robert Blair, you've removed the disputed message and have once again failed to explain your revert. Please? - Jakew 23:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted but preseved the disputed message. Jakew, your version is mostly a subset of Robert's. That is why I used Robert's for now until we can remove what we agree is non-relevant. DanP 23:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of objections

  • Replace "normal motion of the foreskin" with "possible motion of the foreskin". It is unproven.
  • Inclusion of ", though dulling sensation according to others." - proof on request (& provision of matching proof)
  • Inclusion of "is unproven, and it not clear whether it affects all men, or only those with long foreskins." - extra info.
  • Inclusion of "Proponents of the theory argue that it" before "is an important part of sexual intercourse." This is more neutral.
  • Inclusion of explanatory "(often known as anti-circumcision)" note for genital integrity (since this is non-intuitive to the layperson), but only once.
  • Rewording of "A survey by genital integrity activists Bensley & Boyle provides some confirmation of the suggestion that gliding action provides protection of vaginal lubrication.[2]" and inclusion of author-admitted limitations: "The authors explain, however, that their subjects were self-selected and a larger sample size is needed."
  • Inclusion of "Genital integrity activist O'Hara" and Fleiss and Hodges
  • Removal of strange pseudo-subheadings
  • Restoring lost material about Taves: "to penetrate a styrofoam cup"
  • Including relevant info about Schoeberlein: "Schoeberlien also reports a wide variety of foreskin length, possibly affecting the degree or existence of gliding action in these individuals."
  • Moved "The presence of a gliding action is assumed by some" and removed unnecessary and misleading heading (mainstream view is that circumcision has no effect on sex - this article is an alternative view).
  • Added Masters & Johnson ref.

Please do not revert again without discussion. - Jakew 00:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. I changed few things -- please review for NPOV from your angle. I removed some of the double-qualifiers ("X claims Y might be"). The bottom section was duplicated and you should review for clarity (I apoligize if I didn't get the pro-circ nuance you're going for, but it was just too confusing and repetitive). I do question the use of "to penetrate a styrofoam cup". Are we including research apparatus descriptions now? DanP 00:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've made some minor changes:
  • Wording of the first sentence (sorry, Dan, but your version was awkward)
  • ", though dulling sensation according to others, and may" - I'm not just talking about the frenulum.
  • Change to: "unproven and may be variable"
  • Reinclusion of "(often known as anti-circumcision)" - I really think that a casual reader will be confused by "genital integrity", though anti-circumcision is blindingly obvious. I'm only including it the once. Isn't this a fair compromise? - Jakew 00:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK. I'll take a look. But I question the following:
  • "dulling sensation", sorry. I'll be less awkard.
  • "unproven and may be variable" Of this I question the relevance of unproven, as there is adequate depictions during intercourse with mobile shaft skin.
  • "often known as anti-circumcision" - you raise a good point. However "blindingly obvious" is not the whole truth. In some cases "anti-circumcision" is opposition to circumcision in general, or even bias against circumcised men (not the meaning of genital integrity at all). But I'll take a look at it, because you have a valid point. DanP 00:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not you being awkward, Dan, just the text. :)
  • Can I draw a diagram of a dragon and claim that dragons are proven?
  • Please see genital integrity for discussion of the need for a standard explanation for this.

- Jakew 01:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just a minor change to the 2nd sentence, to give equal weight to reports on each side. Otherwise, no objections. - Jakew 01:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Understood. I just made the changes which I'm sure you'll review.

  • Dragons? I guess I was referring to video (ie. porno), not so much drawings. But I agree that drawings showing the interior are not evidence. Whereas mobile skin during penetration counts for something, even without quantitative analysis.
  • I clarified "genital integrity activists, who oppose infant circumcision" instead of broadband anti-circumcision which is a looser term.
  • I noted ejaculation, as frenulum coverage is noted by intact and restored men as a dulling sensation necessary for sexual duration. DanP 01:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dragons was a reference to the drawing, yes. I'm not totally happy about "who oppose infant circumcision", but not totally unhappy either, so I guess I won't object to it until I can think of something better. No major objection to ejaculation, as you have said 'possibly'. However, Senkul and Fink found the opposite effect, so it seems unlikely to me. In the long term, I wonder if we ought to move the discussion of 'pleasantness vs dulling' out of the introduction, and incorporate a lengthier discussion.

Additional (since I've got an edit conflict with Johntex): Agree to remove later links, and it seems that Johntex and I agree on conflicting claims. Let's make it a priority to either move claims below or link to a full discussion (med. analysis?). - Jakew 01:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Jakew - I realy should have put my comment in a new section since it is off topic to what is being discussed here. I have moved it below. I hope no one minds. Johntex 01:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No problem, Johntex. I've removed the section heading, though, and retitled this one, since it's effectively the same topic. - Jakew 01:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks - I've not been by for a while. It seems like some progress has been made at keeping the article more neutral than it was before. Two things I'd like to bring up:

  1. I have seen claims here at various times that an intact foreskin delays the male climax, and I've seen the opposite claim, that it speeds male climax. I don't think this debate is dealt with very well yet.
  2. We need to quit linking Genital integrity every time it appears. Guidelines are to link the first appearance.

Johntex 01:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I am wondering what Masters and Johnson have to say about gliding action. Is this an appropriate reference? I don't have a copy of their book handy.

Also, I have made some non-substantive edits mainly conform to Wiki style.

Generally, I am satisfied with the article as its stands, but I think Baby watching could be removed elsewhere.

Robert Blair 14:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Morris example

I raise objection to the following sentence that was added: For example in "Babywatching", Desmond Morris claims circumcision "has no effect, one way or the other, on the sexual performance of the adult male." ISBN 0224060112 This article is about gliding action, not sexual performance in general. Such a statement is more appropriate to the circumcision article, and will no doubt invite broader debate into this article. DanP 08:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I note that Robert Blair also objects. I think it is appropriate to have it here, because proponents of gliding action theory argue that it is a very significant difference. While he doesn't address this directly, Morris directly opposes that, in effect saying that there is no difference.
Imagine that we were talking about little green men. Does Morris have to say that each individual little green man doesn't exist, or can he make a blanket statement that little green men, in general, do not exist? I argue that the latter statement is just as relevant to the question of the existence of any individual little green man. - Jakew 23:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The statement by Desmond Morris that circumcision "has no effect, one way or the other, on the sexual performance of the adult male" is beyond belief! How on earth can you cut off from an adult male's penis approximately 15 square inches of skin and mucosal tissue with a high concentration of nerve cells and not have some effect on sexual performance? Not just opponents of non-therapeutic circumcision of children disagree with Morris, circumcision enthusiasts also disagree. The men at Circlist discuss in great detail how circumcision affects sexual performance. In my opinion the quote from Desmond Morris is nonsense and should not be included in any article at Wikipedia. -- DanBlackham 23:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DanBlackham, you can't just censor a respected author because you happen to disagree with him. It is completely inappropriate. - Jakew 00:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree his position is nonnsense but under NPOV he is entitled to be represented. But did he actually say anything about "gliding action". After all his book was published in 1991. It is 15 years out of date.

If we are more or less in agreement now, perhaps it is time to remove the totally disputed tag and leave this article alone.

Please tell me what Masters and Johnson said about gliding action in their 1966 book?

Robert Blair 03:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that it's nonsense. After my adult circumcision, I noticed a small improvement, but nothing like the huge loss or huge gain claimed by some. Of course, that's anecdotal. We should stick to the evidence. I don't think we're in complete agreement yet, but perhaps we should replace TotallyDisputed with NPOV. My copy of M & J is on loan to a friend at present. From memory, they said something along the lines of "during intercourse, the foreskin effectively gets out of the way." - Jakew 13:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That is not the point. If a broad Morris statement on sexual performance can be included here, so can broad statements of sexual performance by our side (O'Hara, Goldman, etc.). It is not the perspective I object to (well it is, but that's not good enough to recommend deletion in this case), but the statement has broad reach beyond gliding action. I hope you can see my point. DanP 14:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't hold water, logically. The article is about claim A. If broad claim B says that set C (which includes claim A) is null and void, then it is relevant. However, if broad claim D doesn't address claim A, but does not refute it either, it adds nothing of value. - Jakew 14:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
First, if claim D actually does support claim A, one could say it is relevant. One only needs claim D to be that circumcisions have broad negative consequence, one of which happens to be suppression of gliding action. Second, based on the derivation you present, let D be men tested in the Kenyan HIV study, and let A by American men and their AIDS rates. Suddenly you feel compelled to abandon your principle that no water is held. DanP 15:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is really very simple. This article contains claims that (1) circumcision affects Gliding Action and that (2) Gliding Action affects sexual performance. If those claims are both true, then logic dictates that circumcision must affect sexual performance. The Morris reference is directly on point. In that book, he claims that circumcision has no effect, one way or the other, on sexual performance. Whether any of us believe it is "nonsense" is not germaine. The book represents one published viewpoint on the issue. It is an appropriate counterpoint to the references (currently 7) quoted here that are addressing one or both of the claims. Johntex 16:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a finer point you miss. Several other authors take a firm view that sexual performance is affected, with gliding action being only one component. If we state some broader version here that sexual performance is impacted (not just gliding action), the scope of the article grows. I'm sure the pro-mutilation side doesn't want that either. Bottom line: If a broad statement accepting of circumcision can be stated, so too can one be added that is broadly opposed to it. Since this particular discussion has been going in circles, I will assume that adding such a broad statement is acceptable on the same grounds that it is merely inclusive of gliding action. An opposing view specifically aimed at the the Babywatching sentence is available at [3]. It refers to O'Hara, and the vaginal interactions taking place, whereas the Morris does not cover that. The case for including Morris, but not broad statements from other authors, right in this article is very weak. DanP 18:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An even finer point is that a quote broadly in favor of intactivism is not logically the same as Morris' quote. You are missing a point of logic similar to the well known logic statement concerning subsets: "all nickels are coins but all coins are not nickels". Imagine if Morris had said, "all coins can be made out of silver". Clearly, his quote includes nickels and would be relevant in an article on nickels. On the other hand, if someone else said, "quarters can only be made out of gold", this quote clearly has no bearing on nickels and would therefore be out of place in an article about nickels. A more subtle point is that a third person may say, "Some coins conduct electricity". You don't know what type of coin the person is referring to, so this quote is out of place in an article on nickels. Likewise, a quote saying "circumcision provides benefits to sexual performance" or "circumcision detracts from sexual performance" does NOT belong in an article on gliding action because you don't know if the author is claiming that the impact was due to a change in gliding action, or to some other feature of cicumsision. Inclusive negations are logically different than inclusive affirmations. In the coin metaphor, a quote directly on "gliding action" equates to quote about nickels. A quote on some other aspect of circumsicion, such as "cancer of the penis" equates to a quote about quarters. A quote broadly on cicumcision would be like a quote broadly about coins. Johntex 19:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't have access to "Babywatching" and am just wondering where Morris gets his claim from? What kind of study did he carry out, what are the exact figures etc. Since the article does not mention this, whereas it does with the other studies mentioned, it sounds it is just Morris' POV! Aside from this, I agree that the Morris example does not belong in this article anyway, for the convincing reasons others have already given. --Raye 22:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Johntex, I have to disagree with you with regard to inclusive negations and inclusive affirmations. DeMorgan's law is being misapplied. While I see your point if it were based on actual fact and not a quote, it is not the nature of existential quantifiers that is the problem here. The problem is the fact that the Morris sentence is an opinionated universal quantifier which ought to be instantiated to only one form of harm. Instead it is overreaching (for all X, X is false -- even though the article is only about X-sub-1), so the inclusion of that sentence (intentionally or not) is automatically denying the existence of other forms of harm (such as loss of sensory nerve endings, and glans protection). I am not proposing the use of an existential quantifier to remedy this (ie. X-sub-2 is true,etc.) to separately affirm anything, but instead I'm proposing that mention of O'Hara might include a broader statement of equal universality (for all X). If we can overreach to unrelated topics beyond gliding actions in one viewpoint, then you need to permit all viewpoints to do this. To use your analogy, you are permitting some arbitrary opinion "no coins have monetary value" to justify the claim that pennies have no monetary value, which serves to further hint that nickels do not have value either as though saying so is merely a disjoint subset of no impact. This is clearly beyond attacking the penny, and the claim that "all coins have monetary value" is not magically less valid quotation, and asserts the value existance of nickels just as well as the other opinion discards them. How dare you devalue our nickel during your campaign against the penny! Seriously both statements are inclusive, not exclusive in their assertion. The negation is inside the quantifier, not outside. DanP 23:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi DanP, thanks for your explanation, and for giving me a flashback to classes I took long, long ago. I think a simple explanation of DeMorgans law is:
  • not (x and y) = (not x) or (not y)
  • not (x or y) = (not x) and (not y)
  • I do agree with you on two of your points. The first case "not (x and y)" is essentially what Morris is saying. Or more accurately "not (x1 and x2... and y1 and y2...) if we take x1=benefit to sexual function of gliding action and x2=benefit to sexual function of preserving lots of nerve endings and y1=downside to sexual function due to quicker ejaculation and y2=downside to sexual function due to ___, and whatever else might be alleged to change for men who are circumcized. This is similar to your "for all X, X is false" description of Morris. I am glad that you see that Morris includes Gliding Action in his statement. Others who have discussed Morris here have not understood that.
  • I also agree with you that the statement "all coins have monetary value" would be equally applicable, logically, to the article on the nickel as "no coins have monetary value".
  • To bring it back to this article, however, we don't have that situation. No one has suggested including the equivalent of the "all coins have monetary value" quote. A quote like that would need to say "Every known aspect of male circumcision affects sexual performance". Were such a quote as that proposed, I would agree that it would logically be inclusive of Gliding action. However:
  • In an encyclopedia article such as this, one would tend to find the most applicable quotes. Therefore, since there is a finely tuned O'Hara quote available, one would use it over a broader O'Hara quote. If someone produces a quote that makes a more narrow counter claim, such as "Gliding action has no impact on sexual performance", I would certainly favor using it over the Morris quote.
  • An encyclopeia must also strive to strike an appropriate balance. Including 1 or 2 contrarian quotes is a service to the reader. Taking the inclusion of such a quote to mean (n) additional quotes in support should be included is not a good service. Likewise, matching quote for quote with each "side" getting (n) quotes is not the right answer either.
  • On a seperate note: I want to point out that Morris is no more "accepting of circumcision" than he is "accepting of intactivism". His claim is that there is no difference either way. He does not support one side or the other. Johntex 01:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Johntex, you cannot allow Morris to define the universe of discourse any more than O'Hara. Set U is not every imaginable form of harm. If U is the collection of sexual harms as indicated by O'Hara, the article should allow her quote equally, as U is the set of harms, not "every aspect". Morris is not saying "not (x and y)", but rather "(not X) and (not y)", denying all of them, not just the conjunction. Morris is firmly denying those elements of O'Hara's (set U). Therefore a statement like "O'Hara mentions many aspects of male circumcision that greatly harm sexual performance, and loss of gliding action is one of them" is an equivalent statement to Morris's equally wide-reaching claim which serves to deny these other sexual harms. At this point, the article is one-sided and attempts to quote nothing asserting sexual harm beyond gliding action, but it does have the Morris quote denying all of them. While Morris does not have a finely tuned quote, you can bet that a wide-reaching quote of any opponent that "circumcision has no medical benefit" inserted by our side in a more-specific article (say on penile cancer) would be instantly deleted by the pro-mutilation side. The quote cannot over-reach, no matter the intent. Morris is flatly denying every form of sexual harm, that much is clear. We can find authors that flatly deny every form of medical benefit, and I would love to quote them in articles even where the author never addressed the specific topic like you describe-- they are routinely deleted as POV! Are you saying you support this behavior and will defend such quotes? It sounds, by your reasoning, that you are. DanP 18:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is an article on gliding action. Desmond Morris doesn't even mention gliding action. If we're going to include him, we should say that he doesn't actually mention gliding action. As it is, including his reference in the article suggests that Morris has examined it, and there's no evidence he has. —Ashley Y 10:09, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
In any case, this is a generalised statement not specific to the subject of the article and should be removed unless something specific can be found. —Ashley Y 10:32, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gliding_action/Archive/1&oldid=1124767777"