Talk:Foreskin restoration/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Emphasis

Last I checked, CIRP did not say they were anticircumcision anywhere on their site. Indeed those loaded words are often an attempt to confuse this with adult circumcision. We do not say breast reconstruction is "antimastectomy", so please leave out pro and anti judgements. Including CIRP as part of men's health issues is fine, nobody is saying they are right or better than anyone else. So I see that as NPOV, I hope we can agree that emphasizing circumcision one way or the other is not relevant at all in this article. DanP 23:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't see that CIRP has to actually say they are anticircumcision for it to be' anticircumcision, but I do take your point that it is irrelavant on this article. I'll remove the disclaimer. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 05:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Heh heh heh ... nice logic there, Theresa. Sorry to say it doesn't work though. Once again you POV pushing becomes apparent. Sad, really sad. - Friends of Robert 17:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whatever! I've reverted you addition because I agree with DanP on this issue. It's fine by me to have a cirp disclaimer on the circumcision article, but it's not relavent here Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 21:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Is this the trade off to keep this incarnation of "Dan" happy? Robert once tried to set up a universal CIRP Disclaimer but was rudely slaped down by one of the admirers of the foreskin with sysop powers. Maybe we should try again and attach it to all CIRP cites? You, being ever so NPOV and all would maybe like to try a draft of a suitable warning in this regard? - Friends of Robert 04:08, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whether a person is an admirer of foreskin or a mutilator of young boys has little relevance in this article. If CIRP posted a recipe for oatmeal cookies, you'd slap "anticircumcision" on the page hinting that the cookies were awful. Bottom line here is that many men who restore their foreskins have chosen circumcision voluntarily or had a genuine medical need to cope with. Many of them knew their situation before circumcision, and preferred it. I hope you agree that this article is primarily about after the cut is done for whatever reason. It should not judge an individual's circumcision one way or the other. If you want to mention that men engaged in foreskin restoration also tend to oppose circumcision of infants, that is a fair addition. DanP 17:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep in appropriate categories

The scientific basis of neurochemistry is no less relevant than a far-fetched glans study which has no mention of restoration. Pertaining to actual restoration, you can see before and after photos of glans texture. And this theory than the glans does not keritinize has been debunked time after time, as mucous membranes all respond in a similar manner in the body to severe dryness. In any case, leave the glans study out, or put it back, I don't care which. But if you include it, then you have to allow science of neural response to be discussed. The study, flawed as it is, total neglects nerve impulses and focuses only on certain physical parameters. DanP 17:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Revert wars

---

Although this article has been edited 40 times in October alone, very little has changed and not much progress has been made. Perhaps instead of continuing to rollback and revert changes to a few sections of this article so that it essentially cycles between two different versions, we could discuss the disputed sections here and find a solution.

If other editors are interested in discussing the disputed parts of this article with a goal of coming to a factually accurate version that is backed up by scientific evidence, please comment below. If necessary, we can take the dispute to Wikipedia:Requests for comment or even hold a vote, but anything is better than what's happening now.

Acegikmo1 04:51, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Circumcisiosexuals keep trying to tell the world what motivates us to restore. We know what motivates us better than a circumcisiophiliac ever could.

The circumcisiosexuals tell the world what they believe our goals in restoration are. I say that restorers know what our goals are better than the circumcisiophiliacs do.

The circumcisiosexuals say that restorers are insane. The restorers say that circumcisiophiliacs are insane. I have questions about the sanity of restorers:

• ¿Is a woman who lost a mammarian gland to cancer insane to want reconstructive surgery?
• Is a person who lost a nose to cancer insane to want a prosthetic nose?
• Is someone who lost an eye insane to want a glasseye?

Maybe two polls would be a polls would be a good idea. These are just mockups for working out the kinks:

| Mockup For Comment -- Not A Real Poll | ¿Should either Præputial Restorers or Circumcisiosexuals state both the motivations and the goals of Præputial Restorers? | / Mockup For Comment -- Not A Real Poll |

Comments

Yes

No

| Mockup For Comment -- Not A Real Poll | ¿Is it sane to want to be normal and whole? | / Mockup For Comment -- Not A Real Poll |

Comments

Yes

No

Groundrules:

1. No Anonymous Contributes can vote
2. No user registered after 2004-10-01 can vote
3. Only one of the accounts of Robert Brookes can vote
4. Everyone including anonymous editors, people registered after 2004-10-01 can, and all of the accounts of Robert Brookes can comment

¿Is this acceptable?

Ŭalabio 07:21, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

---

The last poll you try to hold had no takers. Why should this be any different? People are getting wise to what floats the collective boats of foreskin restorers and it is increasingly at odds with what these sad people try to sell as their motivation. We need to include in the article the dubious motivations behind the need to hang weights from their penises. No sugar coating can be acceptable. - Robert the Bruce 09:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure and I can write an article about what motivates circumcisiophiliacs. The thought ogf a glansbeing exposed for the first time and forever is very stimulating to circumcisiosexuals. Circumcisiophiliacs like to have all glandes exposed. ¿Why do circumcisiosexuals want to cut children? ¿Why do circumcisiophiliacs go to masscircumcisions as tourists? ¿Why do groups of circumcisiosexuals pay intact narcotics-users money to masturbate one last time by means of the præpuce before circumcising him so high and tight that we probably will never orgasm again? ¿Why do circumcisiophiliacs like to fellate baby-boys after sexually mutilating them? I would not sugarcoat my article about you.

Post Scriptum:

You are lust mad that you lost the poll.

Ŭalabio 17:58, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

This does seem to be getting silly. Why are some contributors to determined to cover up (no pun intended) relevant scientific evidence? - Jakew 10:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see two problems with your argument:

1. You cite Google-Group-Posts as evidence
2. You rewrite the reasons Præputial Restorers give for restoring and what our goals are

1. For every Google-Group-Post you cite, I could cite two Usenetnewsgroupposts, which you could counter with three saved IM-chats, which I could counter with four pictures of graffiti scrolled on a wall.

2. Only restorers know what motivates restorers. Only restorers know what our goals are. If a newspaper rewrote the stated motivations and goals of someone, people would say that the newspaper is worse than CBS and Fox. Ŭalabio 17:58, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Not true. Many people who care to read up on the issue know what floats their boats. Take this "gem" for example ... "My Russian roommate a couple summers ago had the tightest possible foreskin spout. I'd love to imitate his look if it is possible." Now a simple question. Is that psycho sexual or what? Now no one would really mind these people hanging weights from their penises if they kept to themselves but when they challenge other peoples religious and cultural practices in order to attempt to make their rather dubious practice respectable they need to be challenged themselves. Obviously they do not like people digging into their highly suspect motivations. Sad, very sad. - Robert the Bruce 05:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not the one into cutting infants. Restorers do not want forced restoration of all sexually mutilated men. You, on the other hand, want forced nontherapeutic medically unnecessary circumcision of all minors.Ŭalabio 07:58, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

• I am? Nah. What I believe is that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical considerations. Now do be careful, if you carry on with the personal attacks you will shortly have Theresa in stepping again to cover your tracks. - Robert the Bruce 08:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

¿Whose body? ¿Whose rights? ¿Is the baby property of the parents? ¿Do the parents have to live with results of the sexual mutilation? The parents should keep their hands off of the genitals of children.

Ŭalabio 09:49, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

I have not covered anyone's tracks. We have a policy of removing personal attacks here, and when i see someone making personal attacks i remove them. The tracks are perfectly visible in the history. Anything that anyone says is in the history somewhere and can be used in evidence against them at disciplinary proceedings later on. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 08:55, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Perhaps one can be forgiven for seeing such urgent interevention which was not followed up by any disciplinary procedings as suspicious? Not very evenhanded you must agree. Anyway now that you are back ... no feined neutrality please. - Robert the Bruce 09:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since you are not neutral in this matter perhaps you will recuse yourself from all circ related articles? Your presence actually makes it more difficult for people to deal with the anti circ activists. No feigned neutrality on your part please. You are a pro circ activist. You are only hear to fight with the anti circ mob. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 22:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• It is good that we are starting to get things straight here. With me and dare I say it "the anti circ mob" it is a case of WYSIWYG. Unfortunately this is not so with many of the admin types who choose to get involved from behind a mask of feigned and contrived neutrality. One could name the offenders in this regard but that would be counter productive. Now is it not time for the likes of you and Acegikmo1 to fess up to exactly where you stand on the issues? - Robert the Bruce 04:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh so Acegikimo is an anticirc activist too? And Eloquence and Hadal. Why according to you 
everyone is. So why are you here. If we are all' a bunch of anticirc pov pushers, what are 
you doing in Wikipedia? Theresa Knott  (The torn steak) 07:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Everyone? Theresa you should really stop this childish exaggeration. I'll restrict my fingering of individuals to the two of you for starters. Hadal? Who knows and who cares. But Eloquence, now there is a beauty for you if I ever saw one. Have you noticed how he shoots out of the blocks and shrieks everytime he hears the words "skin freak"? heh heh heh. OK, enough of the fun stuff then. Now are you going to contribute or just going to try and goad me into saying something to give you the excuse to haul me before the AC? I ask you once again Theresa ... please get off my case. - Robert the Bruce 16:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry Robert Brookes but i have no intention of getting off your case. You are rude antagonistic POV pusher who is only here to argue with the anticirc mob.. I'll ask you again. Since you are not neutral in this matter please recuse yourself from these pages. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 16:42, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• After you my dear ... (ladies first). - Robert the Bruce 16:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disputed sections

Since people responded to my comment above, I think we should get to work and start looking at the disputed sections.

• Under "Overview", the disputed text is, "Some circumcised men want their foreskin restored to try to regain lost sexual sensitivity, while others have different reasons such as comfort, appearance, or a sense of completion." I believe this is disputed because the issue of whether foreskin restoration actually improves sexual sensitivity is contested. What do people think of the following compromise: "Some circumcised men want their foreskin restored because they believe it will improve the appearance of their penis, give them a sense of completion, or provide them with greater comfort and sexual sensitivy."

• The next disputed section of the text is, "Unlike circumcision of minors, this process of restoration is generally carried out by adult men on a voluntary basis." While this is true, it doesn't seem very relevent in context. Perhaps we could say, "Many men who undergo foreskin restoration were circumcized as minors. While they generally oppose the circumcision of minors, they embrace foreskin restoration as a voluntary process."

• Under Physical Aspects, the disputed text relates to sexual sensitivity and keritanization.

• • One version reads, "Some men have also reported decreased levels of keratin of the glans due to this process...A widely reported effect is improvement in sensitivity. The coverage of the glans tends to allow the glans texture and sensitivity to be restored to a quality similar to that of natural genitalia. ...In addition, the new foreskin is usually very sensitive in itself, which cited as a benefit separate from changes in glans sensitivity. In either case, the majority of men who have restored their foreskins feel satisfied with the process."

• • The alternate text is "Despite evidence that circumcision does not lead to increased keratinization [1] and a reduction in sensitivity of the glans [2] some foreskin restorers make claims of increased sensitivity and reduced keratinization through foreskin restoration."

Unless the first version can be supported by evidence, I think we should go with the second version for now. Some time ago, DanP challenged the Bleustein study. He stated,

An important discovery is that the touch receptors in the glans are no longer stimulated thoughout the day by contact with clothing. Touch-sensitive nerves are mechanoreceptors, and have the property that constant stimuli can diminish the action potential over time. With genitals, this can have an effect on how touch, or in some cases sexual response, is interpreted by the brain. This effect is not easily measurable, and is much the same as the perceived elevated sensitivity of covered skin in general. For example, when skin is tightly bandaged or covered by a cast for a sustained period of time and then exposed to the air, the skin can feel more sensitive to the touch.

Therefore, it is probable that the perceived sensitivity gains of foreskin restoration may not include a physical change in glans sensitivity, except for men who have extreme scarring and keritinization to cope with. Instead, changes in glans sensitivity may be qualitative and neurochemical in effect.

If he can support this by external resources, I don't object to it going in the article (though it could probably be simplified). I'm interested in what people have to say about my proposals.

Sincerely,

Acegikmo1 17:21, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the screwedup merge after our editconflict (check history if you want to see what happened). Your ideas are good, but one thing not addressed is the circumcisiophiliacs telling us and the world what our goals and motivations are. We can speak for ourselves. Another issue is that the circumcisiosexuals want to make us look insane for wanting whole intact complete normal bodies.

Ŭalabio 18:14, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Regarding DanP's comments, I highly doubt that he'll be able to provide supporting evidence for something that he claims is "not easily measurable". Still, we'll see.

Regarding Ŭalabio's comments, firstly please be respectful towards those who disagree with you, and avoid such name-calling as 'circumcisiophiliacs' and 'circumcisiosexuals'. Secondly, restorers may know their own motivations (though not always), but they may not know those of others. It's very easy to assume everyone is like ourselves, isn't it, and sometimes this can trick us. Perhaps we can resolve this by scouring the literature for documented motivations? Finally, nobody wants restorers to look insane, and that is not the purpose of Wiki. The purpose is to provide accurate information, so that people can make up their own minds. - Jakew 18:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2004-10-18T18:39 (UTC), Jakew:

Regarding DanP's comments, I highly doubt that he'll be able to provide supporting evidence for something that he claims is "not easily measurable". Still, we'll see.

I disagree. Anecdotally, most of us have had casts removed. We can attest that skin feels more sensitive. On the side of mechanoreceptors going numb from overstimulation, I present what OSHA has to say about the subject. Unless you wish to challenge both the accounts of people who had casts removed and OSHA, I plan to include the information.

Regarding Ŭalabio's comments, firstly please be respectful towards those who disagree with you, and avoid such name-calling as 'circumcisiophiliacs' and 'circumcisiosexuals'.

¿What would you like one to call your group? ¿What would you like one to call members of your group? At any rate, both circumcisiophiliacs and circumcisiosexuals are accurate terms.

Secondly, restorers may know their own motivations (though not always), but they may not know those of others. It's very easy to assume everyone is like ourselves, isn't it, and sometimes this can trick us. Perhaps we can resolve this by scouring the literature for documented motivations?

If you want to add motivation from the literature, fine. Please stop changing the stated reasons for restoring from restorers. I want to be whole complete intact and normal with better sexual function.

Finally, nobody wants restorers to look insane, and that is not the purpose of Wiki. The purpose is to provide accurate information, so that people can make up their own minds. - Jakew 18:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

¿What about that junk your camp slipped in about restorers being homosexuals with psycho sexual problems about restores being homosexual with psychosexual problems (that description better describes your camp)? I am a heterosexual man. I suffered from circumcisiogenic anorgamia. I suppose that your solution would be to get a subincision. I decided to restore -- not further sexually mutilate myself. Thanks to restoration, I can do amazing feats such as preform manual prostate-maintenance without lubricants. Much more importantly, I can make love now. I am psychosexually more health now than in a decade thanks to restoration:

Loneliness and sexual frustration did not leave me in the best psychological state. Now, I am more content than anytime in over a decade.

Ŭalabio 09:40, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Your proposed changes to the first two sections look good. However I suggest adding the word "non-therapeutic" to the second sentence in the second section. "While they generally oppose the non-therapeutic circumcision of minors, they embrace foreskin restoration as a voluntary process." -- DanBlackham 07:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ŭalabio, You say:

Unless you wish to challenge both the accounts of people who had casts removed and OSHA, I plan to include the information.

Now, regarding the OSHA, you offer this. Note that this relates to vibration, which was tested by Bleustein. In other words, this has been disproven. I believe that anecdotal accounts have already been referred to (indeed, without these, it would be pointless to refer to the placebo effect).

Regarding labels for "my group", I see no need to pigeon-hole myself, though the term "scientist" is adequate. If you continue to indulge in personal attacks, I intend to report the behaviour.

You say:

I want to be whole complete intact and normal with better sexual function.

That's fine, but those are your motivations, not necessarily those of every restorer.

What about that junk your camp slipped in about restorers being homosexuals with psychosexual problems

It sounds like you're referring to Mohl et al. It's a valid scientific study. If you object to it, why not also include scientific research giving your POV? Deleting scientific research simply because you don't like it is not NPOV.

Look, I'm sorry you have suffered from anorgasmia, and I'm sorry that you believe it's due to circumcision, but from what you've said, it seems overwhelmingly probable that it's psychosomatic. Are you aware that depression is a known cause of many sexual dysfunctions?

- Jakew 10:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2004-10-17T10:47 (UTC), Jakew:

Ŭalabio, You say:

Unless you wish to challenge both the accounts of people who had casts removed and OSHA, I plan to include the information.

Now, regarding the OSHA, you offer this. Note that this relates to vibration, which was tested by Bleustein. In other words, this has been disproven. I believe that anecdotal accounts have already been referred to (indeed, without these, it would be pointless to refer to the placebo effect).

I not believe that anyone has disproven that vibration causes numbness

Regarding labels for "my group", I see no need to pigeon-hole myself, though the term "scientist" is adequate. If you continue to indulge in personal attacks, I intend to report the behaviour.

Most scientist do not want to cut genitals. ¿What should one call a scientist interested in cutting genitals?

You say:

I want to be whole complete intact and normal with better sexual function.

That's fine, but those are your motivations, not necessarily those of every restorer.

As I stated, rather than changing my stated motivations, ¿why not find out what motivates others? and add that information to the article.

¿What about that junk your camp slipped in about restorers being homosexuals with psychosexual problems?

It sounds like you're referring to Mohl et al. It's a valid scientific study. If you object to it, why not also include scientific research giving your POV? Deleting scientific research simply because you don't like it is not NPOV.

It is junkscience because it is demonstratably wrong. Most restorers are heterosexual well-adjusted men.

Look, I'm sorry you have suffered from anorgasmia, and I'm sorry that you believe it's due to circumcision, but from what you've said, it seems overwhelmingly probable that it's psychosomatic. Are you aware that depression is a known cause of many sexual dysfunctions?

¡Oh! ¡That must be it! ¡Depression causes tight painful erections!

- Jakew 10:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ŭalabio 20:11, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

---

Ŭalabio, you say:

I not believe that anyone has disproven that vibration causes numbness

Bleustein tested sensitivity to vibration. How much vibration are we talking about here? Sure, if men were resting pneumatic drills on their penes, I can see your point.

You ask:

¿What should one call a scientist interested in cutting genitals?

You've already answered that question perfectly well with that description.

You describe Mohl's study as:

It is junkscience because it is demonstratably wrong. Most restorers are heterosexual well-adjusted men.

I ask you for your evidence. I have none available regarding sexuality of restorers, but as for well-adjusted, that seems unlikely. There is relatively little evidence in the literature, but half of the respondents in Hammond's survey of male anti-circers were restorers, so perhaps that is a good start. Half suffer low self esteem, 55% dysmorphophobia, 59% were depressed. 41% had problems with physical intimacy. Almost a third - 29% - had some kind of chemical or behavioural dependency problem. This hardly seems a good description of a well-adjusted man to me.- Jakew 20:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is very important information! 

People must know these facts about foreskin retorers. What an interesting yet alarming insight 
into the minds of these people. It is absolutely essential to any article on foreskin restoration.
Please insert it all without delay! - Robert the Bruce 05:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) 

2004-10-17T20:34 (UTC), Jakew:

Ŭalabio, you say:

I not believe that anyone has disproven that vibration causes numbness

Bleustein tested sensitivity to vibration. How much vibration are we talking about here? Sure, if men were resting pneumatic drills on their penes, I can see your point.

¿How about the glans rubbing against underwear as the man walks?

You ask:

¿What should one call a scientist interested in cutting genitals?

You've already answered that question perfectly well with that description.

¿Circumcisiologist?

You describe Mohl's study as:

It is junkscience because it is demonstratably wrong. Most restorers are heterosexual well-adjusted men.

I ask you for your evidence. I have none available regarding sexuality of restorers, but as for well-adjusted, that seems unlikely. There is relatively little evidence in the literature, but half of the respondents in Hammond's survey of male anti-circers were restorers, so perhaps that is a good start. Half suffer low self esteem, 55% dysmorphophobia, 59% were depressed. 41% had problems with physical intimacy. Almost a third - 29% - had some kind of chemical or behavioural dependency problem. This hardly seems a good description of a well-adjusted man to me.

All of the respondents are sexually mutilated men. No wonder they are unhappy. Restoration has given me happiness. Let me tell you about someone very much like me I found at a restorationgroup:

I met a restorer in his eighties. Do to tight painful erections, he never orgasmed coitally. He does not want to die an half virgin (penetration but no orgasm) but he does not have much time left. His marriage disintegrated over fifty years ago over violent painful nonreproductive sex (if he worked very hard with petroleum jelly and a vice-like grip for over an hour, he could have something for artificial insemination, but that is not very husbandly). H tried coitus again over the years to the same disasterous effects with different women.

Imagine how much happier his life would have been if he would have discovered Præputial Restoration sixty years ago. Better yet, imagine how much better his whole life would be if the greedy Ob/Gyn never would have sexually mutilated him.

- Jakew 20:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ŭalabio 21:58, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

---

Acegikmo1. Your efforts are not very helpful. All it seems you are hoping to achieve is to keep the pot boiling. A few points which seem to be lost on you.

• There is no physiological evidence that any reported improved sensitivity results from foreskin restoration. It is therefore merely psychosexual, psychosomatic and an example of the placebo effect, with no real change in glans sensitivity. This in itself is fine as long as it is recognised and that you do not draw or promote the drawing of such a conclusion that there was any sensitivity depravation to begin with.

• It is obvious that men embarking on foreskin restoration (rather than undergoing) would have been circumcised. Dah. Any efforts to elaborate on this is merely an attempt to get in a cheap shot about routine neonatal circumcision. How low do you want to go?

• The physical aspects section should be left as is other than if you wish to state that a "big" reason some of these restorers want a foreskin is through their attraction to the item as a sex toy. My best advice is therefore to leave it be as to do that would surely open a can of worms which will make the restorers apoplectic.

Finally, I suggest it is time you drop the pretense of being an "honest broker" in this. State rather you POV openly and resist the temptation of trying to POV push by stealth and misrepresentation. - Robert the Bruce 09:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article is not specifically about circumcision, so discussing pros and cons of circumcision here is inappropriate. This article is about foreskin restoration, and there is indeed a minority of restoring men who are not actively opposed to infant circumcision, or simply do not care. We do not add to the circumcision article any psychiatric value-judgements of men who elect circumcision voluntarily. Nor should any article "judge" a process of adults who choose something freely, whether it's breast reconstruction, genital piercing, or foreskin restoration, by including name-calling or not-so-subtle accusations of mental imbalance.

So I ask you, what would you ask as possible proof one way or the other? If anyone doubts the effects of covered vs. uncovered skin, have you never had a cast or skin bandaged for long periods of time? Was sensitivity the same when the skin was suddenly exposed? And remember that some cultures years ago have boosted sensitivity of the feet through foot binding. That's not to say it's a good idea IMO, given important uses for the feet, but there is a clear example of sensitivity variation. The action potential of nerves is well-understood in a scientific context. The only reason I say it's difficult to measure is that your glans sensitivity article ignores the nerves and focuses only on narrow physical criteria ignoring the nervous system itself. When MRI studies or nerve-impulses are measured directly, that would carry some weight. DanP 17:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Compromise

People, I've just tried to stop this ludicrous revert war getting out of hand. I've edited the article into what I hope is a good compromise. Can we please try to get some agreement on this? - Jakew 18:13, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is only ludricrous because you wish for a total double-standard to remain. If foreskin restoration is presented as insane or mentally ill, then circumcision should be presented as just as insane and mentally ill, if you want a neutral point-of-view, that is. Please remove your discussion of self-esteem from your proposed edits. You confuse cause and effect by presenting them with your own spin. Apparently, if a guy (ie.a male) feels hurt, that's a good reason to doubt him in your mind as to negative effects of circumcision. That's not sound logic, and indeed no other discipline would tolerate such hate speech. Self-esteem is sometimes a motivator of restoration -- and self-esteem is sometimes impacted by circumcision -- it is not a reason to doubt someone. Trivializing the pain and problems of others has no merit in any article on Wikipedia, and no other Wikipedia article that I'm aware of makes efforts to discredit someone solely on that basis. Why would you try that with this one? DanP 19:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

DanP, I believe that we should address circumcision in the circumcision article(s), and restoration in this one. If we're to have a discussion of the psychological aspects, then surely it's reasonable to present both sides?

---

Continuing editing towards a compromise. Comments:

• I'm changing "regain lost sexual sensitivity" to "gain sexual sensitivity". The phrasing "regain lost" assumes that it has actually been lost. "Gain" makes no assumption. Let's keep it neutral. We discuss sensitivity issues further down, anyway.
• I'm changing "Unlike circumcision of minors, this process of restoration" to "The process of restoration". There is no need to refer to circumcision here. As another has observed, the only purpose it serves is a cheap shot at circumcision.
• I'm changing "Some of the young men undergoing" to "Some men undergoing", as to my knowledge this opinion isn't solely resticted to restorers under a certain age. Do you have information to the contrary?
• I'm temporarily deleting "Some men have also reported decreased levels of keratin of the glans due to this process". That's interpretation, not observation. What have they really reported? Hint: noone is able to measure levels of keratin without microscope slides. Otherwise, I propose that we go with this version of this paragraph, rather than that beginning with "Further such claims have been made", as it seems closer to NPOV.
• I'm reintroducing "Despite evidence that circumcision does not lead to increased keratinization" since it is more scientifically accurate.
• In light of above discussions, I'm happy to leave out the reference to Hammond's survey.

- Jakew 19:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with many of your points. Although "gain" might be taken as "net gain", implying that the restored man is better off than the intact one (which I suppose you guys would say yes, so I'll try some neutral term). I'm OK with moving circumcision info to the correct article, although some overlap is inevitable when getting down to specifics. The importance of "young men" is that those men are in a better position to know, and older guys don't discuss that too much. But I see your point, as opinion is possible for anyone.

With regard to keritinization, I agree about measurements being needed for factual statements about keritin levels. But no such quantitative claims are made. None of that changes the fact that a layer of cells suddenly sloughs off for some restored guys in an obvious manner. While I do not believe this can be asserted "precisely", that does not eliminate the fact that it happens. We don't cast doubt on coating of a tongue or chapped lips merely because exact keritin levels are unmeasured. DanP 19:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding (de-)keratinisation, if they're reporting the appearance of peeling or sloughing of tissue, then it seems reasonable to say so. - Jakew 20:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) Addendum: Would you prefer "to increase their sexual sensitivity"? This might be less likely to be confused with "net gain" (I have to say I find it unlikely that it'd be read that way, but in the spirit of compromise...)

I changed it to "try to improve sensitivity", which I hope leaves both options open (net gain and the relative gain). Yes, for some, it is a visible peeling a little at a time. In the extreme case, it's a "big toenail" that comes off all at once. Of course, that is only for severely thick keritin/scar tissue since the glans surface is ripped off rather severely in many circumcisions, with only the healing process of the individual determining the end result. I also added info on ejaculations, which only really applies to guys who had problems with early ejaculation in their circumcised state.DanP 21:02, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy with "try to improve sensitivity". I deleted "sensory changes", because it's redundant after "improve sensitivity". I'm happy with the changes in "young men". Do you have any supporting evidence regarding delay of ejaculation?

I've incorporated some of the scientific studies into your (DanP's) structure for anecdotal reports. - Jakew 21:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I think that Jakew's edits have improve the neutrality and accuracy of the article quite a bit. The wording about the claimed benefits of foreskin restoration has been improved, while other information has been changed to reflect the context better. I'm comfortable with the current version of the article, though I think the following changes might be appropriate:

• "Men who have lost their foreskin through circumcision or injury may choose this option as an alternative to remaining circumcised." I think the last part of this sentence could be worded better. It makes it seem as if circumcision can be "undone" by foreskin restoration. I think the sentence should reflect the fact that foreskin restoration involves providing coverage of the glans, not a literal reversal of circumcision.

• "Sensory changes to the glans (head) of the penis are also believed to take place." By whom? I think that use of the passive voice in an article like this (especially regarding such a hotly contested issue as sensitivity) violates the NPOV policy.

• "Surgical methods of foreskin restoration, sometimes known as foreskin reconstruction, have generally not been satisfactory and can result in a net loss of sensitivity. " Why have they not been satisfactory? Is the purpose of foreskin restoration to provide coverage of the glans or to improve sensitivity? If the latter is more often true, this should be stated earlier.

Acegikmo1 22:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Acegikmol, you raise some good points. I agree that the sentence beginning "men who have lost" could use some work. It feels very awkward in the choice of words.

I've deleted "sensory changes", since I intended to do so earlier (see above). I believe that we should cover purpose (or motivation) separately from the effects, in order to avoid confusion.

To be fair, all methods of restoration can result in a net loss of sensitivity (even skin expansion, the least invasive method, decreases the density of nerve endings as an inevitable result of increasing surface area). As you imply, success must be measured against the purpose. - Jakew 23:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that only some effects are undone, and you would have to take this broader debate to other areas like breast reconstruction. The density of nerve endings is not diluted in such a linear fashion. If you research skin expansion techniques, the new tissue is a "dividend" not a "loan". The ejaculation-control issue should not be taken as "across the board" benefit, nor should this be tied to purely psychological premature ejaculation (probably much more common, although a combination of the two is a possibility). A CIRP page [3] lists some various references under premature ejaculation, and there are many pages of men who've had excessive corona stimulation which just fires things off, sort of all-or-nothing instead of gradual build-to-climax. I guess the various gels on the market to prolong orgasm are meant to be applied to the glans and corona, so the effect of foreskin restoration is comparable. In fact, run a Google search for "corona frenulum trigger", and there is information out there about many guys consider this the ejaculation trigger, including some guys with spinal cord injury. Again, I ask you and Richard to leave out the glans sensitivity study, unless you will welcome a more thorough paragraph discussing nerve impulses and other neurological factors known to affect sensitivity. Also, the glans is different in intact men (and those circumcised after childhood), so I don't feel it's appropriate to generalize the study to restored men whose glans, years earlier has been scarred and usually undergone meatal stenosis. DanP 23:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Logically, Dan, the density of nerve endings must reduce, since the number of nerves is fixed. But I feel we're getting side-tracked here. Evidence regarding ejaculation is decidedly contradictory - while CIRP do list a few references, they look decidedly weak. There's also Senkul and Laumann's studies which show greater time to ejaculate. But, in fairness, all of these compare circumcised with uncircumcised rather than with restored, so although it may well be applicable, we're speculating somewhat. For purposes of the article, I've changed the wording slightly - see what you think. I've included the sensitivity study (who is Richard?), as the implications of this for restoration have been specifically discussed in the BMJ. My understanding of NPOV is that instead of trying to silence one viewpoint, we include a contrasting viewpoint as well. Therefore, I don't object in principle to your including a discussion paragraph, though we'll doubtless have to thrash out the contents! - Jakew 09:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jakew. I'm am not sure the leaving out of the Hammond findings on significant mental patholgy 
and substance abuse among foreskin restorers contributes to the quality of this article. 
Somehow these sad sick people have come to focus on their lack of a foreskin as the reason for 
all their ills. Whatever the cause of their mental condition it remains clear that more than 
half are very sick puppies. I mean who in their right mind would embark on years of hanging 
weights from their penis? Surely the best way to solve this "problem" is through hypnosis and 
not bizarre gentially focused rituals? The Hammond findings should be included. I will add them
unless a very persuasive argument is made to the contrary. - Robert the Bruce 17:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When some men learn the following facts about male circumcision they become justifiably angry:

• Infant circumcision is not medically necessary, i.e. there is no medical indication for cutting off a normal, healthy part of a baby boy's penis.
• No national or international medical organization in the world recommends that boys should be circumcised.
• The part of a male's foreskin that is cut off by circumcision contains a high concentration of specialized nerves.
• The United States is the only country in the world where most baby boys are circumcised for non-religious reasons.

When they learn these facts some men feel that their basic human rights were violated when a normal, healthy part of their penis was cut off without a valid medical indication in the same way they feel that the basic human rights of girls in Africa are violated by female genital cutting. -- DanBlackham 21:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While those facts may well be so (with the exception of the "specialized" nerves), the fact remains that only a relatively small number of men actually develop these psychiatric symptoms. Logic, then, suggests that something predisposes them to reacting in such a manner. It's difficult to know what, precisely, this is, and I hope that future research will address these issues, but based upon my own encounters as well as the work of Mohl et al, it seems to be a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder. This is of course a generalisation, and there are doubtless exceptions, but it seems that in many cases there is a sense of dissatisfaction with life, and often sex in particular, and "discovering" that something has been taken away from one is the perfect scapegoat - something that wasn't one's fault. Just some thoughts to ponder. - Jakew 22:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dan, I think I see what you're aiming at with the keratinisation changes, but the fact is that Szabo and Short found no difference in any male. I've suggested 'among those studied' as a compromise. I have reintroduced the sensitivity data again - as I've said before, neutrality does not mean censoring one viewpoint. By all means, however, add a "some consider Bleustein's research to be inaccurate, however..." paragraph, but please stop trying to delete it altogether! - Jakew 23:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please excuse me Jake, but I will ask you to avoid your hate speech, as restoration involves no "scapegoat". If you said that about anything else inflicted so systematically on people with flavor of "oh, it's just a scapegoat, so be quiet now", it would be immediately seen as bigotry. A big genital scar after parts are ripped off is far from being a scapegoat. Indeed, some folks think torturing babies via circumcision is a "scapegoat" for a doctor or a parent to "excuse" their own problems and past mistakes by striving to make junior just as miserable. Neither style of automatic judgement should force its way into our discussions on article content -- it is neither universal among any group, nor is it relevant. You make some good points on keritinization (sorry, I meant Robert before, not Richard). Although the glans study is not very inclusive of young men, and is quite contrary to many real-world experiences. Further, certainly one could not say keratin levels are identical in childhood -- I hope you agree they differ vastly almost by necessity. So perhaps they converge with age, that is the one possibility. Keratin seems to be all over the human body, but less so in moist mucosa, and more so in older people. My tongue seems to be rougher and duller with age too, and indeed there is plenty of published evidence that the sense of taste diminishes with age. I suppose we can post photomicroscopy of shedded keratin layers, if you insist. But I will admit certainly some men are totally unaffected by this phenomena, and indeed some restoring men report no keratin change at all. I think the article should leave open both possibilities DanP 00:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Restoration needs no scapegoat, but the motivations behind it may (or indeed may not). Discussion of motivations is not hate speech and in the context of this (talk) page is quite legitimate. Regarding keratin and the glans, I have made (yet another) attempt at neutrality. I'm not happy with "some men" phrasing when referring to comparative scientific research - the research suggests that the anecdotal reports are anomalous, not vice-versa. I believe that my new phrasing is NPOV. - Jakew 01:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem discussing motivations. The men who undergo restoration know their motivations, not a researcher who has never experienced or understood the process. The glans information pertains to intact and circumcised men, not restoring men whose glans quite differs from both. In Wikipedia, there is much more real-world information in every article, and only a little bit of information directly out of laboratories. I mention the circumcision article because it has turned into a circus of research references, which is not exactly helpful to scatter in the main body of articles. Concerning hate-speech, yes it is hate speech if you're branding men as psychopaths. I am sure you'd oppose such accusations in the circumcision article. Any accusations you choose to make, or groups you think are scapegoating -- that is your prejudice, not mine. DanP 22:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dan, To be fair, not all motivations are consciously understood, so it may be unrealistic to say that anyone truly knows their motivations. It isn't accurate to say that the glans of a restorer is different from that of an uncircumcised or circumcised man - while the penis differs slightly, the glans does not (or, if it does, this has yet to be documented). In my view, it's unsurprising that the circumcision article has a lot of scientific data - it is, after all, a scientific subject. I'm sorry that you find this detrimental to the article. Back to this article (like any other), we must ensure that statements are reasonable and factual. At present, science offers the best way of arriving at truth - what else is there? My intent isn't to brand restorers as psychopaths, but to better understand and describe. If we imagine that someone is depressed and obsessed with a missing foreskin, that offers a better understanding regarding why he might want to do this, doesn't it? It's irrational to be offended by a clinical description of that state, just as it would be irrational to be offended by being described as 'suffering from flu'. - Jakew 22:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So you'd welcome a "motivations" paragraph in the circumcision article, complete with circumfetishism and psychological studies of circumcision and aggression? No different than 'suffering form the flu', right? Personally, I'd welcome circumcision and restoration both being described on that level, but I doubt you would. Regarding research, reasonable and factual is good. But reason and fact should not be obscured with prejudice. You say it isn't accurate to say the glans is different, but why is it accurate to say they are the same? Isn't that quite a leap to make? Is the glans of a female, or a chimpanzee for that matter, identical in keratin level? The glans study says nothing about restoration. DanP 23:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Dan, I think that a motivations paragraph would be most interesting. I wouldn't oppose such an inclusion, provided that statements were backed up with scientific evidence (as opposed to empty speculation). In principle, you're correct that it isn't strictly accurate to say that the glans is the same, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is perhaps the most logical assumption. While you're correct that studies do not address restoration specifically, isn't restoration fundamentally based on the idea of replicating the uncircumcised anatomy as closely as possible? Either coverage has an effect, or it does not. If it does, then it must be a measurable effect. Logical? - Jakew 23:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the Overview

We need to get the overview right. I have made the necessary initial change. The next one should include the psycho sexual motivation behind this bizarre practice. I accept that there will be resistance to any wording along those lines so I will see what suggested wording others may introduce before offering my own version. - Robert the Bruce 02:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed, "...the erroneous belief that it will improve sensitivity. However, most restorers have a more base psychosexual motivation."

The belief hasn't been proven "erroneous"; One study that found no difference in the sensitivity of the glans in uncircumcised and circumcised men is hardly proof that foreskin restoration has no effect on sensitivity.

I removed the second sentence for a similar reason: no evidence was provided that "restorers have a more base psychosexual motivation", so the addition of this statement is a biased attack. I have left in Robert's addition, (The motivation behind the desire for foreskin restoration is complex in nature and stems from an emotional or physcological need to achieve a sense of "completion" or "wholeness".), but I'd like to see some references to back it up.

Acegikmo1 05:56, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that Robert the Bruce is correct in that the overview does require some work. The questions this article needs to answer, in effect, are: "what is it?" "why do people do that?" "how do they do it?" and "what are the consequences?" (have I missed any?). In my opinion, we should delete the sentence "Men who have lost their foreskin through circumcision..." from the introduction, and expand the overview, possibly creating a "motivation" section to cover the second question. In my view, the question "why on earth would anyone want to do that?" remains totally unaddressed in this article, and we should at least attempt to answer that.

Acegikmo1, instead of the word "erroneous", would you be happy with "questionable" or "controversial"?

Robert the Bruce, I think that we should avoid judgmental words like "bizarre", and preferably "psychosexual". NPOV dictates that we should allow the evidence to speak for itself and let the reader decide. Agreed?

- Jakew 09:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Improved sensitivity is only "questionable" or "controversial" to people who promote medically unnecessary circumcision. The majority of men who have restored their foreskin report improved sensitivity. In my opinion men who have restored their foreskin have more credibility on the issue of sensitivity than people with a strong pro-circumcision POV. -- DanBlackham 10:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

DanBlackham, there is a great difference between perceived and actual sensitivity. I don't doubt that many men perceive improved sensitivity, but that doesn't imply that there is an empirical difference. Neither your opinion nor mine should form the basis of the structure of this article. An understanding of the relative merits of various kinds of evidence shows that anecdotal evidence is less valuable than comparative scientific research (consider the fallacy of the striking instance). The POV should not come into the equation, since for a POV to be relevant, the analysis must be subjective rather than objective. - Jakew 11:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that some men report improved sensitivity after foreskin restoration is accurate. However, since no studies have demonstrated this, we must be careful not to assert it as fact. I think that Jakew's suggestion that we describe the improved sensitivity as "controversial" is a particularly good characterization. Acegikmo1 15:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Circumcision Promotional

I believe the linked article "How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection" for the keratin research is a cheap promotional for circumcision. Please consider finding a different article with less pro-mutilation spin. This article shouldn't get caught up in that debate, or else we really should balance by including links to information about restoration not being needed, had circumcision been avoided in the first place. We should either present both sides, or leave the topic in its correct article. DanP 23:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

DanP, do you have any specific objections to Szabo and Short's ground-breaking paper, other than a dislike for the general theme? The paper does present a finding that is highly relevant to the topic of restoration, and censoring it based solely on a whim is highly inappropriate. The Wiki article should be neither pro-circumcision nor anti-. Nor should it be pro-restoration or anti- (I remind you that restoration and circumcision have both been described as mutilations). We should provide references to back up statements, where appropriate, but aside from reinforcing a point, it's difficult to see why they should be inappropriate. - Jakew 10:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mutilation is usually tissue removal of some sort. Other alterations (piercing, tatooing, breast enlargement, etc.) do not often qualify either, but I am neutral on the perspective of mutilation necessarily being so all-encompassing. No I don't object to Szabo and Short's paper specifically. Their views should be welcomed. But the "circumcise to stop AIDS" theme is totally out of place here. I believe the article is just there as a back-door circumcision promotional. Do you have objections to placing direct links to research opposing circumcision in the context of this article? DanP 18:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You obviously don't regard it as a mutilation, DanP, and that's fair enough. It is a subjective term after all. I'm sorry that you don't like Szabo and Short's "theme", but that doesn't affect the relevance of their finding. If you like, you could change the link to my review instead[4]. As far as research "opposing" circumcision goes, if it introduces some data that is directly relevant, then I don't object to the inclusion (I've quoted "opposing", since true science should simply present the facts with neutrality; it should neither advocate nor oppose). - Jakew 18:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The so-called neutral science of Szabo and Short clearly promotes circumcision, as research should not treat a body part as completely disposable (imagine an article entitled "mastectomy is good for preventing breast cancer", biased? I think so.). I'm not suggesting omitting it from Wikipedia. It's good to have the study referenced. My point is that it's a cheap shot and a back-door insertion - no different that the obvious fact that circumcision is usually involuntary which you asked me to remove, despite its very clear connection to restoration and the personal choice associated with it. As far as mutilation, check your dictionary and the world in general. Cutting is usually mutilation. Yes, there are lacerations, piercings, etc. in the world. But body building is not mutilation, is it? Anyway, I am neutral on that expanded use. The point is that it's a treatment of personal choice, call it mutilation or not. DanP 18:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dan, saying "research should not..." is a value judgement that science, ideally, is supposed to be free from. Really good science asks about and states the painfully obvious. If referencing the article added nothing of relevance, then I would agree that it should be removed, but the finding relating to keratinisation is highly relevant to restoration, and I think that removing the study would be to the detriment of the article. As far as mutilation goes, I guess some might regard body building as a mutilation. A better example, perhaps, would be the stretching of the ear lobes. Some people see this as mutilation. I'm not saying that they're right - just that it is subjective. But, as I said, this discussion is really irrelevant to the discussion. If you'd like to continue, can I suggest we discuss by email? - Jakew 20:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly in fields of science. Unfortunately, that standard is not Wikipedia's, nor is it a principle of an encyclopedia in general, which has all people and backgrounds as an audience. NPOV does not make distinctions about good or bad science -- only that neither side of any debate should be advocated. There are many who, whether right or wrong, believe those studies are methodologically flawed. Expanding fully on that debate would be exhaustive and cripping to an article, but I'm OK with leaving it there as a matter of principle. Simply because circumcision is not the topic of this article does not preclude it from being advocated by various links and subtle techniques, which you have also sensed in the "unlike circumcision" phrase. I have added a link to Taylor's study, and information on tissue expansion, in the "physical effects" section. This seems at least as relevant as the glans study, since it studies what men might attempt to regain, and I hope this balances out the off-topic slant in the HIV-circumcision study in a balanced way. DanP 21:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Terminology

In reference to terms used in the article, I believe we should fix some terms which are inconsistently applied. I hope we can come to agreement here, since Robert's changes are somewhat confusing.

Circumcised men - Although I think the term is OK in moderation, it sounds like it "defines" the man like it's a race or something. I believe it would be appropriate here to treat this like other procedures. For instance, we don't say "tonsillectomized men" -- we just say a man who had a tonsillectomy.

Restorers - Restoration isn't a job, or a hobby, or some kind of profession. Certainly nobody self-applies that term, that I know of. The accurate phrase should just be: a man choosing foreskin restoration. For instance, a person who does their own pedicure is not a pedicurer. Restorer just doesn't work very well, IMO. When possible, we should use verbs to say what a person does, not what a person is.

Psychiatric - Robert has stuck this and other negative-POV stuff in here. If there are mental patients who restore, that is already clearly mentioned, even though the circumcision article does not contain psychiatric analyses. But the effort to constantly push POV beyond actual demographics should be reverted.

Anti-circumcision - As covered before, not all men who restore are active in genital integrity, nor is genital integrity against all circumcision. There are a few who restore that are concerned with themselves, figuring it won't be helpful to them personally to involve political baggage, and there many who simply don't care to get involved. Whether a person is for or against circumcision (adult or infant) should be left out, unless we want to include a paragraph on social and political aspects. I'd be fine with such a paragraph, although it's not tied strongly to the article. Few other voluntary body modifications have social and political paragraphs intertwined unless it's essential to understanding the topic. Alleged,reported,claimed - All perfectly fine in themselves, whether it supports or denies a physical change. But to string together several qualifiers all in the same sentence only serves to use loaded words to tell the reader "don't make up your own mind". Please use a neutral qualifier to leave the reader a choice. DanP 20:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hammond Poll

Although the Hammond poll mentions restoration briefly, the material focuses on consequences of circumcision. Whether or not a man chooses restoration is only one small part of the poll, and the whole BJU article is far more relevant to the circumcision article. I believe it is better to leave this article for restoration, not the circumcision debate. DanP 20:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Hammond is a leading anti-circumcision activist. The information from his poll would surely merit a mention, yes? The fact that he places information to the mental state of 50% of foreskin restorers in the public record is as valuable as his other so-called findings, no? We need the truth around here DanP, warts and all. The bottom line is that foreskin restorers are very troubled people. Some people need to learn to live with that fact. - Robert the Bruce 04:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While he is a leading anti-circ activist, more relevant is the fact that he is co-founder of the National Organization of Restoring Men (NORM). - Jakew 09:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• What a bummer. Imagine starting an organisation and then finding out that half your members are nutters. - Robert the Bruce 16:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Many of the men restoring have chosen circumcision for one reason or another, and many are not opposed to circumcision automatically. If you're going to make personal attacks and promote circumcision, take that to the circumcision article. Try to make your edits here tied to the process of foreskin restoration, instead of highlighting the damages caused by circumcision. DanP 18:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• The Hammond poll found that foreskin restorers were seriously troubled people with a range of issues. This is significant stuff which try as you may is not going to be swept away under the carpet. People should know and understand these facts about these people as it helps to place their claims into context and gives an indication as to why they behave the way they do. No matter how painful it may be to some it is the truth. Learn to live with it. - Robert the Bruce 01:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The poll and the damages caused by circumcision are relevant to the circumcision article. Nothing should be swept away, but if you want to include the poll in this article (even though this is on restoration which is a different process), don't just insert your POV and claim it is identical to the poll itself. Your efforts to continually assign psychiatric diagnoses to restoration are completely without merit.DanP 22:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Well it remains speculative whether the prevalence of mental illness and substance abuse among foreskin restorers has as a cause their circumcision. All we can say for sure is what Hammond found and that is indeed scary stuff. That is where the facts stand at the moment and the best advice is to learn to live with that. - Robert the Bruce 03:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The one thing we do know for sure is that circumcision of children is NOT medically necessary. That is not just my opinion; it is the opinion of every professional medical organization in the world that has a policy on circumcision. That is why the circumcision debate is now centered on ethics and human rights. -- DanBlackham 10:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True. Either way, it seems bizarre that Robert wants a poll on circumcision inserted here. Many men choose circumcision on their own or have a medical diagnosis that might indicate circumcision. They may or may not go on to restore, so the relevance to restoration here seems miniscule. So I'll leave it in without the POV Robert is fabricating, but use Hammond's words instead of Robert's. DanP 18:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why was the NORM link deleted?

Robert, why did you delete the link to National Organization of Restoring Men from the "External links" section on October 26? -- DanBlackham 10:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Can't think of why that happened. Its been put back. Apologies. - Robert the Bruce 00:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ridged Band

Jakew, according to the Taylor study, "smooth muscle bundles are common to both shaft skin and preputial mucosa". As I understand it, the tightness of the natural foreskin is attributed to the ridged band. The article should mention this distinction with restored foreskins, which still have dartos muscle, but are not as snug usually. Any recommendations on rewording? I am open to ideas here. DanP 19:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dan, why not just call it the Dartos muscle? That's what it is, after all. - Jakew 20:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That seems best actually. DanP 22:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Well as this is all idle speculation I suggest we consider deleting it as all it will achieve will be to confuse some people and infer some sort of scientific respectability on Taylor's rank speculation. - Robert the Bruce 00:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert, please stop your ad hominem attacks on Dr. Taylor. Dr. Taylor's article is an accurate description of the cellular anatomy of the foreskin.[5] He found that an intact male's foreskin has a high concentration of specialized nerve cells. -- DanBlackham 08:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert, some of this debate about ridged bands should move to the foreskin article. It is not exclusive to restoration. The mixture of POV about who is against or for circumcision -- again, not relevant here and it can move to the circumcision article. Restoration is after the fact. I didn't really see the need to put anything in the article from Hammond's poll, since it covers circumcision damage and is far enough removed from an encyclopedic description of foreskin restoration. But it is there, physical (which is what restoration mainly is) and psychological, even though restoration is only minimally mentioned in the poll. Plainly, Robert's POV is one thing I cannot find in Hammond's article whatsoever. DanP 23:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits

DanP, in your edit of 23:01, 4 Nov 2004, you incorrectly described your edit as "Removing the POV insertions". In fact, it was a wholesale revert to an earlier version more favourable to your POV. Why? - Jakew 23:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my above paragraph, I mentioned the obsessive insertions of Robert, who continues to apply circumcision-related material here. In this article, it's safe to assume a circumcision was already done. My POV would certainly not be what I reverted to, which has more of Hammond verbatim. But rather I'd prefer to move the circumcision stuff mostly to a more closely-related article. Some of it is OK and maybe loosely related, but Robert's POV is still absent from the Hammond article. He prefers to revert whenever I quote Hammond verbatim. So revert seems logical until that is recognized as a Robertism. DanP 01:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it's reasonable to assume that a circumcision has been done (though, as the article notes, some men want to stretch a natural foreskin). If you compare the Hammond paragraph as it first appeared with what's present now, you'll see that it is essentially neutral. It isn't appropriate to quote Hammond verbatim, since it's off-topic. Hammond's article was a propaganda piece, intended to give the impression of circumcision "causing" all these harms. In that context, it's absurd to cite it at all (aside from the fact that all participants were selected based upon their contacting an activist group, there wasn't even an attempt at providing a control group). However, once one recognises that it provides an informative and useful picture of male anti-circers and foreskin restorers, it does have a small amount of value. The present description is non-judgemental, reporting both physical and psychological aspects from this poll, and (importantly) does so in a way that's relevant to the subject matter. - Jakew 18:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The poll was not limited to "male anti-circumcision activists" as you keep inserting. That is absolute speculation. Hammond's article neither uses those words, nor asserts such a limitation on participants -- the poll was on circumcision, not restoration. Robert's wording is not Hammond's, but that does not mean it's neutral, that's for sure. Do we need a separate "psychology" article on this? Few other procedures (say "breast construction") try to leverage psychology this thoroughly, and I will certainly post psychological articles on circumcision if you insist it's relevant to physical processes. The restoration process is primarily a physical one, and Robert's POV is still totally irrelevant here. The reader should not told a set of views is "correct", nor should the article continue to leave such immediately refutable statements about Hammond's article. DanP 19:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DanP, could you explain what you meant in your edit summary: "Many of those changes are not even in Hammond's work."

Actually, it was limited to male anti-circumcision activists, though Hammond doesn't use those words. He's rather vague about how they were recruited in the paper. However, elsewhere[6], he explains: "In 1993, The National Organization to Halt the Routine Mutilation of Men (NOHARMM) sent a questionnaire to circumcised males who had contacted either the national office of NOHARMM in San Francisco, California, or various foreskin restoration support services that work closely with NOHARMM." Now think for a moment, who contacts and assists an organisation to halt the "abuse and routine mutilation of males" but an activist? Contacting an anti-circumcision organisation, and filling out a "harm documentation form" is in itself a form of anti-circumcision activism! - Jakew 19:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is your opinion. A person who documents loss of eyesight or hearing loss is not an activist for such things. They may, by providing information, assist activists in those fields. But that is a different thing from oneself being politically active. In any case, if you want to expand on the selection process of the poll in this article, I cannot imagine anything more distant from an encyclopedia definition or foreskin restoration. This is not an encyclopedia of poll results, or poll-gathering techniques. The poll was not a political one. Even if it were, mere opinion does not define NPOV. If you are going to expand on Hammond's poll here, why not in the circumcision article? That act seems to be where the damage was done, even according the Hammond's poll itself. Again, I am not totally against Hammond's poll being here. Just against your slanting it with personal POV in the presentation of it. DanP 19:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although it's a little long-winded, I've changed the wording to: "In a poll of men who had either contacted an anti-circumcision organization or a foreskin restoration group". That's completely factual and NPOV. - Jakew 20:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seems reasonable and neutral. I've included some of the omitted sections and tried to combine the two variants of the article, at least until Robert sees fit to do a total revert. DanP 23:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've taken some of your changes, and changed them where necessary. I think you went a bit off-topic in some places, so I've tried to correct that. I'll gladly explain my changes if you want. - Jakew 00:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jake, it is already established that the reasons are asserted only by the man engaged in the practice. To include additional qualifiers changes those to a different context. For instance, "controversial attempt". There is no controversy, since that relates to public debate. I know of no widespread public debate on this matter. If you want to cast doubt on the success in improving sensitivity or other potential benefits, that is fine as the article clearly leaves that wide open in terms of possiblities of outcome. Also, the repeated emphasis on anti-circumcision and other political phenomena is diverging far from the topic at hand. If you continue, certainly we can, in other articles, highlight the pro-circumcisin agenda inherent in HIV-foreskin studies and other pro-mutilation propaganda. I have resisted that, as I don't believe it's productive. DanP 00:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dan, I think you're right about "controversial" attempt. The belief is controversial, but the attempt is not. I've changed it.

I don't believe that there's an emphasis on anti-circumcision. Under physical aspects, Hammond's poll describes physical problems that restorers might want to rectify, and anti-circ organisations are mentioned by way of introduction. Later on, in the appropriate section, we discuss psychological problems. We should refrain from ranting about consequences of circumcision, particularly since causation hasn't been established. It also isn't known whether any problems mentioned are present in the wider population, and indeed there's reason to doubt that. None of this discussion would benefit the article whatsoever. Let's stick to what's known and relevant to the subject at hand - what symptoms men might hope to resolve through restoration.

I moved Goodwin's study to the section where it belongs (physical aspects). I made some minor changes to the wording, and incorporated a neutral form of the placebo sentence. - Jakew 00:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Sorry, I might have mixed it up again, since I was changing a few things also to clear up the mess. I'll hold off until you're done so I don't step on you again. DanP 00:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've incorporated a few of your changes, but not all of them. - Jakew 01:04, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hammond Poll Again

Several of the statements in this article concerning the Hammond poll fail to note that the physical and psychological consequences are a result of circumcision, not restoration. Hammond's poll was not exclusively on restoration, so leaving out the true basis of the poll leaves the numbers incorrectly represented here. For that reason, I am reverting once again until this, and the other extrapolations Hammond never published, can be explained as to its factual basis. DanP 18:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's no reason to suppose that the physical and psychological problems were a result of circumcision, so we shouldn't say they were. All we know from Hammond is that these problems were common among men who choose to restore (and who contact NOHARMM). A control group and representative sample would be necessary in order to establish causation (as I discussed above). - Jakew 19:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article specifies that respondents were answering with regard to circumcision, not with regard to restoration or any generalized condition. Based on Hammond's descriptions of the questions and responses, one would not expect a respondent to answer in the affirmative based solely on the presence of a particular problem. If you cast such doubt on the article and its methods, why is in here at all? You won't quote Hammond verbatim, but you will allow quotations of yourself or Robert's POV speculation. I don't see that as neutral in fashion, and I'm willing to consider that ongoing effort vandalism unless you're willing to explain the Hammond poll to the reader without misrepresentation or bias one way or the other. DanP 19:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DanP, I agree that Hammond's article characterises the problems as consequences of circumcision, but - as explained - there's no evidence for that. Since the respondents were circumcised (as the title suggests) at an early age, they would be unable to know whether their problems existed prior to their circumcision, and so are not in a position to determine causation either.

Stating that the problems were consequences is pushing a point of view. So too is stating that they were not. Simply saying that they are problems, and not expressing a view one way or other is NPOV. Consequently, I'm reverting. - Jakew 20:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The poll itself is not entirely NPOV, IMHO. But provable evidence for or against either conclusion is a separate issue from accurately reporting the results of the poll itself. It is a POV to make a choice to accept poll answers from questions that were never asked. The poll requests answers from the respondent, and any tangible evidence that the problems merely exist (which is not what the poll even asked) is no better or worse than the evidence that the problems were caused by circumcision (which is what the poll actually asked). You cannot insert your projected conclusions based on the questions that were never asked in the poll (ie. that those numbers are valid without the cause considered). Those questions asked in the poll were in the context of circumcision (not restoration), and just deleting that fact from this article entirely misrepresents the poll. If you are going to alter Hammond's poll questions, but then selectively accept poll responses, then how can the results have any meaning? Please try to come up with a solution that makes no such arbitrary judgement. DanP 22:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I understand, the respondents were merely asked to tick boxes for various problems. The conclusion that these were consequences of circumcision was Hammond's. Regardless, interpretation is POV, while facts are not. Let's stick with the facts. - Jakew 23:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right, let's stick with the facts. Hammond says Respondents reported wide-ranging physical consequences from their circumcisions NOT Respondents have a wide-ranging physical consequences from unknown origin. If may be that all, none, or just some or the reported consequences are caused by circumcision in reality, we have no evidence. But if the respondent is asked whether to answer in the context of circumcision, one cannot simply assume they would answer in some other context, and then you can report that broader assumed context as the actual one. If indeed the poll had some kind of control, that would be better, but it didn't to my knowledge. So you can only report on questions that were asked in the poll The article indicates that A standardized questionnaire was formulated from details of circumcision damage reported by men who had contacted circumcision-related organizations, which I cannot envision would mean automatically request affirmative answers from any cause whatsoever. But I am willing to leave that question open, whereas you are trying to close it as being irrelevant and unmentioned as to the validity or context of the poll results. DanP 23:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True, Hammond does claim that these are consequences, but they are not. It's important to recognise the difference between reality and reporting. Unfortunately, they're very different in this case. As I understand, neither of us dispute the problems reported, only the cause. If you're determined to discuss the matter in the article, then I suggest we add a paragraph in which we can analyse possible causes. - Jakew 23:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not determined either way, it's up to you. Either describe the poll without selectively judging or altering it, or leave it completely out. Rarity aside, it's safe to assume foreskin restoration is only done after a circumcision is already carried out. To include this level of analysis on circumcision is totally off-topic from the encyclopedia description of a foreskin restoration process. If you recognize the difference between reality and reporting, why do you want to report select slices of Hammond's poll, leaving this article without the real assertion that the poll was about circumcision, not restoration in particular. DanP 00:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talking about deep analysis is ridiculous: we've no disagreement about including facts, but daft POV interpretations are inappropriate. - Jakew 00:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then include facts about what poll questions were actually asked instead of arbitrarily changing them. DanP 18:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the "consequences" are not in fact problems? - Jakew 18:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually I was not suggesting that. Although now that you mention it, technically it's a POV to make such an assertion -- the poll scarcely mentions "problems", but "consequences" were clearly stated over a dozen times as the metric. Regardless of that discrepancy, problems and/or consequences (take your pick) of any and all causes were never included in the poll as I read it. The fact is, the article clearly indicates the poll was concerning circumcision, not restoration. Why would you want to delete the procedure which the poll was based on, and then leave reported consequences out-of-context in this article? I think that only serves to add confusion, don't you? DanP 23:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• DanP what is in context for the purposes of this article is that Hammond found that about half of foreskin restorers have serious mental problems and about a third are substance abusers. This is absolutely of vital importance to giving readers an insight into the mental state of those who undertake this peculiar exercise. The report went something like this ... "I am a foreskin restorer and I have serious mental issues ... (or a substance abuse problem)". They state that their problems were consequences of their circumcisions ... do you have any credible evidence for this, or are you prepared to accept the words of a few tame psychologist fellow activists who are signed on to sell the spin? Why would these people lie about their mental pathologies and substance abuse? This is surely stuff your average normal person would wish to hide? - Robert the Bruce 04:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact remains that the points noted are, unquestionably, problems, but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they are consequences. From a neutral point of view, we cannot truthfully call them consequences, but must call them problems, symptoms, or use similar language. The article is not, after all, about circumcision, but is about restoration. A poll that includes such a high percentage of restorers is surely relevant. - Jakew 12:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your recognition of lack of evidence of consequence. But we also have no evidence and only their word that the problems exist. Further, the questions were asked in the context of circumcision, not other unrelated causes of unknown origin. Your solution to censor one side is no less of a slant than the POV problem you identify. The best we can do is claim that any problems reported are consequences reported, regardless which report is the true one (you cannot use this article to be a judge one way or the other). DanP 15:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're correct that we have only the respondents word that the problems do indeed exist (Having caught a few anti-circers lying, I have my doubts). It's reasonable to say that the problems were reported, however. Since you agree that there's no evidence of consequence, surely you must agree that describing them as 'problems' rather than 'consequences' is more precise, and neither endorses the POV that they are consequences of circumcision, or that they are not. It is neutral. - Jakew 15:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jake, your accusation of "serious mental problems" is unmentioned in the poll. Your POV of no consequence is not supported by evidence that such problems, physical or psychological, existed prior to circumcision. It is your fabrication, which I respect your right to make and even slip into this article. But your science is weak on this with respect to the Hammond poll, as is any absolute connection to restoration, and I only ask that you report the poll without altering it totally. In case you haven't noticed, the article does not say the problems are consequences, only that the problems are reported/described as consequences by the poll and its respondents. The same goes for problems -- reported, not simple "are". What I am saying about both assertions is perfectly compatible with your POV that they are not consequences, and I think the article leaves open both interpretations, even your somewhat sadistic interpretation that poll respondents are all dishonest about what the physical cause might be. Neutrality should not automatically judge the poll answers as being unconnected to the questions. DanP 15:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dan, you're confusing me with Robert, who wrote about "serious mental problems" above. While it's true that there is a lack of evidence of such problems existing prior to circumcision, a lack of evidence is distinct from evidence of lack of problems. There is a difference between data and interpretation, as I'm sure you're aware. Hammond's talk of "consequences" is interpretation, though the numbers themselves are data. If we're going to allow one interpretation (Hammond's), then we must also include an alternative POV. Alternatively, we could just use neutral language like 'problems'.

Incidentally, I didn't mean to suggest that all respondents were dishonest about the cause - I do believe that these people genuinely believe any problems to be caused by circumcision (I don't necessarily agree, but I am confident that they believe). It's the problems themselves, rather than their cause, that I'm skeptical about. I'm sure that they aren't all imaginary, but I suspect that quite a few are. - Jakew 17:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jake, sorry for the mixup. You are repeatedly reverting to Robert's POV. The inclusion of consequence, as I read it, was inherent in the poll data. One cannot know the prevalence of problems of arbitrary cause, since those numbers were never asked for, nor were they collected. If there were three answers in the poll: Do you have this consequence from your circumcision? (A=Yes; B=No, but a similar problem exists from other causes; C=No and any similar problem does not exist), then you could know get numbers on a "pure" problem-basis. So, yes I agree. There is a difference between data and interpretation. But you are injecting interpration into the data by removing the very question asked of the respondent. Only the subset reported as consequences of circumcision were collected, and based on Hammond's description of the poll we would expect a simple "no" on any problems of some alternative cause you might imagine. Theresa added a phrase which clearly leaves the possibility of a "yes" answer on alternative causes, even though Hammond's data never collected that possibility. To go further than stating this numerical uncertainty would be interpretation, not data. DanP 18:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jakew, I have explained how your version repeatedly makes false statements in misrepresenting poll data. Not to mention leaving Roberts "psychiatric" analysis in play. Why do you need to trash this article? I am sure you can reword, as Theresa's version does, so that no POV in either direction is presented to the reader. Otherwise, if the supporters of foreskin restoration are fair game in your book, why not allow psychiatric reports about the critics of it? That allows for both sides, does it not? DanP 23:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert and Jakew what are you up to?

Please explain why you reverted my change of the word expansion to stretching? I don't understand your reasoning that you gave in the edit summary. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 06:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your change Theresa. I have pleaded with Jakew and Robert. I have been open to including both sides in this article, and I still am. Instead, there is continued stubborn efforts to revert even the most balanced set of factual statements. I don't care if they stick their POV in the article, but they should at least be able to also accept an opinion other than their own. DanP 19:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree - it should definitely say 'stretching'. That must somehow have been lost. I've incorporated the change. - Jakew 19:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Somehow? Your recklessness is no accident. Where are my additions in your favored version? DanP 19:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps if we slowed the editing right down. The trouble with making sweeping changes is that it is tempting to revert because of issues with some of those changes. So - what's this T tape thing Dan keeps adding, and why is it being removed? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 14:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Answering my own question: OK I've researched T tape, it's all over the web, and is certainly used for foreskin restoration. I can see no reason not to have it in the article, so I'm going to add it back in. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 15:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Bully for you Theresa! Now you need to research PUD and foreballs. I'm sure readers will be fascinated by the assortment of weights these people hang from their penises. Let it all hang out, I say. - Robert the Bruce 04:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I'm happy to do that, when i get a moment. But since you already know about them, why don't you add them in? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 08:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I would prefer to leave the stuff fit for Ripley's Believe It or Not! for those with an interest inthe bizarre. After you dear lady. - Robert the Bruce 05:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• So you've no interest in writing an encylopedia then? Ok I'll find out about them and add them in myself when i get a chance. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 08:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Don't be naughty now Theresa and put words in my mouth or "creatively" interpret what you think are my thoughts. The stuff in question comes straight out of 'Ripley's Believe It or Not! there is nothing encyclopedic about it. Kind of sad really. - Robert the Bruce 13:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look Robert you are the one who suggested that PUD and foreballs should go into the article. I don't even know what these things are - if they are devices that are used to aid foreskin restoration, then clearly they are encylopedic. If you know of something that is relavent to this article - and you are not prepared to put it in, them you are not interested in writing an encylopedia. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 21:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look Theresa you are the one who insisted that T-tape should be included in the article without fully knowing jack about it. Why do you think your buddies have not inserted all the gory details about the methods yet? Simple, because they know that will expose the process as something straight out of 'Ripley's Believe It or Not!. Now should we do that? - Robert the Bruce 02:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If anyone does knoww "all the gory details" please insert them into the article. This is an encylopedia after all. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert, please try to compromise on this. You know very well that we can endlessly point out the lack of sanity or Believe it or not rationale among those seeking needless circumcision of babies. Whether you believe one thing, or you believe another, your beliefs are no better than anyone else's. There is no reason to place judgement right in an article and delete information merely because you disagree with someone. The philosophy of deleting POV judgement in articles is something you've constantly been pursuing in circumcision-related articles, so I'd love to hear your explanation why you do the opposite here and choose to insert POV judgement. We can at least be consistent, if not in agreement. DanP 18:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

reverts

RTB: please explain your recent reverts. The user's contributions seemed entirely neutral to me, whereas your reverts do not. Exploding Boy 17:46, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

• Describing them as "neutral" indicates clearly where your POV lies in this matter. By all means support his POV but please spare us the line that it is "neutral". - Robert the Bruce 14:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Very well. Please explain exactly how they are not neutral. Exploding Boy 17:08, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

• I would suggest you use this opportunity for an exercise in introspection. _ Robert the Bruce 03:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pardon? Look, if you can't explain why the above edits are, in your opinion, non-neutral, then I'm going to revert your deletion of them. Exploding Boy 17:00, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

• No, no, no. It is you who needs to explain why you support obvious POV yet claim that it is "neutral". Please don't go and start a revert war now. - Robert the Bruce 17:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've had quite enough of you and and your sanctimoniuos and arrogant posturing, both on this page (and several related ones) and on various user talk pages. You talk and talk and talk about discussing reverts on article talk pages, but you don't do it yourself. You were the one who reverted another user's edits, so you need to explain why. If you can't do so, then there's clearly no good reason for your reversion, and it will be reversed. Exploding Boy 21:16, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Sadly you are attempting to sidestep the issue. No amount of huffing and puffing will hide the fact that when you claim that blatant POV is neutral you can not expect to be taken seriously. - Robert the Bruce 16:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since you are either unwilling or unable to discuss/defend your edits, I have reverted them. Continueing your pattern of refusing to discuss your edits even when explicitly requested to do so will be taken as vandalism and dealt with accordingly. Exploding Boy 16:51, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• Oh how bureaucratic. I suppose “Robert made you do it”? You still have not explained how you have come to the interesting conclusion that what you assert is in fact “neutral”. I am fascinated. All I need now is for some bright spark to claim your preferred version is supported by “consensus”. - Robert the Bruce 20:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is it with you exactly? I notice that multiple users accross multiple article pages have similar problems with you.

As I explained several times, you reverted the edits so it is up to you to explain how they are non-neutral.

By the way, I reverted your recent edit as non-neutral. You removed pertinent information without explanation.

Look, if you want to be taken seriously and not as the troll you increasingly appear to be, I suggest you take the arrogance down a notch or two and start discussing things on the relevant talk pages. 20:47, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• Please come down from your high horse. You are yet to provide an explanation as to how you manage to call balatant POV pushing "neutral". That is what is needed if you wish to be taken seriously. - Robert the Bruce 20:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This conversation is over unless you would like to address the question repeated several times above. For the last time, the onus is on you, as the editor, to defend your edits. Let me know when you'd like to continue the discussion. Exploding Boy 20:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• We were having a conversation in the first place? May I suggest that you take a few deep breaths and a few days off from this article and see how you feel after that? - Robert the Bruce 21:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dartos Muscle

Exploding Boy, I agree with most of your changes. However, the section on dartos muscle should not refer to just a ring of muscle. Dartos was inserted as a compromise with regard to the ridged band, which was previously objected to with regard to muscular function. I didn't see an issue with having ridged band, but the dartos is more general and extends all the way to the scrotum. The article should reflect that only a small portion of it extends out to the foreskin acting to hold it in place. DanP 18:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Robert's reverts, again

I already did explain them. Your removal of relevant, neutral information constitutes pushing a non-neutral point of view. Further, your edit summary and your refusal to discuss your edits reveal that your continued reverts to this page constitute vandalism. To that end, I will be listing you for comment. I'll leave a link on your talk page when I do. Exploding Boy 21:05, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• You are adopting a very threatening attitude. The use of the word "Psychiatric" is apt and accurate in this context. (See the history of the article). I am hoping that you have a friend out there who will take you aside and help you to calm down. - Robert the Bruce 21:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have listed you for comment. You (and other interested parties) may view the request and comment on it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce. Exploding Boy 21:34, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• That's fine by me. What I do believe is important is for you to display some honesty and insert in to the "motivation" the reason for your sadly emotional response to the removal of the blatant POV pushing of a certain agenda. I believe it is important for those who wish to read into the situation that they understand where you are coming from. - Robert the Bruce 22:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Psychiatric aspects

It is valid to include the word 'psychiatric' in this context. After all, this section briefly discussed Mohl's article, "Prepuce Restoration Seekers: Psychiatric Aspects". - Jakew 22:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The word "psychiatric" carries a strong anti-foreskin restoration POV. It seems that Jake and Robert want to paint men who choose to restore their foreskin in the worst possible light. It appears they can not accept the fact that some men who were circumcised are not happy when they learn that (1) neonatal circumcision is not medically necessary, (2) an intact male's foreskin has a high concentration of nerves, and (3) most men in the world have intact genitals. -- DanBlackham 11:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just because Moh's articles uses the word psychiatric - doesn't mean we have to. The four cases studies presented were all "obsessive compulsive" men - well they were all diagnosed as obsesive compulsive anyway. Many obsessive compulsives choose cleanliness as there obsession of choice. This does not mean that most people who wash are obsessive compulsive. Lot's of people who are procircumcision say it's becasue it's cleaner - does that mean that there is a psychiatric aspect to their opinion? Let's leave loaded words out of the article. Remeber that psychiatists use jargon words all the time (as does everyone of course) it is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone who has been asked to perform a psychiatric pre op assesment, might use the word in a subtly different way to the general population. Most people equal psychiatric with some sort of nutter. The Mohl article explicitly states that the four men in question were not psychotic. Let's use a different word. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 16:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Why are you so desperate to use a different word? Why does your agenda require the word change? Should we not just place the facts in that sub-section and "let the readers decide for themselves"? - Robert the Bruce 01:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Such concepts as OCD are inherently psychiatric, rather than psychological. The aspects discussed are psychiatic, in part. The reader can draw from that what he will. - Jakew 21:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But this section of the article isn't about OCD. It's about how forskin restorers feel. That's why emotional and psycological is a better description than psychiatric. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it isn't as though we're replacing "emotional and psychological" with "psychiatric". It's just an addition. The only reason that I can see for objecting to the extra information is wanting to hide the (apparently real) possibility that many of these men have psychiatic issues. We shouldn't say that they do, either, but it is fair to quote medical literature on the subject accurately. - Jakew 21:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many of these men? The study in question was of four men. Extrapolating four to many is hardly encylopedic. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The mental pathology found among a significant % of these men (Hammond) indicates that the "problem" clearly extends beyond the mere "emotional and psychological". Now for you. Why is it that you wish to santitise the word out of the article. What exactly is your agenda? - Robert the Bruce 04:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please indicate where the hammond poll uses the word "psychiatic" becasue i can't find it there. The Hammond poll talks about emotions and feelings and uses the word psycoligical. The reason I want the word gone is because as I already explained, the word is loaded. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Hammond poll talks about men so scarred that they need to medicate themselves with alcohol and drugs! You allow that the Hammond poll talks about "emotions". I don't know of any definition of psychiatry that does not describe it as the science of emotional disorder. If you are so upset by not having a foreskin that you take to substance abuse, can you not be said to be disordered emotionally? Dan should note that there is nothing in "psychiatric" to suggest "psychotic". It is quite simply the correct word here.Dr Zen 05:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm -what about "emotional scarring"? The poll says 29% are dependant on some form of drug or another. What percentage of the adult male population smoke? in this country (UK) I believe it's around the 25% mark. Of course most british men aren't circumcised. Regular drug users - not sure but the percentage is high here in the uk -around 30% have tried drugs, a fair proportion of them are regular users. Likewise alcohol -many people regulaly drink too much. The Hammond poll is itself POV and tries to push the idea that circumcision causes psychological problems - but even that poll doesn't go as far as using the word psychiatric. BTW psychiatry isn't a science, it's a branch of medicine. Psycology is a science albeit a fledgeling one. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 17:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, lots of people smoke, Theresa, but the poll is quite specific that these men do so to "relieve their suffering". It doesn't matter that the poll is POV. May I remind you that the NPOV policy does not require the omission of points of view, but the inclusion of all? By all means include a poll that says it has no psychiatric effects. He doesn't use the word "psychiatry" because he doesn't need to. It's implicit. Theresa, I'm going to pretend I didn't read "BTW psychiatry isn't a science, it's a branch of medicine" because I find it hard to believe that an intelligent woman does not know that medicine is a science itself! Dr Zen 01:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dr Zen's discussion inline Medicine is not a science Tell it to Webster's. Lord alone knows what definition of "science" you are using. I use a definition of science that says it's anything that can be learned systematically.- although it's becoming more based on science that it used to be. What does "based on science" have to do with it? Are you working under the misconception that pure sciences are "science" and applied sciences are somehow not? However that's an aside. The point I'm making is that you are using a POV poll to justify using a loaded word that even the poll didn't go as far as using. How can the poll be POV? That's ridiculous. If the people said they self-medicate, and the poll reported that, what's the problem? Most people associate the word psychiatry with mental illness. Do they? Did you take a poll? So you are disputing the use of "psychiatric" solely on "your" understanding of what "most people" think? Are these the same people who think psychiatry is not a science, perhaps? Whether this is right or wrong is beside the point. The word is loaded. It gives the impression that forskin restorers are nutters. No. It gives the correct impression that some have been affected by it emotionally to the point of disorder. The science of emotional disorder is called psychiatry. The word psycholigical isn't so loaded. Psychology is the science of the mind in general. It is simply broader than psychiatry. It describes what the paragraph is about without the connotations. What is the point of having both words in the header? What does psychiatric add that psycholigial not cover? It covers the notion of emotional disturbance, Theresa, which you are seeking to remove from the article, even though Robert has fully substantiated it.Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)in italicsDr Zen 00:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Psychiatric applies to the text relating to Mohl's study, does it not? - Jakew 14:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree the word "psychological" is loaded. It carries a very strong anti-foreskin restoration POV. -- DanBlackham 11:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is fascinating that Jakew and Robert systematically struggle to remove every milligram of psychology and emotional motivations behind circumcising babies, insisting it is POV to explore that issue no matter what. But here, a voluntary modification deserves being called psychotic, along with whatever vision of insanity they can imagine. I welcome their efforts, as long as both sides are presented. DanP 23:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Dan I don't believe that you need to push the limits on this. The usual crowd of "insiders" seem to be mounting a campaign in support of your cause. Don't spoil it for them. - Robert the Bruce 04:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a work of scholarship

We are writing an encyclopaedia here, not the Sun newspaper. I find it astonishing that an editor is suggesting that we leave the word "psychiatric" out of a heading because none of the people in a study was "psychotic" and "psychiatric" implies some sort of "nutter". Well, neither are the overwhelming majority of people who are under treatment for psychiatric disorders. Most of them have depression or anxiety that will never progress to psychosis (although the treatments they take for it might conceivably induce it). I think talk of people with psychiatric disorders as "nutters" should be deplored here, not encouraged, and I do deplore it. And I certainly don't think we should pander to that kind of thinking in a serious work of reference. Dr Zen 00:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well said, Dr Zen. We are supposed to educate, not pander to illiteracy. - Jakew 12:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK I'm convinced. Leave it in. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I would like you to consider an public apology, Theresa. Your behaviour in this regard has been regrettable. - Robert the Bruce 04:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Stop trolling Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Do you have some personal issues that you want to talk through? To me it is quite clear that you have been the one that has kept the pot boilling on this one (and in so doing pandering to you POV buddies). Your lack of sound judgement continues to be a great disappointment. - Robert the Bruce 12:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The point of a talk page is to discuss the page in question and come to a consensus. I discussed the issue of the section heading with a number of people and they convinced me that they were right about the word. Now you come along and say my bahvior was terrible - without explaining whyat's so terrible about discussing an article on a talk page. Your post above was intended to continue an argument, that was finished. You are trying to keep an argument going where it would have been settled. This is the very definition of trolling. You are the one who is "trying to keep the pot boiling". Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • So why when it was self evident all along did you keep kicking up dust around the issue? I am temped to use the "T" word here but would probably ascribe your actions to more evidence of a bloody minded obsession with countering each and every position I take. You need help with this Theresa. - Robert the Bruce 13:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • • Because it wasn't self evident all along. I wasn't kicking up dust, i was discussing the wording of the heading. Jakew and Dr Zen convinced me to change my mind on this issue. I am here to build an encylopedia. Part of the process of doing that is discussing the pages. The whole point of discussion is to try and convince people. You appear to enjoy argueing for the sake of it. That's fine i suppose, but you shouldn't be doing it here. Pretty much everyone else here argues in order to try to get the best possible encylopedia article possible. You seem to want me to dig in my heels and carry on argueing forever. Well sorry Robert but I wont become a POV warrior just becasue you find it fun to see me as one. If I am discussing a page with someone and they put forth arguments that convince me to change my mind, they I will change my mind, and i will not apologise for doing so. If you don't like that - too bad. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Robert, please control yourself. You have opposed every description of motivation and psychology behind slicing up young boys, the work of scholars or not. Yet you insist here that accusations of psychotic behavior are well-deserved, despite the homophobic leanings. Whether a practice is voluntary or involuntary, seems to make no difference to you. That's your view which I do not object to here. But I am sure that "sound judgement", as you call it, cannot invent a double-standard with regard to psychiatric merit, which is hardly a NPOV virtue anyway. There are more men undergoing foreskin restoration than you realize, and making personal attacks is simply not scholarly at all. DanP 13:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Dan, I'm sure that Theresa is grateful for your support at this stage (afterall she has been kind to you boys in the past). I wonder if you realise that when you describe neonatal circumcision as "slicing up young boys" it gives all an great insight into your mind (and that of all the foreskin true believers). What do you think people are to make of that? - Robert the Bruce 14:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • • • DanP, do you have the slightest idea what 'psychotic' means? It's a specific mental condition that includes hallucinations (eg hearing voices) and delusions. Using the word incorrectly while remarking on lack of scholarship is somewhat amusing. - Jakew 14:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Varying attitudes towards foreskin restoration

First, let me say that this section (Critics and supporters) is absurd. Nevertheless, let's see what can be done with it, at least for now.

I've changed the title to the title of this section. It's marginally more valid to talk about different attitudes towards some activity, I suppose.

I've reworded the first paragraph, to better explain the views of those opposed (it's still not very good, but at least an improvement). It's also invalid to link to some dumb anti-circer grumbling about what opponents think of him, in this context. It would be marginally more appropriate to link to criticisms themselves (eg here).

I've also changed the second paragraph a bit, and removed the last sentence, which was about infant circumcision, not foreskin restoration. Can you find something to say in support of foreskin restoration? -Jakew 18:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You raise good points. But what is it that motivates the critic? Is it a belief that foreskin restoration in genuinely without merit, or is it deeper and more emotional? Different people might believe different things about the critics mind, so presenting both perspectives is fair and balanced. Clearly the belief that foreskin restoration includes insanity and psychosis is present among a few. It does not matter the true definitions of insanity and psychosis, it is perceived and labelled as such by folks who advocate involuntary mutilation. Circumcision advocacy is one way of coping, just as restoration is. Why not present that duality here? Delusions that a man's genitals are not his own -- perhaps some might say that is the true insanity. Believe what you wish, but Wikipedia shouldn't slant one way or the other, bashing restoration or advocacy of circumcision. The article I linked to presents both as prevalent ways of coping, right or wrong. DanP 19:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What motivates the critic? I guess as with any motivation, it depends upon the critic. Let's use the lay term crazy, for the sake of argument. I've no doubt that many critics feel that restorers are crazy, but is that itself enough to motivate someone to criticise? I feel that flat-earthers are crazy, but it doesn't motivate me to oppose them. Let them be. I think that, in most cases, critics are sufficiently informed (I deliberately avoid saying better informed) that they feel that restoration is a pointless waste of effort, and feel a certain sadness for those who, they feel, are tricked into doing it. That's certainly the case with me (and I was a critic before I was circumcised, so talk of denial tends to make me laugh out loud).

I can't help but notice that the argument you present is almost religious in tone. "Spend a lifetime in denial, or accept original sin, repent, and restore thou foreskin." - just an observation.

Regardless, if we must discuss this in the article (and I think it degrades the quality), we should focus on restoration, not circumcision. Circumcision advocacy is distinct from criticism of restoration. Perhaps a better approach would be to include the article in the second paragraph, with text something like, "Boyle et al. suggest that males traumatised by circumcision can seek solace through foreskin restoration."

Incidentally, I notice with amusement that Boyle criticises Mohl et al for 'outdated methods', yet have no problem with citing others, such as Cansever, which are even more outdated. More lousy scholarship. What a surprise. Who cares if it's correct, so long as it stops circumcision! -Jakew 19:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I detect your sarcasm, and thank you for pondering this with humor. Your POV still goes beyond "to each his own". You wish to present a criticism of restoration in the article, which includes a homophobic perspective of gay circumcised mental patients, a detailed poll on circumcision, and then you say we should focus on restoration, not circumcision. Go back and look. That's what I've been saying for months, and yet the circumcision poll data, the psychiatry slant, the Robertesque cut-is-cool-and-everybody-else-is-nuts lurks its way here. I have been encouraging a history and general description of restoration, without judgement one way or the other. That is roughly what you've been doing in the various circumcision articles (ignoring the advocacy and mutilation benefits we tolerate and you advertise for only a moment). Adulthood circumcision is a different animal, and ask yourself if you'd distinguish at all between adult foreskin restoration, and say forced foreskin restoration on a child. Perhaps the only thing we agree on is that the latter is child abuse. Even that simple distinction is left out of circumcision articles, and yet you and Robert pretend the Wikipedia admins haven't properly admitted your POV and scholarship of varying quality? Despite the strong presence of men in NORM who were also circumcised as adults, I have never added value judgement for anything related to that issue. Only each person can know of harms or benefits, not you or I predict it -- for them or anyone cut in infancy. Let them decide on their own. I only ask for NPOV by its definition, and do not want a circumcision-focused article as you imply. If circumcision advocacy is different than criticism of restoration, then so too must foreskin restoration be different than criticism of circumcision. The alternative is to create a circumcision advocacy article, describing all the psychological benefits to keeping boys looking like daddy. To sarcastically paraphrase: Who cares if it's correct, so long as it keeps circumcision going! DanP 00:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You question whether these items are relevant. Let's see: 1) Any criticism balances out the article (eg, anecdotal evidence says it'll increase sensitivity, but scientific evidence says it won't. Keep both). 2) Mohl's study was on prepuce restoration seekers (how can that not be relevant?). 3) The poll is relevant partly because of the high percentage of restorers in the survey, and in the context of why do people do this. What problems are they trying to solve? I would love to see NORM's data from their survey included, but sadly that hasn't been released. This is imperfect data, but it still provides insights. Look, we've got Boyle's article in there saying that restoration can help with some psychological problems. Isn't it reasonable to actually identify those problems and their prevalence in this particular group? Don't you agree that doing that with the physical problems actually improved the article? If so, what's the difference? -Jakew 14:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When I look at the article on glasses, it says they can help with vision. Yet convex lenses on nearsighted men seem to cause them to say their vision is actually worse with such lenses! Do they shun existing scientific evidence that such lenses can help correct vision in some men? Should they be called delusional and we can mock their requests for concave lenses? Nowhere in the foreskin restoration article does it say restoration will "increase sensitivity" in such an arbitrary way, no matter who does it. Some men claim intense pleasure is in the glans, some say almost none is there. That is natural variation, or sliced nerves, or whatever the case. The circumcision advocacy you indulge in does, in fact, make one-size-fits-all claims and false generalizations. You say it makes sense to consider the a poll on psychology of circumcised men by using mere connection that many of them restore, and then, extending the analogy, you delight that your ideal optical correction failed to work on them. So do you win a prize now? Clearly, advocacy of circumcision is extremely prevalent among those who indulge in criticism of restoration. That says a lot about their psychology and their misguided feelings. There are some who say that their way of coping is to stubbornly promote circumcision, and that is perhaps less off-topic as identifying prevalence of foreskin restoration among a few homosexual mental patients. I am saying neither one is necessary in this article, which actually leans more toward your POV than you realize. DanP 19:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pro-mutilation bias

Jake, you have no basis for saying skin bridges are less relevant than psychiatry or substance abuse. Indeed, with regard to the restoration article, they are more relevant, since this is an encyclopedia, not forum to judge one way or the other. Further, you have no basis for including POV against proponents of restoration, while leaving critics unscathed. Both of these issues are what you and Robert have slanted. While I fully welcome your POV (and Robert's too), you should at least allow opposing viewpoints. DanP 00:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DanP, read the paragraph. Stretching (ok, expanding) the skin can potentially have an effect on every item mentioned, with the exception of skin bridges. Secondly, could you show me where there is POV against proponents? -Jakew 12:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all, having an essential effect is not a necessary criteria for inclusion in the article. If it were, things like substance abuse would not be mentioned by the very same pseudostandard you're suggesting. Second, physical effects of circumcision and restoration definitely, without a doubt, involve skin bridges. I would think this would be obvious. With regard to POV against proponents, what the hell are "psychiatric motivational forces"? If I can put that in the circumcision article and you would fully support that as nonjudgemental of circumcision proponents, then fine. But please present NPOV paragraphs without the spin. DanP 23:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In terms of relevance, it is reasonable to include something if restoration might be expected to "fix" it. For example, stretching skin will cause blemishes such as scars to fade, so it's quite reasonable to include prominent scarring. But restoration can't do a thing about skin bridges, so it's pointless to include them (remember we're talking about restoration here). On the other hand, you mention substance abuse. Now, if a guy is suffering from psychiatric (in the literal sense) problems that are so bad he has to drown his sorrows, and restoration might help to resolve them (as Boyle and friends suggest), then it's relevant. The substance abuse is caused by (we assume) the depression and so on, just like the pain and bleeding is caused by (we assume) the tightness of skin on erection. As for psychiatric motivational forces, that could be phrased better, I agree, but I should point out that it has to do with men wishing to restore, not those who advocate it for others. -Jakew 12:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That argument fails to hold water. First of all, supposing this was not solution, any skin bridges are still necessarily involved in restoration. Whether restoration "solves" them is not germaine, since solving them is not the same as pointing out their presence and any special considerations regarding whether or not (or how) to restore. Second, restoration sure does have potential to solve them, as skin bridges would be tensioned by the device along with everything else. DanP 19:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to explain the relevance of skin bridges to restoration? -Jakew 11:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did I not do that? Whether it is prominent scarring, painful erections, etc., all of these issues are possible. Are you saying that skin bridges are irrelevant to restoration, or what are you even trying to say? DanP 18:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)