I have a few questions about your penis studies; specifically, about your methodology. If you can answer these questions, It’s certainly possible that a number of people here will be willing to take you more seriously. If not, then maybe they can be used to strengthen or extend your theories in the future. Or maybe not.
I will cover several claims that you have made which intrigue me. I would like to know how these conclusions were reached; I am certain that a man of your obvious skepticism and high education has good reason to believe everything that you say.
Please correct me if I assert any things that you did not in fact say, but the original circumcision thread appears to have disappeared into the void.
ANATOMY OF THE PENIS
You have stated that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. How was this conclusion arrived at? Is it simply from studying the physiology of the organ, or have you performed any studies on percieved sensitivity? (see the section on sexual activity below)
Have you done any research on foreskin reconstruction? If the nerves of the foreskin are removed during circumcision, how could restoration restore any sensitivity to the area?
SEXUAL ACTIVITY
You have suggested a sexual method which, according to your research, is far better than any currently employed method. It has been asserted by another poster that your reccomended method has never been widely practiced by any human population in recorded history. Where did the idea for this method come from, if I may ask? Is it your own invention, or did this idea come from another researcher?
I would like to know about any studies you have done on the efficacy of this sexual position. By what method did you decide that this method would be more pleasureable than others? Has any study been done on the erotic sensations of both the man and the woman, comparing your method to other methods?
Is there any way in which sexual pleasure can be measured? It seems to me that the only method avaliable would be for the subjects to perform self-assessment. What variables, other than sexual position, may need to be controlled or measured in order for such a study to be meaninful? It seems to me that mood, stress level, the relationship of the participants to one another, and probably many other factors would need to be isolated, as these things could affect percieved sexual satisfaction.
What other controls would be needed for such a study of sexuality in order to make sure that our results are accurate, and free from bias?
Your sexual suggestions leave little room for the woman to do the things she likes to do in the bedroom. What would be your response if certain women don't enjoy your method, or don't enjoy it as well as other methods? Is the woman's pleasure in bed as important as the man's?
ASPD
You have claimed that the lack of a foreskin can lead to a psychological disorder. What, exactly, are the criteria for diagnosing someone with this disorder? Is it possible to have this disorder without having been circumcised? What is the risk factor of circumcision, i.e. what's the percent chance that a circumcised man will develop the mood disorder you have described?
When was this disorder first recognized, either by you or by others? When was the theory that it is caused by circumcision first advocated? By what method have you demonstrated the link between the psychological illness and the surgical procedure?
It seems to me that this would be a good candidate for a double blind test. Subjects could be psychologically evaluated, and the tester could judge which ones were circumcised and which ones weren't by the test results. If the predictions and the actual penis states match up, this provides evidence to support the theory. Have you performed such a test? Again, what controls should be employed to make sure the results of such a test are valid and free from bias?
Does foreskin reconstruction reverse psychological trauma? How many cases of this have been studied? How drastic is the behavior change following reconstruction?
SKEPTICISM
I would like to know a little bit about your interest in epistemology. Are your theories about penis function, sexual activity, and psychology falsifiable? (I realize, of course, that falsifiability is not necessarily a requirement of a scientific theory, but I feel this question is important to learn more about your methods) If falsifiable, what sort of evidence would need to be presented for you to change your theory, or declare it as false?
Is it strictly permissible to draw conclusions from casual observation, or should such conclusions be tested before they are accepted? Given the following statements, which ones can be determined a priori, and which ones should be verified emperically?
- Circumcision destroys sexual sensitivity
- The foreskin is a vital organ with many functions
- Circumcision leads to a variety of illnesses
- Circumcision has no ill effects
- Every person finds sexual pleasure in the same way
- Sexual position "X" (insert your favorite) is better than all others
- All circumcised men are poor lovers
- Circumcision is a good thing
- Circumcision is always wrong
Of the items which should be tested emperically, which ones have been?
Finally, have you ever heard of Wilhelm Reich? What do you think of his writings?
Thank you for your attention. I’m sure that responding to my questions will clear up many uncertainties and misunderstandings about your theories.
–Pyrrho12
It’s not a troll if it’s playing with goblins.