Talk:Frenulum

Please put new content at the bottom of this page.

Sensitivity of the Frenulum

"It has been widely speculated and discussed that the area where the frenulum preputtii penis meets with the ridged band is notable as the most sensitive area of the penis."

It is easy enough to verify that the opinion and discussion exists. Whether it is an "accurate" viewpoint is a different matter which has no bearing on the truthfulness of the sentence. Otherwise, we would have to remove all mention of sexual sensitivity. None of it is universally proven, just personal experience. DanP 17:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• There is no point in inserting wild eyed speculation intothe article to suit your POV. It is well know why anti-circumcision activists wish to play up the sensitivity of all parts which may have been removed through circumcision. People know your game. - Friends of Robert 03:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It's not "wild eyed speculation". Regardless, it was presented neutrally as an opinion, not as fact. It's not okay to keep doing this to articles to fight whatever war you're waging. Let people make up their own minds; if the anti-circumcision activists are such nutty people, it should be obvious to the average person. --TrevorPerry 22:11, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Give it a break "Trevor". It is as much wild eyed speculation as the stuff put out by the Flat Earth Society. If we have to insert personal speculation form people of no consequence into every Wikipedia article there would be instant chaos. That the radical anti-circumcision activists are way out on the lunatic fringe cannot be denied. Please don't project onto those who have no more of an agenda than to counter the raving of these extremist lunatics. Try to behave and keep it nice now Trevor. - Friends of Robert 03:02, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Did you read the article? It's was not written by NORM. If you think its a total fabrication, then say so. And if you look up sexual anatomy on Wikipedia, the g-spot, the clitoris, etc. is full of speculation and unscientific opinion about everything sexual. In most cases zero scientific evidence is given. Do you want to delete all of it? Under NPOV philosophy, my understanding is that you should post opposing viewpoints. Not just delete stuff en masse whenever you disagree. DanP 22:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • You would not recognise NPOV if it rushed up an bumped you on the nose. It comes from a source titled: "Understanding Circumcision: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a Multi-Dimensional Problem". Now if that does not indicate a cess pool of POV information then I just don't know. Secondly when one reads through it is nothing but specualtive garbage. On any sane scale of value of information this sort of propaganda and rank speculation has no place in an encyclopedia article. Learn to live with it. - Friends of Robert 04:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Wow, two Dans, this could get confusing. Why was the disclaimer about NORM taken out? --TrevorPerry 01:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Who says there are two? -Friends of Robert 04:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Review loaded words and note that nobody is opposing circumcision entirely. Few have opposed adult circumcision to alleviate real problems, for instance. But NORM focuses mainly on restoration, not politics. Both sides could add lots of "spin" with disclaimers, and I think people should read both sides and make up their own minds. This is better than misleading language and being told in advance what is right or wrong by the mutilation proponents. Many articles on Wikipedia across the board could be tagged with politically-colored "pro" and "anti" disclaimers on each an every link. Why exactly are the male genitals singled out for these disclaimers, while so many other articles on Wikipedia link to both sides of an issue without judgement? DanP 22:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Nah. I don't see too much stuff from the "other side" on Wikipedia. I believe that people should be warned through a disclaimer about obvious POV pushing web sites and links. Especially those which insert notes and text highlights into other people articles so as to press their propaganda point home. Because CIRP (for instance) does this it should be banned from Wikipedia. - Robert the Bruce 18:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External Links

Please do not remove the external links without justification. --TrevorPerry 22:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• That external link has no relevance to the article as it is no more than a cheap promotion of the NORM site. If you want free advertising take it to the Foreskin restoration article. - Friends of Robert 03:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The article is entitled "Frenulum." The link is to an article discussing the "Frenular Delta." No relevance?--TrevorPerry 22:11, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Please don't accuse others of advertising. Assume good faith. As to whether this is advertising or not: the site is not selling anything other than its viewpoint. Our policy has never been to disallow external links to biased sources. Our readers are not forced to click on those external links. It is, of course, a good idea to make of note any potential bias. In this case, an explicit warning about the site's bias was included from the very beginning [1]. Instead of revert warring, could you perhaps locate a dissenting external link? • Benc • 10:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Came here via the RFC entry. I agree that the link is relevant. As for POV, let's let readers decide for themselves, OK? Rhobite 20:20, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Good. As you now openely state that you believe it to be relevant and have inserted the link into the article perhaps you could explain your thinking here? Exactly how is this fringe opinion relevant? Interesting to note that a Google search of the term brings up 16 results of which 9 are obvious anti-circumcision sites. A question. Why do you think this is such an important issue for anti-circumcision activists to get inserted in the article? Rhobite, I do hope that now you have taken "sides" on this issue that you support your actions here. - Robert the Bruce 23:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • It's just an anatomy paper. You appear to have far more invested in this debate than I do. Rhobite 00:03, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • [Removed ad hominem attack.] Now can I take it that any "paper" which has around 16 Google entries has a place in Wikipedia regardless of the source? - Robert the Bruce 00:14, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • The number of Google hits is not the only way we evaluate outside sources. In fact, for research papers, the number of Google hits is an invalid metric of notability. Judge the paper on its own merits, not on whether you agree with its authors or on how many websites link to it. We're interested in verifiability, not popularity. • Benc • 02:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Come on, you could still insert a link to an article you favour, about the frenulum, Robert. Why haven’t you yet? -- Ralesk 22:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Censorship by unlogged user

Someone has censored out the images of the frenulum. There is nothing obscene about the human body. Therefore I have reverted the article. I would favor protecting people from being overwhelmed by the impact of sights that have been forbidden to them by giving people who open such an article the opportunity to choose whether to see it or not. But to deny objective information to people is an act of vandalism. 金 (Kim) 17:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Slow down. It appears (see Frenular delta that there may be copyvio issues around the use of that pic. Are you advocating that the pic be retained regardless of any possible copyvio? - Robert the Bruce 00:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be the one reacting in haste. I have no intention of advocating copyright violations as you insinuate. If there was a copyright issue, that should have been mentioned either in the edit summary or in the discussion for the article. What does "Frenular delta" have to say about copyright? Nothing in the link you gave.The Discussion for that article says that (presumably) the person who supplied the image is willing to have it be replaced (if others find it not relevant) with a line drawing if an non-copyrighted line drawing can be found. 金 (Kim) 05:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Frenulum in Moths

I have added a small section on the frenulum in its meaning of a structure on a moth's hindwing. As this is a very different subject to the main body of the article I wasn't sure whether to put it in a seperate article. This is just about all there is to say about it and it would be a pretty puny stub! Anyone have any ideas? --Richard Barlow 10:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tearing during sexual activity

"Typically, this is not a medical emergency"

Like hell.

I have moved this unsigned comment from the top of the page.

Some injuries are true medical emergencies in the sense that delay in treatment for even a few minutes can result in irreparable harm or even death. Arterial bleeding is one such emergency. A concussion is not; it's much more important to check the victim of head trauma for other severe damage, e.g., broken neck, and then assure safe transport to a hospital than it is to do something within a short time of the accident. Some things hurt like hell and motivate people to seek prompt treatment, but do not constitute an emergency. That does not mean that injuries should not be treated in a timely way by competent medical personnel to avoid things like broken bones that heal without having been properly set. 金 (Kim) 16:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Naming of destination pages

We seem to have inconsistent names for the destination pages. Most are Latin, but one is the cumbersome frenulum of prepuce of penis. There's a discussion at talk:frenulum of prepuce of penis, if anyone's interested. Jakew 20:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparison pictures, please?

Could we please get a side-by-side comparison of a penis with and without a frenulum?

just an example: no frenulum: http://www.abadboy.com/bonus/071/27.jpg frenulum: http://www.abadboy.com/bonus/071/19.jpg

When I educate guys on if they still have their freunulum or not, I tell them "it's like a little raised tether of skin on the underside of your glans connecting to your shaft; to a circumcised guy, his frenulum is the most ultra-sensitive area of his dick; if you don't have your frenulum, you have an upside down "V"-shape indent where it once was; all uncircumcised still have their frenulum".

Macshill (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fraenum, fraenulum

It is a glaring omission not to have even mentioned the variant spellings, fraenum and fraenulum. I know Wikipedia (supposedly) has no bias either way concerning US and British/Commonwealth spellings; but where medical terminology is concerned, readers have the right to expect the full complement of factual information. Nuttyskin (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)