The ABCD cultural assessment is outlined below. Click to view PDF of this table.
Their discussion of circumcision pp begins with a claim that because only 16 actually 9 according to their own table of the men aged were intact compared to 26 of the 81 older menthere was "a medical trend toward urging routine circumcision of the newborn male infant.
They also assume their sample of volunteers who were comfortable having sex in front of the experimenters was representative of the whole population of the US, and the 35 intact ones representative of all intact men.
They continue in prose famous for its obscurity and ugliness: The phallic fallacy that the uncircumcised male can establish ejaculatory control more effectively than his circumcised counterpart was accepted almost universally as biologic fact by both circumcised and uncircumcised male study subjects.
Magazines like Penthouse were suggesting that intact men with premature ejaculation might get circumcised to prevent it. All involved in this fallacy seem to have been unaware that the foreskin can retract. Masters and Johnson ignore the possiblity that the foreskin itself is involved in sexual sensation.
A limited number of the male study-subject population was exposed to a brief clinical experiment designed to disprove [Real scientists aim to test, not prove or disprove] the false premise [If it had not yet been disproved, how did they know it was false?
The 35 uncircumcised males were matched at random with circumcised study subjects of similar ages. Routine neurologic testing for both exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination were conducted on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penile body, with particular attention directed toward the glans.
It is unclear what "particular attention" means. It goes without saying that no attention was given to the foreskin, nor could it be with the circumcised "male study subjects". Masters and Johnson didn't find what they weren't looking for.
It had nothing to do with sex. They were apparently previously unaware that foreskins usually retract. This is linked to a later p discussion of "automanipulation" masturbation: Uncircumcised males have not been observed to concentrate specifically on the glans area of the penis.
They were playing with their much more sensitive foreskins but Masters and Johnson failed to notice that. Stroking techniques rarely move sufficiently distal on the shaft of the penis to encounter more than the coronal ridge of the glans even late in plateau phase just before ejaculation.
Masters and Johnson's only interest in the foreskin in intercourse is whether it covers the glans: This is obviously a different picture from that occasioned by active intercourse. With full vaginal containment the foreskin not tightly attached to subjacent tissue usually retracts freely from a major portion of the glans during active male coital thrusting before ejaculation.
On this was based the whole of the case that "circumcision has no effect on sexual function" until further studies with flaws of their own see below were used to make the same claim. Extensive neurological testing of such sensations as touch and pain sensitivity failed to reveal any differences in those with and without foreskins.
Masters, 85, was in a nursing home in Arizona with Parkinson's disease and had no memory of the experiments. He died a few weeks later. Collaborator Robert Kolodny said that he never once heard Masters or Johnson refer to this study, but thought Masters might have done it in collaboration with his physiologist at the time, Dr.
Slater died years ago. Kolodny says most of the research notes from that period have been discarded, because of the rising costs of storage. He guessed that "light tactile discrimination" meant single-point threshold sensitivity, although he had no idea what "exteroceptive discrimination" meant.
Ms Kimmel could not reach Virginia Johnson in St. Louis, but everyone she spoke to thought Johnson was most probably not involved in the study at all. In sharp contrast is the importance Masters and Johnson attach to the role of the clitoral hood female prepuce in intercourse: A mechanical traction develops on both sides of the clitoral hood of the minor labia subsequent to penile distention of the vaginal outlet.
With active penile thrusting, the clitoral body is pulled downward toward the pudendum [Masters and Johnson define the "pudendum" as "the mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, and the vestibule of the vagina".The foreskin in sex. Structure of the foreskin. It has been known since antiquity that the foreskin gives pleasure, and only forgotten in the US in the last century or so..
Central to Intactivist claims about foreskin function in sex is the work of Taylor et al., demonstrating that the foreskin itself is richly innervated with Meissner corpuscles, which are sensitive to light touch.
In Latino culture, the needs of the group (read: Family) take precedence over the needs of the individual.
Because of this, there are noticeable differences when it comes to family relationships with Anglos and Latinos. In social psychology, a stereotype is an over-generalized belief about a particular category of people.
Stereotypes are generalized because one assumes that the stereotype is true for each individual person in the category. While such generalizations may be useful when making quick decisions, they may be erroneous when applied to particular individuals.
One of the critical elements for a culture of peace is social justice. Perceptions of injustice lead to discontent, non-cooperation, conflict, civil unrest, and war.
Aug 09, · by Lucila Ortiz. In the chart below, review the differences between the views of “mainstream” American culture and Hispanic/Latino culture. Cultural Aspects Mainstream American Culture. Compare and Contrast Between Hispanic Culture and American Culture I.
Introduction The Hispanic population has experienced an incredible growth in the past decade in the United States of America.