Male Circumcision Originally Created To Prevent Masturbation
When
circumcision was introduced, it was believed that masturbation caused
a lot of different illnesses. It was considered extremely immoral and
many children, both male and female, have been circumcised through
the years because parents found them “in the act.”
It
was already known at the end of the 1800s that the removal of the
foreskin, which is the only moveable part of the penis would reduce
sexual sensitivity and restrict movement of the penile shaft.
It
was believed that masturbation caused blindness, mental illness,
alcoholism, epilepsy and several other ills. It therefore made sense
to some physicians that circumcision would stop masturbation and
prevent the onset of these illnesses.
Non-religious
circumcision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of
negative attitudes towards sex, especially concerning masturbation.
In her 1978 article The
Ritual of Circumcision,
Karen Erickson Paige writes: “In the United States, the current
medical rationale for circumcision developed after the
operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical
removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control ‘masturbatory
insanity’ – the range of mental disorders that people believed
were caused by the ‘polluting’ practice of ‘self-abuse.’”
“Self-abuse”
was a term commonly used to describe masturbation in the 19th
century. According to Paige, “treatments ranged from diet, moral
exhortations, hydrotherapy, and marriage, to such drastic measures as
surgery, physical restraints, frights, and punishment. Some doctors
recommended covering the penis with plaster of Paris, leather, or
rubber; cauterization; making boys wear chastity belts or spiked
rings; and in extreme cases, castration.” Paige
details how circumcision became popular as a masturbation remedy:
“In
the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or cure,
masturbatory insanity. In 1891 the president of the Royal College of
Surgeons of England published On
Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation, and
two years later another British doctor wrote Circumcision:
Its Advantages and How to Perform It, which
listed the reasons for removing the ‘vestigial’ prepuce.
Evidently the foreskin could cause ‘nocturnal incontinence,’
hysteria, epilepsy, and irritation that might ‘give rise to erotic
stimulation and, consequently, masturbation.’ Another
physician, P.C. Remondino, added that ‘circumcision is like a
substantial and well-secured life annuity…it insures better health,
greater capacity for labor, longer life, less nervousness, sickness,
loss of time, and less doctor bills.’ No wonder it became a popular
remedy.”
At
the same time circumcisions were advocated on men, clitoridectomies
(removal of the clitoris) were also performed for the same reason (to
treat female masturbators). The US “Orificial Surgery Society”
for female “circumcision” operated until 1925, and
clitoridectomies and infibulations would continue to be advocated by
some through the 1930s. As late as 1936, L. E. Holt, an author of
pediatric textbooks, advocated male and female circumcision as a
treatment for masturbation.
One
of the leading advocates of circumcision was John Harvey
Kellogg. (yes, the Kellogg from the famous Corn Flakes!) He advocated
the consumption of Kellogg’s corn flakes to prevent masturbation,
and he believed that circumcision would be an effective way to
eliminate masturbation in males.
“Covering
the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A
remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is
circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The
operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an
anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a
salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the
idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness
which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it
had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and
not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be
so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly
transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he
soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make
him cunning in his vice.”
Robert
Darby, writing in the Australian Medical Journal, noted that some
19th century circumcision advocates—and their opponents—believed
that the foreskin was sexually sensitive:
In
the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was
well understood by physicians who wanted to cut it off precisely
because they considered it the major factor leading boys to
masturbation. The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton
(1814–1875) damned it as “a source of serious mischief”, and
most of his contemporaries concurred. Both opponents and supporters
of circumcision agreed that the significant role the foreskin played
in sexual response was the main reason why it should be either left
in place or removed. William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York
in the late 19th century, commented that “circumcision, when
performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations
of sexual intercourse”, and both he and Acton considered the
foreskin necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old
age. Jonathan Hutchinson, English surgeon and pathologist
(1828–1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why
it should be excised
When
it was finally realized that masturbation did not cause illnesses,
the foreskin got blamed for penile and cervical cancers, urinary
tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases.
# # #
2 comments:
Well written on an important, though sad, subject!
Thanks for finally writing about > "Article of the Evening" < Liked it!
My website american health advantage
Post a Comment