The oldest documentary evidence of male circumcision comes from ancient Egypt. Circumcision is common, though not universal, among the ancient Semitic peoples. In the aftermath of the conquest of Alexander the Great, however, the Greeks did not like circumcision (they regard a man as completely "naked" only if his foreskin is withdrawn) causing a decrease in incidents among many who previously practiced it.
Circumcision has ancient roots among several ethnic groups in sub-equatorial Africa, and is still done in adolescent boys to symbolize their transition to warrior or adult status. In Judaism, circumcision has traditionally been practiced among men on the eighth day after birth. Male circumcision and/or sub-division, often as part of an elaborate age ritual, is a common practice among Aboriginal Australians and Pacific islanders in the first contact with Western tourists. This is still done in the traditional way by some residents. According to the National Hospital Discharge Survey in the United States, in 2008, the rate of male infant circumcision in hospitals in the United States was 55.9%.
Video History of male circumcision
Origins
The origin of male circumcision is not known with certainty. It has been widely proposed that it began as a religious sacrifice, as a transitional rite that marks the entry of a boy into adulthood, as a form of sympathetic magic to ascertain masculinity or fertility, as a means of diminishing sexual pleasure, as an aid to cleanliness. where bathing is regularly impractical, as a means of marking people of higher social status, as a means of embarrassing enemies and slaves with symbolic castration, as a means of distinguishing circumcision groups from their non-circumcised neighbors, as a means of minimizing masturbation or other socially banned sexual behavior, as a means of removing "excessive" pleasure, as a means of enhancing the attractiveness of men to women, as a demonstration of a person's ability to withstand pain, or as a male counterpart to menstruate or break a hymen, or to copy a rare natural occurrence of the lost foreskin from an important leader, a way to cast out demons, and as a look of disgust from the smegma produced by the foreskin. Removing the foreskin may prevent or treat a medical condition known as phimosis. It has been suggested that circumcision habits benefit the tribes that practice it and thereby cause its spread.
Darby describes these theories as "contradictory", and states that "the only point of agreement among advocates of various theories is that promoting good health has nothing to do with it." Immerman et al. suggests that circumcision causes lower sexual arousal than pubescent men, and hypothesizes that this is a competitive advantage for tribes practicing circumcision, leading to its spread. Wilson pointed out that circumcision reduces the efficiency of insemination, reducing the capacity of men for extra-partner fertilization by damaging sperm competition. Thus, men displaying this signal of sexual obedience can benefit socially if married men are chosen to offer social trust and investment in a special way to their less threatening counterparts to their fathers. It is possible that circumcision appears independently in different cultures for different reasons.
Maps History of male circumcision
Africa
"The division of circumcision and initiation ceremonies throughout Africa, and the frequent resemblance between the details of ceremonial procedures in separate areas thousands of miles, shows that the ritual of circumcision has a long tradition behind it and in its present form is the result of a long process of development.
African cultural history is easy to talk about in terms of language groups. The Nigerian-Congo speaker today extended from Senegal to Kenya to South Africa and all points in between. In the historical period, Niger-Congolese-speaking communities have and have male circumcision that occurs in young soldier initiation schools, Senegalese and Gambian schools are not so different from Kenya Gikuyu and Zulu South Africa. Their same ancestor was a group of five horticulture, perhaps seven thousand years ago from the modern River Cross area in Nigeria. From that area the border of horticulture moves out into West Africa and the Congo Basin. Of course soldier schools with male circumcision are part of the cultural repertoire of the ancestral community.
Male circumcision in East Africa is a ritual from childhood to adulthood, but only in some countries (tribes). Some people in East Africa do not perform male circumcision (eg Luo in western Kenya).
Among the Kenyan Gikuyu (Kikuyu) and Maasai people in Kenya and Tanzania, male circumcision is historically a graduation element of an educational program that teaches belief, practice, culture, religion, and tribal history to the youth who are on the threshold of becoming a member of society intact. The circumcision ceremony is very common, and takes courage under the knife to keep the honor and prestige of the youth and family. The only form of anesthesia is bathing in the cold morning waters of the river, which tend to kill the senses to a minor level. The circumcised boys were asked to maintain a stoic expression and not budge from the pain.
After being circumcised, the young man became a member of the knight class, and is free to date and marry. Graduates become fraternities that serve together, and continue to have one another's obligations for life.
In the modern context of East Africa, the physical element of male circumcision remains (in societies that have historically practiced it) but without much of the ritual, context and other accompanying programs. For many people, surgery is now done personally on an individual, in a hospital or doctor's office. Anesthesia is often used in such settings. But there are tribes who do not accept this modern practice. They insist on circumcision in group ceremonies, and a test of courage by the river. This more traditional approach is common among the Meru and Kisii tribes in Kenya.
Apart from the loss of rites and ceremonies that accompany male circumcision in the past, physical operations remain important for personal identity and pride, and acceptance in society. Uncircumcised men in this community are at risk of being "exiled", and mocked as "boys". There are many cases of male circumcision from the community who are known to have escaped from the ritual.
In some South African ethnic groups, circumcision has its roots in some belief systems, and is done most of the time in adolescent boys:
The young people in the eastern Cape are members of the Xhosa ethnic group who are considered part of the journey to maturity... A recently introduced law which requires that the initiation school be licensed and only allow circumcision to be performed on young people aged 18 and older. But a spokesman for the Eastern Cape Provincial Health Department Sizwe Kupelo told Reuters news agency that boys as young as 11 had died. Every year thousands of young men enter the bush alone, without water, to attend the initiation school. Many did not survive the ordeal.
The ancient world
The sixth dynasty (2345-2181 BC) of Egyptian tomb art has been regarded as the oldest documentary evidence of circumcision, the most ancient depiction being the relief of the necropolis at Saqqara (about 2400 BC) with the inscription read: "The ointment is making it acceptable." "Hold him so he does not fall". In the oldest written record, by an Egyptian named Uha, in the 23rd century BC, he described the mass circumcision and praised his ability to endure the pain: "When I was circumcised, along with a hundred and twenty people... none of them exposed, nobody hit, and nothing was scratched and nobody scratched. "
Herodotus, writing in the 5th century BC, wrote that the Egyptians "practiced circumcision for cleanliness, considered it better than clean." Gollaher (2000) considers circumcision in ancient Egypt as a sign of diversion from childhood into adulthood. He mentioned that body changes and circumcision rituals that should provide access to ancient mysteries were reserved for initiation only. (See also Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1.15) The content of the mystery is unclear but tends to be the myth, prayer, and mantra that became the center of Egyptian religion. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, for example, tells of the sun god Ra cut himself, blood creates two small protective gods. The Egyptian expert, Emmanuel vicomte de Rougà ©, interpreted this as an act of circumcision. Circumcision performed by the priest in a public ceremony, using a stone knife. It is considered more popular among the upper echelons of society, although it is not universal and those lower under the social order are known to have performed the procedure. The Egyptian hieroglyphs for "penis" describe either the circumcised or the erect organ.
Circumcision is also adopted by some Semites who live in or around Egypt. Herodotus reported that circumcision was only done by the Egyptians, Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, 'Palestinian Syrians', and 'Syrians living around the Thermodon and Parthenius rivers, as well as their neighbors, Macronians and Macrones'. He also reported, however, that "Phoenicians, when they came to trade with the Greeks, stopped following the Egyptians in this custom, and let their children remain uncircumcised."
According to Genesis, God told Abraham to circumcise himself, his household and his slaves as the eternal covenant in their flesh, see also the Abrahamic Covenant. Those who are not circumcised should be "beheaded" from their people. [Genesis 17: 10-14] The biblical agreement is often sealed by cutting off an animal, with the implication that the contracting party will suffer the same fate. In Hebrew, a verb meaning to close the covenant literally means "to cut". It is presumed by Jewish scholars that the foreskin removal symbolically represents the sealing of such a covenant. Moses may not be circumcised; one of his sons neither, nor his followers while traveling through the desert. [Joshua 5: 4-7] . Moses' wife Zipora circumcised their son when God threatened to kill Moses. Hellenistic and Yudaic Cultures
According to Hodges, the ancient Greek aesthetic of human form regarded circumcision as a mutilation of previously perfectly shaped organs. The Greek artwork of the period depicts the penis that is covered by the foreskin (sometimes in very beautiful detail), except in the depiction of satyr, lechers, and barbarians. The dislike of this circumcised penis appearance led to a decline in the circumcision incidence among many who had previously practiced it throughout the Hellenistic period.
In Egypt, only the priestly caste maintained circumcision, and in the second century, the only circumcised group in the Roman Empire were Jews, Jewish Christians, Egyptian priests, and Nabatean Arabs. Circumcision is rare among circumcised Gentiles considered a conclusive proof of Judaism (or Early Christianity and others unreasonably called Judaizers) in the Roman court - Suetonius in Domitian 12.2 described the trial in which a ninety-year-old man was stripped naked in front of the court to determine whether he avoided the head tax placed on Jews and Jews.
Cultural pressures for circumcision are operated worldwide Hellenistic: when the Judean king John Hyrcanus conquered Idumean, he forced them to be circumcised and converted to Judaism, but their ancestors Edomites had pre-Hellenistic circumcision.
Some Jews try to hide their circumcision status, as recounted in 1 Maccabees. This is primarily for social and economic benefits and also for them to exercise in the gym and compete in sports events. Techniques to restore the appearance of an uncircumcised penis are known by the 2nd century BC. In one such technique, the weight of copper (called Judeum pondum ) is suspended from remnants of the circumcised foreskin until, in time, they become sufficiently stretched to cover the glands. The first-century writer Celsus describes two surgical techniques for the restoration of the foreskin in his medical treatise De Medicina . In either of these, the bark of the penis is loosened by cutting around the base of the gland. The skin then stretches over the glands and is allowed to heal, giving the appearance of an uncircumcised penis. This may be because Abraham's covenant of circumcision defined in the Bible is relatively small circumcision; named milah , this involves cutting the foreskin that extends outside the gland. Jewish religious writers denounced such practices as annulling Abraham's covenant at 1 Maccabee and the Talmud.
Because of these efforts, and for other reasons, a more radical second step is added to circumcision procedures. It added about 140 CE, and was named Brit Peri'ah . In this step, the foreskin is cut further back, onto the ridge behind the glans penis, called the coronal sulcus. The inner mucosal tissue is removed by using sharp spikes or tools, including removal and removal of the frenulum from the lower part of the gland. Then during the Talmudic period (500-625 CE) the third step, known as Metzitzah , began to be practiced. In this step mohel will suck blood from the circumcision wound with his mouth to remove what is believed to be excessive blood. Because it actually increases the likelihood of infections such as tuberculosis and genital diseases, modern mohels use a glass tube placed over the baby's penis for blood suction. In many Jewish ritual circumcisions, this Metzitzah step has been removed.
First Maccabees tells us that Seleucids forbid the practice of brit militant , and punish those who do it - as well as the infant who has it - by death.
The 1st century Jewish author Philo Judaeus (20 BC - 50 AD) defended the Jewish circumcision for several reasons, including health, hygiene, and fertility. He also thought that circumcision should be done as early as possible because the possibility would not be done by someone's free will. He claims that the foreskin prevents semen reaching the vagina and so should be done as a way to increase the nation's population. He also noted that circumcision should be done as an effective means of reducing sexual pleasure: "Legislators think it's good to tap into organs that serve such relationships so as to make circumcision a symbol of excessive and excessive abandonment of pleasure." There is also a division in Pharisaic Judaism between Hillel Elder and Shammai on the issue of religious circumcision.
The Jewish philosopher Maimonides (1135-1204) insisted that faith should be the only reason for circumcision. He acknowledged that it was a "very difficult thing" to do on his own but it was done to "muffle all material impulses" and "perfect what was morally corrupt." The saints at the time admitted that the foreskin increased sexual satisfaction. Maimonides reasoned that the bleeding and loss of the protective layer made the penis weaker and thus had the effect of reducing the human lust and making sex less pleasurable. He also warned that it was "difficult for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has sex to separate her."
A 13th-century French disciple from Maimonides, Isaac ben Yediah claims that circumcision is an effective way to reduce women's sexual desire. With an uncircumcised man, he said, he always had an orgasm first and his sexual appetite was never fulfilled, but with a circumcised man he received no pleasure and almost never orgasm "because of the heat and fire that burns within him."
Flavius ​​Josephus in the book Jewish Antiquities 20, chapter 2 records the story of King Izates who was persuaded by a Jewish merchant named Ananias to embrace Judaism, deciding to be circumcised in order to follow Jewish law. Though reluctant for fear of retaliation from non-Jewish subjects, he was eventually convinced to do so by a Galilean Jew named Eleazar on the grounds that it was one thing to read the Law and other things to practice it. Although his mother Helen and Ananias fear the consequences, Josephus says that God guards Izates and his government is peaceful and blessed.
Decline in Christianity
The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 discusses the question of whether circumcision is necessary from a convert to Christianity. Both Simon Peter and the New James spoke out against the need for circumcision on non-Jews and the Council decided that circumcision was not necessary. However, Acts 16 and many references in Paul's Epistle indicate that the practice was not immediately eliminated. Paul of Tarsus, who is said to be directly responsible for the circumcision of one in Acts 16: 1-3 and who seems to praise Jewish circumcision in Romans 3: 2, says circumcision does not matter in 1 Corinthians 7:19 and then turns against practice, accusing those who promote the circumcision of desire to make a good show in the flesh and boast or boast in the flesh in Galatians 6: 11-13. In the next letter, Philippians 3: 2, he reportedly warned Christians to be careful of "mutilation" ( permanent dead link ] Strong's G2699). Circumcision is so closely related to the Jews that Jewish Christians are called "people of circumcision" (eg Colossians 3:20) or conversely circumcised Christians are referred to as Jewish or Jewish Christians. These terms (circumcised/uncircumcised) are generally interpreted as Jews and Greeks, who are dominant, but this is an oversimplification because Iudaea Province of the 1st century also has some Jews who are no longer circumcised, and some Greeks (called Proselytes or Judaizers) and others like Egypt, Ethiopia, and Arabs do it. According to the Gospel of Thomas which says 53, Jesus said:
- "His disciples said to him," is circumcision useful or not? "He said to them," If it is useful, their father will produce the circumcised children from their mother. On the contrary, true circumcision in the spirit has become profitable in all things. "" SV
Compatibility with Thomas 53 is found in Romans Paul 2:29, Philippians 3: 3, 1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15, Colossians 2: 11-12.
In the Gospel of John 7:23 Jesus was reported to respond to those who criticized him for healing on the Sabbath:
- Now if a man can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses is not broken, why are you angry with me for making human whole and complete on the Sabbath? (Jerusalem Bible)
This passage has been seen as a comment on Rabbinic belief that circumcision cures the penis (the Jerusalem Bible, note for John 7:23) or as a criticism of circumcision.
The Europeans, with the exception of the Jews, do not commit male circumcision. A rare exception occurred in the Spanish Visigothic, during which during the campaign campaign King Wamba ordered circumcision to all those who committed atrocities against civilians.
As part of the reconciliation efforts of Coptic and Catholic practice, the Catholic Church condemned obedience to circumcision as a moral sin and ordered not to be practiced in the Basel-Florence Council in 1442. According to UNAIDS, the papal bulla with The Coptic issued during the council stated that circumcision only not necessary for Christians; El-Hout and Khauli, however, consider it a condemnation of the procedure.
In the eighteenth century, Edward Gibbon called circumcision a "single mutilation" which only Jews and Turks do and as "painful and often dangerous rites"... (R. Darby)
In 1753 in London there was a proposal for Jewish emancipation. It was strongly opposed by the pamphlets of the time, who spread the fear that Jewish emancipation meant universal circumcision. Men are urged to protect:
- "the best of your property" and keep their facial skin threatened (!). It was a tremendous outpouring of popular beliefs about sex, fear about masculinity and misconceptions about Jews, but also a striking indication of how important their sexual identities perceived their foreskin at that time. (R.Darby)
This negative attitude remained good until the 19th century. British explorer Sir Richard Burton observes that "the Christian makeup practically circumcises in horror".
Resurrection in the English-speaking world
Although negative attitudes apply to most of the nineteenth century, this began to change in the later part of this century, especially in the English-speaking world. This shift can be seen in the account of circumcision in the EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica. The ninth edition, published in 1876, addresses the practice as a religious ritual among Jews, Muslims, ancient Egyptians, and tribes in different parts of the world. The author of the entry rejects the sanitation explanation of a religiously supportive procedure: "like the mutilation of another body... [it] the nature of the vicarious sacrifice". (R. Darby)
However, in 1910 the entry [in the EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica] had been played in his head:
"This surgical operation, which is commonly prescribed for pure medical reasons, is also a religious initiation or ceremony among Jews and Muslims".
Now this is primarily a medical procedure and only after that religious ritual. The entry explains that "in recent years the medical profession has been responsible for its considerable expansion among other than Jewish children... for health reasons" (11th ed., Volume 6).
In 1929 the entry was considerably reduced in size and consisted only of brief descriptions of surgery, which were "performed as a precautionary measure on infants" and "carried out primarily for hygiene purposes". Ironically, the reader is then referred to the entry for "Mutilation" and "Deformation" for discussion of circumcision in its religious context (ed. 14, 1929, Vol 5). (R. Darby)
There are two related concerns that led to the adoption of this surgical procedure widely nowadays. The first is the growing belief in the medical community about the efficacy of circumcision in reducing the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, such as syphilis. The second is the assumption that circumcision will reduce the urge to masturbate, or "self-abuse" as it is often called.
The tradition of male circumcision is said to have been practiced in the Royal Family of England, with various notes on which king begins: Queen Victoria because of her earnestness which is touted with British Israelism and the idea that she is the descendant of King David (or on the advice of her personal physician) or his grandfather, King George. The German-born King George is also the Prince-Voter in Hanover, and there are rumors that the prince of the Prince is circumcised. This is very doubtful because there is no evidence that Victoria is a supporter of the Israeli Israeli movement, and the relationship between the royal family and the ancient House of David was only first proposed by his followers in the 1870s, long after he gave birth to his children (there is also less evidence that his sons, especially Edward, circumcision); nor is there any indication that the princes of the electorate (or George himself) were circumcised and that the king introduced him on his arrival to England and his ascension to the throne in 1714. If the male members of the royal family were circumcised, the reason was due to their popular embrace in the upper classes in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Prince Charles and his brothers are believed to have been circumcised (formerly by famous rabbis and mohel), but the tradition is expected to end before the birth of William and his brother, Harry, because their mother, Diana, objected. Speculation has surfaced in the media that William George's son may have been circumcised after his birth in 2013, but this is also highly unlikely.
Medical issues
The first medical doctor who advocated the adoption of circumcision was a prominent British physician, Jonathan Hutchinson. In 1855, he published a study in which he compared the rates of contraction of venereal diseases among the Jewish and non-Jewish population in London. Although the manipulation and use of the data has proven to be flawed (the protection that Jews seem to have is more likely due to cultural factors), his research appears to show that circumcised men are significantly less susceptible to the disease. (A systematic review in 2006 concluded that evidence "strongly suggests that circumcised men are at lower risk of chancroid and syphilis.")
Hutchinson was an important leader in the campaign for medical circumcision for the next fifty years, the publication of the Application for Circumcision in the British Medical Journal (1890), where he argued that foreskin "...is a port for dirt, and is a constant source of irritation.This is conducive to masturbation, and adds to the difficulties of sexual kontinensia.This increases the risk of syphilis in early life, and cancer in old age. "As can be seen, he is also a convert the idea that circumcision will prevent masturbation, great attention from the Victorian. In an article in 1893, About circumcision as a prevention of masturbation he writes: "I tend to believe that [circumcision] may often accomplish many things, both in breaking the habit [masturbation] as a direct result. , and in reducing the temptation for that next. "
Nathaniel Heckford, a pediatrician at East London Children's Hospital for Children, wrote Circumcision as a Remedial Act in Certain Cases of Epilepsy, Chorea, etc. (1865), in which he argued that circumcision acts as an effective one. corrective actions in the prevention of certain epilepsy and chorea cases.
This increasingly common medical belief is even applied to women. The controversial obstetric surgeon Isaac Baker Brown founded London Surgical Home for Women in 1858, where he worked to advance surgical procedures. In 1866, Baker Brown described the use of clitoridectomy, removal of the clitoris, as a cure for several conditions, including epilepsy, catalepsy and mania, which he attributed to masturbation. In the Vulnerability of Certain Shapes of Insanity, Epilepsy, Catalysts, and Hysteria in Women, he provides a 70% success rate using this treatment.
However, during 1866, Baker Brown began receiving negative feedback from within the medical profession of doctors who opposed the use of clitoridectomy and questioned the validity of Baker Brown's successful claims. An article appeared in The Times in December, which was favorable to Baker Brown's work, but suggested that Baker Brown had treated women with insanity. He is also accused of clitoridectomy without the consent or knowledge of his patients or their families. In 1867 he was expelled from the Obstetrical Society of London to conduct the operation without consent. Baker Brown's idea is more accepted in the United States, where, from the 1860s, the operation was used to heal hysteria, nymphomania, and to young girls the so-called "insurgency" or "unfeminine aggression".
Lewis Sayre, a New York orthopedic surgeon, became a leading advocate for circumcision in America. In 1870, he examined a five-year-old boy who was unable to stretch his legs, and whose condition has so far been against medication. After noticing that the child's genitals were inflamed, Sayre hypothesized that the chronic irritation of his foreskin had paralyzed his knee through reflex neurosis. Sayre circumcised the boy, and within weeks, he recovered from his paralysis. After several additional incidents where circumcision also appears to be effective in treating paralyzed joints, Sayre begins promoting circumcision as a powerful orthopedic drug. Sayre's superiority in the medical profession allows him to reach a wide audience.
The more practitioners who try circumcision as a treatment for a difficult medical condition, sometimes achieving a positive outcome, a list of diseases considered to be treatable through circumcision. In the 1890s, hernia, bladder infections, kidney stones, insomnia, chronic indigestion, rheumatism, epilepsy, asthma, bedwetting, Bright disease, erectile dysfunction, syphilis, madness, and skin cancer have all been linked to the foreskin, and many doctors recommend universal circumcision as a preventive health measure.
In addition to certain medical arguments, several hypotheses have been put forward in explaining public acceptance of infant circumcision as a preventive medicine. The success of the disease germ theory not only enables doctors to combat many of the postoperative complications of surgery, but has made the wider public very suspicious of dirt and body secretions. Thus, smegma collected under the foreskin is considered unhealthy, and circumcision is readily accepted as a good penile hygiene. Secondly, today's moral sentiments assume masturbation is not only sinful, but also physically and mentally unhealthy, stimulating the foreskin to produce various suspected diseases. In this climate, circumcision can be used as a means to minimize masturbation. All About the Baby , the popular parenting book of the 1890s, recommended baby circumcision for this purpose. (However, a survey of 1410 men in the United States in 1992, Laumann found that circumcised men were more likely to report masturbation at least once a month.) When hospitals mushroomed in urban areas, giving birth, at least among the upper and middle classes , getting under the care of doctors at the hospital rather than with a midwife at home. It has been suggested that once a large number of circumcised babies are circumcised in the hospital, circumcision becomes a class marker for those who are wealthy enough to give birth at the hospital.
During the same period of time, circumcision is made easier. The discovery of William Stewart Halsted in 1885 about hypodermic cocaine as a local anesthetic made it easier for doctors without expertise in the use of chloroform and other general anesthesia to perform minor surgery. Also, some mechanically assisted circumcision techniques, a pioneer of modern circumcision-based circumcision methods, first published in the medical literature of the 1890s, enabled surgeons to perform circumcision safely and successfully.
In the 1920s, advances in the understanding of disease have damaged many of the original medical grounds for prevention of circumcision. Doctors continue to promote it, however, as good penile hygiene and as a precaution for some local conditions for the penis: balanitis, phimosis, and penile cancer.
Worry about masturbation
Circumcision in English-speaking countries appears in a climate of negative attitudes toward sex, especially regarding masturbation. In his 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision, Karen Erickson Paige writes: "The current medical grounds for circumcision are developed after operations performed in wide practice. The original reason for surgical removal of the foreskin, or foreskin, is to control 'masturbation madness' - a range of mental disorders that people believe is caused by the practice of 'contaminating' 'self-torture.' "
"Self-abuse" is a term commonly used to describe masturbation in the nineteenth century. According to Paige, "treatments range from diet, moral advice, hydrotherapy, and marriage, to drastic measures such as surgery, physical restraint, fear, and punishment.Some doctors recommend covering the penis with Paris, leather, or rubber plaster, cautery, - wearing a sanctity belt or a thorn ring, and in extreme cases, castration. "Paige detailed how circumcision became popular as a masturbation drug:
In the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or heal, masturbation madness. In 1891 the president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England published In Circumcision as a Prevention of Masturbation, and two years later another British physician wrote the Circumcision: Profit and How to Do It, which lists the reasons for eliminating "prepig" vestigial. Proven foreskin can cause "nocturnal incontinence," hysteria, epilepsy, and irritation that may "induce erotic stimulation and, consequently, masturbation." Another doctor, P.C. Remondino, adding that "circumcision is such a large and guaranteed life annuity... it ensures better health, greater capacity for labor, longer life, less nervousness, illness, loss of time, and less doctor's bills. " No wonder it became a popular drug.
At the same time circumcision is advocated in men, clitoridectomy (removal of the clitoris) is also performed for the same reason (to treat a masturbator woman). The "US Orthopedic Surgery Institute" for female "circumcision" operated until 1925, and clitoridectomy and infibulation would continue to be advocated by some until the 1930s. Until late 1936, L. E. Holt, a children's textbook writer, advocated male and female circumcision as a treatment for masturbation.
One of the leading supporters of circumcision is John Harvey Kellogg. He advocated the consumption of Kellogg corn flakes to prevent masturbation, and he believed that circumcision would be an effective way to eliminate masturbation in men.
Covering the organs with the cage has been practiced with all success. Drugs that almost always work in small boys are circumcision, especially when there is a level of phimosis. Surgery should be performed by a surgeon without providing anesthesia, because the brief pain present in the operation will have a beneficial effect on the mind, especially if it is linked to the idea of ​​punishment, as it may be in some cases. The pain that lasts for several weeks interrupts the exercise, and if previously not too steady, it may be forgotten and not continued. If any attempt is made to keep an eye on the child, he must be carefully surrounded by vigilance so that he can not break them without detection. If he is only partially watched, he immediately learns to avoid observation, and thus the effect is only to make him cunning in his deeds.
Robert Darby (2003), writing in the Medical Journal of Australia, notes that some supporters of nineteenth-century circumcision - and their opponents - believe that the foreskin is sexually sensitive:
In the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensations was well understood by doctors who wanted to cut it appropriately because they regarded it as the main factor driving the boys to masturbation. Doctor Victoria and venereologist William Acton (1814-1875) cursed him as "a source of serious delinquency", and most of his contemporaries agreed. Both opponents and supporters of circumcision agree that the important role played by the foreskin in sexual response is the main reason why it should be abandoned or abolished. William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York at the end of the nineteenth century, commented that "circumcision, when performed early in life, generally reduces the thrill of sexual intercourse", and both he and Acton consider the foreskin necessary for optimal sexual functioning. especially in old age. Jonathan Hutchinson, British surgeon and pathologist (1828-1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why it should be cut.
Born in England at the end of the nineteenth century, John Maynard Keynes and his brother Geoffrey, both circumcised in childhood due to parents' concerns about their masturbation habits. The main pediatric manual continued to recommend circumcision as a deterrent against masturbation until the 1950s.
Spread and reject
The circumcision of babies is taken in the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand, and English-speaking parts of Canada. Although it is difficult to determine the level of circumcision history, an estimated rate of circumcision in the United States states that 30% of newborn American boys were circumcised in 1900, 55% in 1925, and 72% in 1950.
In South Korea, circumcision was largely unknown before the formation of the United States trust in 1945 and the spread of American influence. More than 90% of South Korean high school boys are now circumcised at an average age of 12, which makes South Korea a unique case. But circumcision rates are now declining in South Korea.
The decline of circumcision in the English-speaking world begins in the postwar period. The British pediatrician Douglas Gairdner published a well-known study in 1949, The fate of the foreskin, described as "sharp and sharp writing." This reveals that for 1942-1947, about 16 children per year in England and Wales died of circumcision, a rate of about 1 per 6000 circumcisions. The article has an impact on medical practice and public opinion.
In 1949, a lack of consensus in the medical community about whether circumcision brings important health benefits motivated by the newly formed National Health Service to eliminate infant circumcision from its closed service list. Since then, circumcision has become an unaffordable cost for parents, and the proportion of circumcised men is about 9%.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments