Anatomy prof talked about circ today

[Toolip]

My anatomy teacher was talking about the penis today and mentioned the foreskin. He didn't really take a stance but he did kind of try to justify it He said that it used to be necessary when we didn't have modern hygiene and that it became popular to prevent infections.

My understanding is that circumcision became popular in this country as a cure for masturbation, not infection. Is that true?

I wanted to say something in class but I want to be sure I've got it right. Where can I find good info about why circ became popular and that it was bogus reasons to begin with.

Thank you!

[jocelyndale]

Here you go:
http://www.icgi.org/medicalization/

CIRP also has some references.
http://www.cirp.org/library/history/

[glongley]

THis guy is only offering up culturally blinded opinions, not anatomical facts. PLEASE give him some hand outs on the anatomy and function of the foreskin, so he can do a more appropriate presentation next time, instead of perpetuating myths.

http://www.coloradonocirc.org/files/...Physiology.pdf
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

[serendipity22]

Also http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/

He said that it used to be necessary when we didn't have modern hygiene and that it became popular to prevent infections.

I think causing infections by forcible retractions became popular after circumcision was well established.

[tennisdude23]

You might ask your professor this question: if foreskins were truly a source of infection in need of amputation, then how did they survive the evolutionary process? You are right! Circumcision in America started as a way to cure masturbation. By curing masturbation, the Victorians believed that they were promoting moral hygiene and, in turn, phyiscal cleanness. In a nutshell, this became the root of the hygiene argument. Prior to Victorian sexual hysteria, when people bathed at best once a month, few men suffered from foreskin related infections. Better yet, most men today, even in places where access to clean water is limited, don't complain either about foreskin induced illnesses. In short, common sense tells you that your professor's reasoning is wrong.

[Equuskia]

Male mammals in the wild don't bathe, have foreskins, and don't suffer from infections. What makes the human foreskin any different or special? That would be a great question to pose for the professor.

[elanorh]

This is my go-to response on the "cleanliness" issue -- if circ is so clean and healthy, why aren't we circumcising all the great race horses, and bulls, and other animals that are kept for breeding especially (all those dogs in the AKC ring)?! One would think that especially animals that valuable and used for breeding, would be circumcised, if it's really healthier and cleaner.

Share your information with him. Thank him for addressing the fact that a male penis has a foreskin, and let him know that there is more information out there. I'd bring the AAP statement with me, as well as the other links, so he has the current information (especially before the AAP changes their policy, if that change does come to pass ).

[SleeplessMommy]

Originally Posted by glongley

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

This one is especially important.

[Toolip]

Originally Posted by tennisdude23

You might ask your professor this question: if foreskins were truly a source of infection in need of amputation, then how did they survive the evolutionary process? You are right! Circumcision in America started as a way to cure masturbation. By curing masturbation, the Victorians believed that they were promoting moral hygiene and, in turn, phyiscal cleanness. In a nutshell, this became the root of the hygiene argument. Prior to Victorian sexual hysteria, when people bathed at best once a month, few men suffered from foreskin related infections. Better yet, most men today, even in places where access to clean water is limited, don't complain either about foreskin induced illnesses. In short, common sense tells you that your professor's reasoning is wrong.

Originally Posted by Equuskia

Male mammals in the wild don't bathe, have foreskins, and don't suffer from infections. What makes the human foreskin any different or special? That would be a great question to pose for the professor.

Thank you everyone!!

As I sat through class today I was thinking about what to say to him and I thought about this and it struck me as so odd. He is always talking about how everything has a evolutionary function or a historical artifact from evolution and yet he is talking about the foreskin as if we can take it or leave it, doesn't really matter, and it can cause problems. I think that will be the best way to bring the point home.

tennisdude, do you have any links with info about the Victorian's ideas about circ?

[glongley]

Two good books on the history of circumcision that bring out the contribution of Victorian morals to the medicalization of circumcision.

David Gollaher. Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery. New York: Basic Books, 2000.

Robert Darby. A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the FOreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain. CHicago: Unversity of Chicago Press, 2005.

[Quirky]

Since he's a professor, I'd print him out the three articles from the British Journal of Urology -- the Sorrells touch-test one linked above by glongley and these two:

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/

Cold and Taylor are pathologists, so they know anatomy.

[caro113]

Originally Posted by tennisdude23

You might ask your professor this question: if foreskins were truly a source of infection in need of amputation, then how did they survive the evolutionary process? You are right! Circumcision in America started as a way to cure masturbation. By curing masturbation, the Victorians believed that they were promoting moral hygiene and, in turn, phyiscal cleanness. In a nutshell, this became the root of the hygiene argument.

They also believed masturbation was the cause for blindness and alcoholism and made men sterile. So, in a way, circumcision was a means of preventing such ailments.

I would also ask him why only the US circumcises for reasons other than religion, especially when the US is supposed to be one of the cleanest nations, hygiene-wise.

Really, circumcision is purely religious. Even those who aren't religious and just do it "because everyone does" or "because that's what a normal penis looks like" or "have you ever seen an uncircumcised penis? it's gross" are only thinking that way because circumcision was done as a means of keeping men morally clean and "closer to God", as stated above.

[Ron_Low]

Originally Posted by Toolip

He said that {circumcision} used to be necessary when we didn't have modern hygiene

It's just pulled-out-of-thin-air nonsense. The foreskin is absolutely as vital for fulfilling sex as the clitoral hood and labia minora are.

I can't stand it when people talk about the foreskin being outdated. Like when they say it "used to" protect the penis from briars and brush, but now we have clothes. NEWS FLASH - it's clothes that the foreskin protects the mucosa from, in the same way the eyelid protects the eye from your collar when you're pulling a sweater on.

[Toolip]

Originally Posted by Ron_Low

I can't stand it when people talk about the foreskin being outdated. Like when they say it "used to" protect the penis from briars and brush, but now we have clothes. NEWS FLASH - it's clothes that the foreskin protects the mucosa from, in the same way the eyelid protects the eye from your collar when you're pulling a sweater on.

yes, I agree with you, but he wasn't saying that foreskin was outdated, he was saying that circ was. I wanted to make the point to him that it never was necessary in the first place.

[GoodMomma]

When I was taking A&P 2 last semester I was so annoyed when we did the male reproductive system. The book has a whole paragraph on how/why female circumcision is done and why it's horrible....stating it's female genital mutilation. Then for the male it gave like 2 sentences on the foreskin being what is cut off during a circumcision. That was it! No mention on what it's for or the risks of circ'ing, nothing. And of course, didn't say that it's male genital mutilation. Luckily it was never brought up in class, just in the book. :/