or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › J Kellogg and his little-known alternative to stop boys from 'self-abuse'. This is not easy reading...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

J Kellogg and his little-known alternative to stop boys from 'self-abuse'. This is not easy...

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

Ignoring his ubiquitous cornflakes, most of us know of John Kellogg's obsession with the sin of masturbation among boys (and girls with carbolic acid applied to the clitoris, but his main endevour was with boys). We also know his solution was to rid boys of their foreskins, painfully, with no anaesthetic as a salutary punishment for their behaviour.

 

But he also offered an alternative which I have never found mentioned on family websites like Mothering et al. Rather than cut it off, a boy's foreskin could be actively used to punish him as follows...

 

I quote:

 

"A method of treatment [to prevent masturbation] ... and we have employed it with entire satisfaction. It consists in the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice [masturbation]."

 

In reality, the 'slight irritation' would not prevent an erection - it would compress it to the point of torture. I'm left wondering which would be worse - a single act of circumcision with no anaesthetic, or a nightly nightmare of 'wet dream' erections agonisingly tearing a silver sutured foreskin stitched tightly to allow him only a tiny opening to urinate. Using pure silver wire is his only redemption: it would not be a cause of infection.

 

And America's predilection for circumcison began from this?? I'm truly lost for words.

 

Chistopher


Edited by Islay - 5/13/13 at 9:09pm
post #2 of 12
I read that excerpt somewhere as well and was shocked and disgusted. It's absolutely barbaric. Frankly I'm surprised that mainstream America doesn't recognize just how barbaric circumcision is, as well.
post #3 of 12

That's horrible! I don't really go looking for information on circumcision or its history (a little too depressing), but this is interesting to know. I'll have to bring this up when people bring up the "benefits" of circumcision, I doubt if many people know just how twisted the original process was (masturbation prevention), whether cutting off the foreskin or not.

post #4 of 12

I think it's pretty clear that J Kellogg himself was sexually abused as a child. 

post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 

When I came across this additional method of punishment for masturbation, I was astounded and sickened almost to the point of disbelief - until I was told that Kellogg's influence spawned the sale of mechanical devices designed to be clamped to a boy's genitals with various methods of torture usually involving internal spikes to penetrate both penis and scrotum upon erection. If true, that's utterly horrific.

 

However, the notion of 'sinful' self-abuse was a product of Victorian morality; as much as anything because the religious climate at the time defined the sex act itself as a necessary evil (think Adam and Eve). The act was best done in near-darkness with the woman lying back in compliance, thinking of England, as the man penetrated her until completion.

 

A boy's instinctive compulsion to 'play' with himself was an act of shocking abnormality. Queen Victoria had all her boys circumcised. And her husband, Prince Albert, who shared a deep and abiding love between them, tied his foreskin back to keep his glans exposed for her because he could not bear the thought of circumcision.

 

By definition, circumcision IS barbaric: and I, too, doubt how many people know how twisted the original reasons were.

 

But we have to accept that parents who circumcise their boys, do so in love for them. Nonetheless, as an Englishman, I find it very hard to understand a decision like that when so much evidence to keep a boy intact is available today. Normalcy? Before seat belts were made obligatory, we drove around in gay abandon with never a thought to our safety. So is compulsory foreskin education the answer for America?

 

Christopher

post #6 of 12
Thread Starter 

EarthRoots, do you have any evidence that John K was sexually abused as a boy? He had a brother, Will - and if any abuse had occurred it's more than likely that John shared the memory with his brother. I have just Googled and found nothing to support your assumption.

 

Christopher

post #7 of 12
Unfortunately I don't think that Kellogg's sadistic tendencies were some anomaly caused by childhood sexual abuse, but rather that he was a product of his time and the puritanical, Victorian values that were the norm then. Or, if not "the norm," at least they were widely accepted and espoused by many of J Kellogg's contemporaries.
post #8 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islay View Post

EarthRoots, do you have any evidence that John K was sexually abused as a boy? He had a brother, Will - and if any abuse had occurred it's more than likely that John shared the memory with his brother. I have just Googled and found nothing to support your assumption.

 

Christopher


How else does someone get that screwed up?  I wouldn't expect it would be posted on Google.  eyesroll.gif  People are usually pretty ashamed of that sort of thing. 

post #9 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islay View Post

When I came across this additional method of punishment for masturbation, I was astounded and sickened almost to the point of disbelief - until I was told that Kellogg's influence spawned the sale of mechanical devices designed to be clamped to a boy's genitals with various methods of torture usually involving internal spikes to penetrate both penis and scrotum upon erection. If true, that's utterly horrific.

 

However, the notion of 'sinful' self-abuse was a product of Victorian morality; as much as anything because the religious climate at the time defined the sex act itself as a necessary evil (think Adam and Eve). The act was best done in near-darkness with the woman lying back in compliance, thinking of England, as the man penetrated her until completion.

 

A boy's instinctive compulsion to 'play' with himself was an act of shocking abnormality. Queen Victoria had all her boys circumcised. And her husband, Prince Albert, who shared a deep and abiding love between them, tied his foreskin back to keep his glans exposed for her because he could not bear the thought of circumcision.

 

By definition, circumcision IS barbaric: and I, too, doubt how many people know how twisted the original reasons were.

 

But we have to accept that parents who circumcise their boys, do so in love for them. Nonetheless, as an Englishman, I find it very hard to understand a decision like that when so much evidence to keep a boy intact is available today. Normalcy? Before seat belts were made obligatory, we drove around in gay abandon with never a thought to our safety. So is compulsory foreskin education the answer for America?

 

Christopher

 

 

I have read that princess Diana would not circumcise her sons, and left them intact. If this is true, then maybe it will continue with William's babies.

post #10 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitteh View Post

Unfortunately I don't think that Kellogg's sadistic tendencies were some anomaly caused by childhood sexual abuse, but rather that he was a product of his time and the puritanical, Victorian values that were the norm then. Or, if not "the norm," at least they were widely accepted and espoused by many of J Kellogg's contemporaries.

 

That's it in a nutshell, Kitteh.

 

Christopher

post #11 of 12
Thread Starter 

Erinsuzy, you're right, Princess Diana absolutely refused to circumcise her sons. Before her tragic death, there were suggestions that this was a significant part of the problems she and Prince Charles were coping with. I cannot say that he (Charles) is circumcised. I simply don't know - but it's very probable.

 

I'm sure any boys William has will be left intact! And that pleases me, no end!

 

I must say this: our Royal Family was entrenched in a tradition of circumcising its boys under the historical persuasion of Queen Victoria and her concept of 'sinful' masturbation. We were responsible for America's enduring practice to circumcise its boys. But today it has turned head over heel. Neither Will nor any other member of our Royal Family in the future will rid their boys of his foreskn. joy.gif

 

Christopher

post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarthRootsStarSoul View Post


How else does someone get that screwed up?  I wouldn't expect it would be posted in Google.  eyesroll.gif  People are usually pretty ashamed of that sort of thing

We can find anything, and I mean absolutely anything, on the Internet today. Perhaps J Kellogg's childhood is not fully researched? His input seems to be very relevant to his time as an adult when dealing with 'bad' boys. But it beggars the question: "Was he ever bad boy??"

 

Christopher

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › J Kellogg and his little-known alternative to stop boys from 'self-abuse'. This is not easy reading...