OF THE PRACTICE
OF ROUTINE MALE CIRCUMCISION|
for psychologists who interpret sexual effects from phimosis as a delusion
THE MEDICINE MAN HAD A DELUSION
The development of the ancient practice of partial circumcision is shrouded in mystery, (Please note, the author is not discussing full circumcision as practiced in the modern times).. Experts in anthropology and more recently psychology have been
unable to establish the origin of the practice of routine male circumcision.
The anthropological and psychological theories on the origins
of the practice of routine male circumcision, discuss if this began
as a manifestation of cultural requirements (e.g. hygiene, initiation,
fertility, tribal mark, sacrifice, sexual advantages); or the expression
of unconscious tendencies (e.g. castration complex, menstruation
The modern anthropologist regards circumcision as an unsolvable
mystery. Modern theories assume that the practice was based on a number of combined factors.
Phimosis was refuted because a) the
natural peoples did not appreciate the association between the penis, semen and
fertility (anthropologists assumed that the problem with phimosis is that it hinders semen emission) and b) phimosis is thought to be a rarity, however this opinion was established previous to any statistical studies.
Modern writers never mention phimosis. Since 1960 any discussion
of phimosis as origin for circumcision has vanished from the books.
last discussed by Ploss (1884) and Bryk (1931).
lists fully all relevant texts including the original Ploss; and Bryk's
Ploss (1894) was misinterpreted by a student who rewrote his work after his death. He claimed phimosis to be the origin of routine male circumcision, he did not claim fertility to be of any great relevance apart from among fairly advanced lierate cultures.
phimosis was far too great a rarity to be considered
as originating factor. However neither he nor any other anthropologist
ever refers to a statistical study.
In 1931 there
were no statistical studies.
A clear understanding of the statistics is important to this subject because at present the main reason anthropologists dismiss phimosis as the origin, is because they believe it is a rarity.
I discuss all the available statistical
reports. These show between 2.4% and 14% of young males have problems of
retraction in the non-erect state. This figure does not include the frequency when erect, or frenulum breve. In addition, this
figure is given for only one point of time in life, it does
not include how many men develop a secondary phimosis as an adult.
However even this would only give a basic idea on the actual frequency.
The practice originated among the hunting peoples.
Hunting peoples lived in tribal groups of a size (around 30 members with 15 males) which are renowned
for their unreliable statistical fluctuations. This is the reason modern statistics are measured with groups of a thousand or more.
With a modern scientific measurement of 10%, in a small group we would expect the frequency to periodically vary between 0% and 100%.
When we consider that different forms of phimosis can become problematic in childhood adulthood
or old age, we see how males could have problems with a form of
phimosis, in 3 or 4 generations of the same family group simultaneously.
I suggest the first routine steps were taken during one of
the periods of high frequency.
The full extent of the effects of these conditions have
only recently come to light, largely due to the anonymity of Internet
where adult men have been able to record their experiences openly
for the first time.
A man who had personal experience of the problems involved with
phimosis has motives for introducing the practice, which no anthropologist has ever discussed.
I suggest routine partial circumcision
was originally introduced by men who had personal
experience of foreskin problems.
There are numerous individual degrees and combinations of foreskin
conditions, each causing specific physical effects during erection.
The mysterious appearance of a secondary phimosis occurring throughout
adulthood, the almost invisible relative phimosis and the apparent
infant phimosis - all add to the symptomatic complexity.
Some conditions are merely irritating others are painful, some
typically result in inflammations and disease, some cause problems
by urination, others during masturbation; some during penetration, others
during intercourse and still others for several days after intercourse.
We are considering a large variety of difficulties influencing
various different areas of health and sexual activity.
In pre-literate times it would not have been possible to start
understanding and classifying all these problematic conditions,
the symptoms would have been totally mystifying, but contrary to
the confusion and complications, the cure would have been simple
and obvious and for a people who required practical answers, the
best reasoning would have been done with a sharp knife.
I suggest routine circumcision was originally introduced
as an all cure as a practical and simple solution to, and prevention
of, a number of confusing and chaotic problems.
A further section examines the various reasons why among some
peoples the practice became established - the oldest living surgical
tradition - and thus heralded the beginnings of the surgical practice
in Western medicine.
If routine circumcision had initially been introduced for this
most obvious reason of eliminating difficult foreskins; it would
underline the importance of a modern alternative form of prevention.
Please read the full text:
The Origins of the Practice of Routine Male Circumcision