Initially, non-religious circumcision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of negative attitudes toward sex, specifically masturbation. Historically, moral sentiment has seen masturbation as not only sinful, but also detrimental to one's health. This idea promoted medical leanings toward non-religious circumcision.
Karen Erickson Paige, author of the 1978 study The Ritual of Circumcision wrote: "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 was to control 'masturbatory insanity' ... also known as 'self-abuse.'"
Other books from farther back, like before people had decided sex was fun, actually recommended circumcision as a means of discouraging masturbation in a child. William Acton, a Victorian physician, damned the foreskin as a "source of serious mischief" and William Hammond, a professor in New York around the same time, noted that circumcision generally "lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse."
Hold the scissors. This all made sense to me, except for the fact that I know plenty of circumcised dudes who 'self-abuse' twice a day. It seems that the removal of their foreskin decreased nothing more than ... their foreskin. As my friend Blonde put it, "Maybe it feels better with foreskin, and maybe I'd be more turned-on more often, but I don't know if I could take it!"
My friend Brown, whose foreskin remains intact, is surprised what a stigma there is against his extra business. He's had girls say everything from "Awesome!" to "Ew!" when they first see his penis.
"There's no hygienic difference," Brown tells me. "That's a completely antiquated view. Maybe centuries ago, when people only bathed on their birthday, it was a problem, but now it isn't."
According to my research, Brown is correct. Foreskin can actually protect the shaft of the penis from many germs and diseases, not to mention that it is easily retractable for cleaning purposes.
Karen Erickson Paige, author of the 1978 study The Ritual of Circumcision wrote: "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 was to control 'masturbatory insanity' ... also known as 'self-abuse.'"
Other books from farther back, like before people had decided sex was fun, actually recommended circumcision as a means of discouraging masturbation in a child. William Acton, a Victorian physician, damned the foreskin as a "source of serious mischief" and William Hammond, a professor in New York around the same time, noted that circumcision generally "lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse."
Hold the scissors. This all made sense to me, except for the fact that I know plenty of circumcised dudes who 'self-abuse' twice a day. It seems that the removal of their foreskin decreased nothing more than ... their foreskin. As my friend Blonde put it, "Maybe it feels better with foreskin, and maybe I'd be more turned-on more often, but I don't know if I could take it!"
My friend Brown, whose foreskin remains intact, is surprised what a stigma there is against his extra business. He's had girls say everything from "Awesome!" to "Ew!" when they first see his penis.
"There's no hygienic difference," Brown tells me. "That's a completely antiquated view. Maybe centuries ago, when people only bathed on their birthday, it was a problem, but now it isn't."
According to my research, Brown is correct. Foreskin can actually protect the shaft of the penis from many germs and diseases, not to mention that it is easily retractable for cleaning purposes.
