Business Tips Lifestyle Bizarre history of american circumcision

Bizarre history of american circumcision

Circumcision facts and myths : 1896 Dr. R.N. Tooker wrote a popular book, All About The Baby, which advised mothers that circumcision of baby boys was “advisable in most cases.” He recommended the operation mainly for preventing “the vile habit of masturbation.” 1894: Dr. Peter C. Remondino in the National Popular Review advocated; “the wholesale circumcision of the Negro race is an efficient remedy in preventing their predisposition to discriminate raping so inherent in that [Negro] race.”

Living in America in the beginning of the 21st century, it’s easy to see how this notion got ingrained in the cultural consciousness: it’s common , and it’s common, so it must be common everywhere, always. Right? Wrong! Most of the world doesn’t practice circumcision. In fact, most of the world has never practiced circumcision. The truth is that the United States is the only country that circumcises the majority of babies, and we’ve only done it for a few generations. And on top of that, we’re doing it less and less: fewer than 60% of male babies in the US are circumcised these days.

There are essentially three stakeholders involved with the decision to circumcise an infant. The baby-patient, the parent-guardian, and the doctor. The physician is supposed to be bound by ethical principles of beneficence (serve the best interests of patients and their families) and non-maleficence (“first, do no harm”). The standard of “serving the interests of families” can be a slippery slope as doctors can be forced to do things against their better judgement to appease parents. Pro-circumcision or religious advocates typically want babies circumcised immediately because older children and adults would opt out if given the opportunity. Discover more info about circumcision.

Circumcision’s psychological damage largely stems from the traumatic pain infant’s suffer during the procedure. Research has demonstrated the hormone cortisol, which is associated with stress and pain, spikes during circumcision (Talbert et al., 1976; Gunnar et al., 1981). Although some believe that babies “won’t remember” the pain, we now know that the body “remembers” as evidenced by studies which demonstrate that circumcised infants are more sensitive to pain later in life (Taddio et al., 1997). Research carried out using neonatal animals as a proxy to study the effects of pain on infants’ psychological development have found distinct behavioral patterns characterized by increased anxiety, altered pain sensitivity, hyperactivity, and attention problems (Anand & Scalzo, 2000). In another similar study, it was found that painful procedures in the neonatal period were associated with site-specific changes in the brain that have been found to be associated with mood disorders (Victoria et al., 2013).

Intaction is funded via private donations and volunteer assistance primarily by men and women that have been adversely affected by genital cutting. We promote the benefits of an intact body and the harm of genital cutting. We seek to achieve our goals through education, advocacy, and activism. We empower our members by providing them a constructive way to address the physical and emotional harm that was inflicted on them. Action is in our name. Foreskin is in our DNA. We accept the challenges of creating change, we meet our goals, and then chart new ones. We have no highly paid directors or staff like some big name popular causes. In fact, we are not paid at all. Our compensation is the satisfaction we receive from the many people whose lives we have touched. We help assure parents that keeping their son intact was the enlightened decision. We’ve helped many babies to stay intact. We help build body positive confidence in intact men so they can appreciate their own natural body. We’ve helped many cut men, essentially victims of genital cutting, to feel like they now have a voice, when as infants they didn’t have a choice. Find more information at https://intaction.org/.