[KIDS: The following contains explicit descriptions of unpleasant things. Best to limit yourself to reading other areas of the forum, YY, and ItG, especially with parental guidance if possible. You're not missing anything, that's for sure: I'd like never to have had occasion to learn this stuff.]
I'm afraid that most of the evidence that I referenced wasn't addressed, and I had intended not to reply until I discovered some astonishing information not mentioned on this forum at all in communication with a Karaite professor. I will address elaborate on the harmful aspects of circumcision (thereby addressing some of James' arguments), attempt to arrive at a theory of how it came to be instituted in the US., and finally impart the above novel intelligence as a means of verifying the improbability that the practice was sanctioned by Yah.
The analysis is lengthy and you may wish to skip the theories for the medical facts if you haven't researched the subject yourself and are nonetheless curious. I'll underline the must-reads.
James wrote:Welcome to the forum by the way.
Thanks.
J wrote:Having been circumcised at birth I have no basis for comparison, but I have no complaint either.
Allow me to relate my own story and play armchair autopsychiatrist in order to consider the veracity of this supposed practical evidence in favor of the practice. Despite my extraordinary intelligence, I can remember only a handful of memories from childhood, no doubt because it was unhappy. Often given to wondering what that ugly scar was, I was highly resistant to believing I was circumcised after I came to a basic understanding of the practice. After all, my parents told me they loved me and instinct told me that such an operation would be painful and couldn't be anything but harmful. Having grown up in an area of America heavily populated by upper-class Whites and Jews, it took until high school for me to overhear a conversation [GRAPHIC] between acquaintances, one of whom was uncircumcised; after taking jibes from his buddies at the novel appearance of his penis, he reminded them of the total, body-shaking orgasm he had enjoyed in mutual masturbation [I apologize if this is too graphic; I reasoned that the overall topic is an adult-enough one.] Nonetheless, by then I was deeply invested in Christianity (according to which circumcision is part of the perfect Torah if no longer enjoined upon believers), and I determined to rationalize his behavior as excessively "sensual and fleshly" (chanelling Paul, ironically). "Perhaps God wanted sex to be less pleasurable [for men] and intended it really only for procreation" I thought. (A sentiment echoed on this board in different threads; while this doesn't prove anything, it's statistical evidence for the antipleasure bias of some of circumcision's advocates).
Now, it is a well-accepted axiom in the psychology of grief that the first stage is denial of the loss (I'll provide sources if they're desired), and such is certainly true in reference to the loss of a body part, whereby the victim will probably be permanently deprived of its attendant sensations and utility [Fitzgerald RG, Parkes CM. Coping with loss: Blindness and loss of other sensory and cognitive functions..British Medical Journal 1998;316:1160-1163.[Part 5/10]]. I freely admit to denial (especially when I was less mature than I am now at 20) and hope you'll reflect on your reasons for supporting it. While this doesn't apply to YY posters (who would be universally appaled, I imagine), also remember that circumcision fetishes are non-trivial; the Acorn society (so named after the bare glans exposed by the act; glans is Latin for acorn), a London-based sado-masochistic and homosexual organization, openly solicits for video recordings of such acts, and members are known to have particular fascination with sexually humiliating boys and themselves (I'll provide examples and further info to anyone who can stomach it. It's representative of the psychology of hard-core circumcision fetishists and really should be disseminated). On an only-slightly less vile note, many doctors who practice circumcision have a single-minded, libidinous fixation on the practice that suggests a more conscientious concealment of a similar fetish.This anecdotal evidence of the frequency with which circumcised men deny their harm aside, that the circumcised condition could be anything but inferior to the intact is theoretically impossible. To understand why, you must first be apprised of what is lost during circumcision (the layman generally has no conception), and while I'm explaining it, I might as well detail how infant circumcision is performed. The overview is graphic. Kids, you should have left this page a long time ago.
{In the rare case that the penis is partly hidden in a fold of groin fat, the circumciser elicits an erection in order to expose additional penis length. The grotesque psychological consequences of this can be imagined.}
From development in the womb until several years of age, the foreskin and glans are tightly bound together (for the protection of the latter) by a type of membrane, synechia (this specific one is called the balanopreputial membrane). Would you like to have your fingernail torn from its quick? What about a similar operation on a more sensitive part of your body? The first operation of an American circumcision is to forcefully separate the bonded foreskin and glans. Notably, some Jewish sources suggest that the Talmudic government revised its official definition of circumcision to include this practice in around 140CE as Jews were previously able to stretch their remaining foreskins easily and thus appear as Gentiles and regain much of their foreskins' functions; in the earlier form of circumcision, only the skin beyond the tip of the glans was cut off, entailing less removal of flesh (though the ridged band would still be lost, the child subjected to pain, &c.), or so the theory goes.
Advocates of this form of circumcision point out that the literal wording of the Torah considers only one operation, the actual cut; no forcible separation is required (though an adult could be circumcised tightly in the post-140AD fashion without the extra separation operation), a theory supported by Greek and Talmudic mentions of "removing the marks of circumcision"/epispasm. . Moreover, Jewish sources sometimes distinguish "brit milah" (cutting off the skin protruding beyond the glans tip before separation) and the violent separation followed by further cutting, "periah". As this mode of circumcision should in theory remove much less skin and traumatize the infant less, it would at least be preferable (if still immoral) to the present.
The next step in an American circumcision is to excise the separated foreskin. To comprehend the amount of flesh removed, take a 3x5 index card and fold it in half along the longer axis. This represents the average amount of skin removed in the process (remember that the foreskin is double folded: a sensitive and shiny inner layer faces the glans when the penis isn't erect, and this inner surface of the foreskin becomes a more-keratinized outer surface at the "ring" (ridged band) - like the index card, the foreskin is double-folded when the penis is flacid; a total of 15sq.in. worth of skin on average is thus cut off.
It should be noted that a non-trivial proportion of circumcisions entail so much skin loss as to make erections uncomfortably tight (while mine was probably in the 80th percentile in terms of skin loss, I at least have never suffered such). Shoddily-performed circumcisions can also leave shreds of the foreskin, forming painful skin bridges in adults. Sadly, the penile frenulum ("banjo string" in American vernacular; a frenulum is a tissue that connects a movable piece of skin to another part of the body), perhaps the most densely-ennervated part of the penis (albeit a small one), is occasionally removed as well. The sole functions of the frenulum are to provide further pleasure, and to hold the foreskin over the glans for the latter's protection when the penis isn't aroused.Although instinct tells us that the above procedures should be excruciatingly painful, it wasn't until the 1970s that the medical Establishment in this country admitted as much. The zeigeist of pseudoscience scored another victory in 1872 when Paul Flechsig popularized the notion that infants couldn't feel pain, an attempt to excuse not only infant circumcision, but even open heart surgery (long performed on infants without anaesthetic!). It was not until the 1970s that the mainstream would even acknowledge that infants could be "stressed", and only in the late 1980s did the current understanding become commonly accepted - that is, to quote,
"Numerous lines of evidence suggest that even in the human fetus, pain pathways as well as cortical and subcortical centers necessary for pain perception are well developed late in gestation, and the neurochemical systems now known to be associated with pain transmission and modulation are intact and functional. Physiologic responses to painful stimuli have been well documented in neonates of various gestational ages and are reflected in hormonal, metabolic, and cardiorespiratory changes similar to but greater than those observed in adult subjects. Other responses in newborn infants are suggestive of integrated emotional and behavioral responses to pain and are retained in memory long enough to modify subsequent behavior patterns." [Anand, KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its Effects on the Human Neonate and Fetus. New Engl J Med 1987;317:1321-1329.] Be careful when you use the same argument as pro-aborts do to justify their murder ("'it's' just a blob and can't feel anything" is the lie told to most women).
If you need further confirmation, here is [rare; circumcising doctors aren't keen on the dissemination of these recordings save for teaching purposes] audio/video of a mutilation. It's hard to envision how he could express more pain; moreover, there are plenty of reports of infants going catatonic from shock during/afterwards. http://video.google.com/...57516627632617&hl=en
It also should be noted that it wasn't until 1997 that some pain control, and mediocre pain control at that, became common (if not universal) in US hospitals. Moreover, some scientists interpret the physiological and apparent psychological changes (the latter being harder to detect than the former) as evidence that circumcised babies suffer from 'an infant analogue of PTSD' even six months after the mutilation! [Taddio A, Koren G et al. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. The Lancet, Vol. 349: Pages 599-603 (March 1, 1997).] Do you have any evidence that would make you think babies are eventually
entirely unaffected by the trauma?
J wrote:It makes you less sensitive and increases the likely hood of premature ejaculation, this to me seems to be counterintuitive, but I have never taken the time to research it, so it may be that the statistics bear it out.
I should have been more specific. The practice only increases the likelihood of premature ejaculation in a small subset of the population who can be brought to it (without much actual pleasure) by direct stimulation of the corona of the glans head. Note that this part of an intact male is not directly stimulated by the vagina. [Zwang G. Functional and erotic consequences of sexual mutilations. In: GC Denniston and MF Milos, eds. Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy New York and London: Plenum Press, 1997 (ISBN 0-306-45589-7]. Studies of the incidence of PE have found it to be slightly more common in the circumcised. [Richters J, Smith AMA, de Visser RO, et al. Circumcision in Australia: prevalence and effects on sexual health. Int J STD AIDS 2006;17:547–54.]
However, it's abundantly clear that the mutilation {lest any object to the use of this word, its definition, from Dictionary.Com: v, 1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts} always has detrimental sexual consequences, both for the male but also for his female partner. The glans head loses considerable sensitivity when it is exposed to abrasion (from clothing, &c.) and the elements, for which cause, while an intact male's glans has a shiny surface of "mucosa" (the same sort as the inside of your cheek has when not actually coated with saliva), that of one who was circumcised long ago will have an uneven and relatively coarse texture. Furthermore, I am currently a few months into epispasm (stretching remaining inner and outer penile skin to stimulate growth of new skin and thereby to recover the glans, with the aim of regaining the appearance and glans protection if not neuronal functionality of my foreskin), and have stretched my skin enough (if not produced much new growth yet) that my glans has been covered fairly reliably for over a month; the organ is now too sensitive for me to comfortably go clothed without my skin-retaining device.
Even more significantly, the foreskin contains several structures whose sole functions are to provide pleasure in some way, most notably Meissner's corpuscles and the ridged band. Overall, the foreskin has over 20,000 nerve endings, and has been recently declared in the British Journal of Urology even to be "primary erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function." [The prepuce. British Journal of Urology 1999 Jan;83(1):34-44]. How is it even conceivable that its removal could not have deleterious effects of at least some magnitude?
A man's female sexual partner is also guaranteed a less pleasant experience, primarily because the vagina was designed to accomodate a penis with a rolling bearing (i.e. the foreskin); a bare glans is mildy irritating against the lower vaginal walls, especially when the male uses extra force for at least a modicum of sexual pleasure (why is the sex act called "banging" in the US?). Penetration is even rendered easier (there is a ten-fold increase in the force required after circumcision). As the foreskin acts as a seal to prevent the rapid pumping out of lubricant, the probability of vaginal dryness is considerably reduced (note that this unfortunate condition is sometimes the cause of apparent female frigidity towards sex). Moreover, statistical studies of female enjoyment of sex with circumcised and uncircumcised partners shows that it is vastly easier for women to orgasm with intact partners. [O'Hara K, O'Hara J. The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl 1, 79-84.]One might reasonably expect that one of the many interpersonal consequences of man and woman's inability to enjoy the ideal level of sexual pleasure might be that circumcised men would engage in more risky [and, I imagine YY posters would believe, immoral] behavior than their uncut counterparts in an effort to feel the pleasure they [subconsciously] expect. Surveys of sexual behavior show that the circumcised have more sexual partners on average than the uncircumcised and that the former are less likely to use condoms with new partners / prostitutes.
Maimonides (obviously an advocate of circumcision) admitted:Maimonides wrote:With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.
It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility for everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for the member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.
The sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.
Given what we now know about the effects of circumcision, let's consider the probability it was originally found in YHWH's word.
J wrote:
So with that in mind, my logic follows this way.
1) The Jewish people, especially prior to the Talmud, were well versed in their Scriptures, even if they didn’t understand them they knew them.
In times even as distant as the Middle Ages there is indeed ample evidence that rigorous education in at least the obvious meanings of both TaNaKh and Talmud was commonplace in the Jewish community (at least for males). Do you have any reason to believe that this level of erudition was as widespread in the period of time that is of interest to the argument - immediately prior to, during, and [less importantly] immediately after the Babylonian Exile?
This is of course ridiculous of me to expect from you (if we haven't even scriptures from this period, how would we have cultural evidence that the common people had a good understanding of scripture?). However, you cannot use your claim as justification.
Moreover, consider the following verse, from Yirmeyahu:
Quote:
How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of YHWH," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?
There's debate as to whether Jeremiah is assailing the Levitical priesthood for having corrupted the previous religious tradition of Israel, or if he's merely condemning "scribes" (who apparently also acted as magistrates) for incorrectly applying the Torah. To debate this controversy is important but probably outside the scope of this argument. I have, however, learned information (from a noted Karaite scholar, Dr. Shmuel Asher) that was really the main reason for this reply:
Well-educated Jews are often aware that the whole Torah isn't genuine and that the Documentary Hypothesis has some merit to it! (This really shouldn't be surprising. There isn't any significant difference in levels of zeal for Zionism between secular, mildly religious, and Orthodox Jews, from which we conclude it's the political program that makes Zionism, not genuine religious belief).
In particular, a learned Karaite scholar and published author by the name of Dr. Shmuel Asher (http://ancienthebrewlearningcenter.blogspot.com/) is convinced that circumcision is a pagan invention. It isn't enjoined in the theoretical "J" text.
Now, this is clearly insufficient evidence to support my theory. I'm going to continue this line of research (I plan to post a thread on it in this forum in a week or so) and urge YY members to consider the Documentary Hypotheses. (It is mentioned only once on the entire website as per a Google search!). Note that Israeli researchers have recently employed a computer program to test the veracity of the hypothesis's assessment of writing styles. Of course, this doesn't prove that writing style and author are associated, but it surely deserves consideration.J wrote:
2) ... Where the Masoretic text differs from the DSS it is in small ways (slight rewording, removal or addition of a word here and there and mostly through confining the meaning through their vowel pointing). Unlike for example the Greek text where the older manuscripts reveal that large swaths of text were added later.
True. Indeed, besides the difficult-to-interpret Jer 8:8 quote, I have no textual evidence of corruption. (I think that the Karaite testimony will prove powerful, but that remains for me to support to y'all.)
J wrote:
4) In addition, if large swaths of Scripture had been corrupted prior to the time of Yahowsha, He would have been compelled to make people aware of it, and His biographers would have been compelled to record it, and since we have no evidence of Yahowsha ever suggesting that the Scriptures had been tampered with, it doesn’t prove but suggests that they likely were not. Also he does discuss circumcision and if the way it was being practiced at the time were errant I’m sure he would have said something.
It's probably true that the Messiah doesn't condemn it at all. (There is John 7:22, but I think that the text only says that He says it's from the "fathers" in the sense of the patriarchs Abraham &al.)
However, among the many sects of "Christianity" (for lack of a better word) persecuted by the Roman Empire (amongst which we should not discount Gnosticism, like it or not), the Ebionites didn't trust the "received" copy of the Torah, doubting the inspiration of verses they thought associated sin to the patriarchs (not that I argue they were sinless), endorsement of the Davidic monarchy, and sacrificial laws.
Ephiphanius on Ebionites: “They do not accept the whole of the Pentateuch of Moses, but suppress certain passages” [Panarion XXX, 8]
Cardinal Danilou, in
The Theology of Jewish Christianity: "They [Ebionites] also reject any aspect of Christianity which makes it a religion of salvation. For them Christ’s mission is simply of teaching…They see Jesus as a reformer of the Law who brings it back to the true ideas of Moses. As it exists in Judaism the Law seems to them to be mixed with elements of diabolical origin which are of later date than Moses. The elements to be rejected are primarily the Temple worship and, in particular, bloody sacrifices.”
In "Ebionites", in
The Dictionary of Historical Theology, it's argued that Ebionites thought “He [Jesus] was the ‘true prophet’ [cf. Deut. 18:15-22], a second Moses, a teacher and reformer…He was not a priest, rather, he came to abolish the sacrificial cultus and to restore the true, spiritual meaning of the Mosaic code."
If these authors are correct in their accounts of Ebionite theology, the Ebionites would be quite important if for no other reason than, besides the true Gnostics, the Ebionites were the only sect we have record of to reject Paul's writings. While I don't even endorse Ebionite theology per se, I think it non-trivial that so many early believers even more pro-Torah than the average modern Messianic Jew questioned the perfection of extant copies of the Torah.
The Ebionites were particularly hung up on "sacrificial" laws as they opposed the shedding of blood (and given that the Prophets sometimes condemn sacrifices, they might not have contradicted the original Torah in so doing). Inasmuch as the command to circumcise one's children and slaves is considered to be one of the sacrificial laws (supposedly, it was given to Abraham in place of sacrificing his firstborn), AND cutting off part of the penis of an innocent infant entails shedding blood quite violently, I'm guessing that the Ebionites weren't thrilled with this practice.J wrote:"... the evidence to me suggests that we can, intellectually not blindly..."
As an aside, could you prepare a list of fulfilled prophecies (there isn't a convenient collation in YY) for study and even apologetics? Ditto with any other evidence or YY pages describing it. I probably wouldn't be the only one helped thereby and can only remember a textual analysis of Genesis showing that it doesn't contradict the Big Bang theory.
J wrote:There is a great deal of meaning and symbolism behind circumcision.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the only theories of symbolism in either YY or the preliminary copy of ItG [on Scribd] are the following:
1) Cutting off the foreskin symbolizes a necessary separation from sin. (What would make the foreskin representative of sin? Why is it only enjoined upon males - the female clitoris has a hood analogous to the male prepuce? Woman's pain in childbirth isn't the answer-the analogous punishment in Genesis is specified to be that man is compelled to work hard for his very survival. In every civilized society, men are sadly treated as less biologically valuable than women, upon which I'll elaborate below in
my theory of the significance of circumcision.)
2) The foreskin "symbolizes" the fleshly, animal nature. (No more or less than the testicles/ovaries, or, for that matter, the brain. Also, note that Paul the probable liar attacks "the flesh" but is effectively neutral on circumcision, neither condemning it as immoral nor demanding that"Christians" become circumcised.)
3) The cutting act of circumcision, called "karat", is etymologically related to the word for cutting a covenant. (Unless I am quite mistaken, Yada himself never explains whence comes the phrase "to cut" a covenant. However, I've heard it theorized that in ancient Semitic cultures, a covenant between two parties was commonly sealed by slaughtering a bull, the act of which was symbolic of the fate to befall the party that broke the covenant.)
4) Parents would be reminded of the importance of bringing up their children in the covenant. (Tzit-tzit are more symbolic as they actually symbolize purity and the Doctrine/Torah, and more frequently seen.)
Neither the author(s) of the Torah (be they YHWH, scribes, or both) nor Yada make(s) an attempt to justify the harm circumcision entails. If the damage were somehow justified, however, honesty would compel YHWH (if He inspired the Torah) to at least admit some injurious consequences (presumably stating that these are outweighed by spiritual benefits). Suspiciously, they don't even acknowledge them, from which we can only infer that the principal aim in both cases was perpetuating circumcision itself (most people not desirous of forcing others to suffer with them would oppose circumcision if compelled to admit of its harm) : after all, full disclosure would not only give YHWH's argument more weight and grant us better understanding of His character, though it would drastically reduce the ritual's incidence.
J wrote:The “it’s popularized in the US to stop masturbation” is a claim I have heard time and time again by people
Hate to split hairs, but I said it WAS introduced for only a few main stated purposes, of which the seminal one was to reduce masturbation. (Pseudoscientific reasons ranging from preventing club foot to blindness to insanity were also advocated but figured less prominently in circumcision's defense). Sure, the average adult who approves of circumcision will give entirely different reasons (interesting that American Christians who believe circumcision unnecessary if perfectly moral are so fond of it. Such apparent contradictions are often fruitful targets for research.).
Here's a timeline of the American medical Establishment's pro-circumcision rhetoric. (Those familiar with it will want to skip it: go to the next horizontal rule.)
1845
* Edward H. Dixon declares that circumcision prevents masturbation. [A Treatise on Diseases of the Sexual Organs. New York: Stringer & Co 1845 pp 158-65]
1855
* Johnathon Hutchinson publishes his theory that circumcision prevents syphilis. [On the Influence of Circumcision in Preventing Syphilis. Medical Times and Gazette 1855;32(844):542-543]
1865
* Nathaniel Heckford claims that circumcision cures epilepsy. [Circumcision as a remedial measure in certain cases of epilepsy and chorea. Clinical Lectures and Reports by the Medical and Surgical Staff of the London Hospital 1865;2:58-64]
1870
* Lewis A. Sayre publishes a paper 'proving' that circumcision cures epilepsy. [Circumcision versus epilepsy, etc; Transcription of the New York Pathological Society meeting of June 8, 1870. Medical Record 1870 Jul 15;5(10):231-4]
1870
* Lewis A. Sayre declares that circumcision prevents spinal paralysis. [Partial paralysis from reflex irritation, caused by congenital phimosis and adherent prepuce. Transactions of the American Medical Association 1870;21:205-11]
1871
* M.J. Moses declares that Jews are immune to masturbation because of circumcision. [The value of circumcision as a hygienic and therapeutic measure. New York Medical Journal 1871 Nov;14(4):368-74]
1875
* Lewis A. Sayre declares that foreskin causes curvature of the spine, paralysis of the bladder, and clubfoot. [Spinal anaemia with partial paralysis and want of coordination, from irritation of the genital organs. Transactions of the American Medical Association 1875;26:255-74]
1879
* H.H. Kane 'discovers' that circumcision cures nocturnal emissions and abdominal neuralgia. [Seminal emissions, abdominal neuralgia: circumcision: cure. Southern Clinic 1879 Oct;2(1):8-11]
1881
* Maximillian Landesburg announces that circumcision cures eye problems that he believed were caused by masturbation. [On affections of the eye caused by masturbation. Medical Bulletin 1881 Apr;3(4):79-81]
1886
* William G. Eggleston declares that foreskin causes crossed eyes. [Two cases of reflex paraplegia(one with aphasia) from tape-worm and phimosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 1886 May 8;6(19):511-5]
1888
* John Harvey Kellogg promotes circumcision as punishment for boys to discourage them from masturbating. [Treatment for Self-abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young, Burlington, Iowa, F. Segner & Co. (1888) p. 107]
1890
* William D. Gentry declares that circumcision cures blindness, deafness and dumbness. [Nervous derangements produced by sexual irregularities in boys. Medical Current 1890 Jul;6(7):268-74]
1891
* Johnathan Hutchinson declares that foreskin encourages boys to masturbate. [On circumcision as preventive of masturbation. Archives of Surgery 1891 Jan;2(7):267-9]
1893
* Mark J. Lehman demands immediate implementation of mass circumcision of all American boys. [A plea for circumcision. Medical Review 1893 Jul 22;28(4):64-5]
* 1894
* P.C. Remondino says circumcising blacks will help prevent them from raping whites. [Negro rapes and their social problems. National Popular Review 1894 Jan;4(1):3-6]
1894
* H.L. Rosenberry publishes paper 'proving' that circumcision cures urinary and rectal incontinence. [Incontinence of the urine and faeces, cured by circumcision. Medical Record 1894 Aug 11;4(6):173]
1898
* T. Scott McFarland says he has "circumcised as many girls as boys, and always with happy results." [Circumcision of girls. Journal of Orificial Surgery, 1898 Jul;7:31-33]
1900
* Johnathan Hutchinson advises circumcision as way to decrease the pleasure of sex, and hence to discourage sexual immorality. [The advantages of circumcision. The Polyclinic 1900 Sep;3(9):129-31]
1901
* Ernest G. Mark notes that the "pleasurable sensations that are elicited from the extremely sensitive" inner lining of the foreskin may encourage a child to masturbate, which is why he recommends circumcision since it "lessens the sensitiveness of the organ". [Circumcision. American Practitioner and News 1901 Feb 15;31(4):122-6]
1902
* Roswell Park publishes paper 'proving' that foreskin causes epilepsy and that circumcision cures it. [The surgical treatment of epilepsy. American Medicine 1902 Nov 22;4(21):807-9]
1914
* Abraham L. Wolbarst claims that circumcision prevents tuberculosis and demands the compulsory circumcision of all children in America. [Universal circumcision as a sanitary measure. Journal of the American Medical Association 1914 Jan 10;62(2):92-7]
1915
* Benjamin E. Dawson says that since the clitoral hood is the source of many neuroses, female circumcision is necessary. [Circumcision in the Female: Its Necessity and How to Perform It. American Journal of Clinical Medicine, 1915 Jun;22(6):520-523]
1918
* Belle Eskridge concludes...