Alleged reasons for circumcision: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)

Line 1:

In the long history of genital mutilation aka [[foreskin]] [[amputation]] aka [[circumcision]], there have been many alleged reasons why this should be a ''medical procedure''. Please note that some of the alleged medical reasons are rather pseudo-hygienical reasons which should never be solved by cutting off intact body parts.

In the long history of genital mutilation aka [[foreskin]] [[amputation]] aka [[circumcision]], there have been many false alleged reasons why this should be a ''medical procedure''. Please note that some of the alleged medical reasons are rather pseudo-hygienical reasons which should never be solved by cutting off [[intact]] body parts.

Line 49:

* Paralysis of the bladder - 1875: [[Lewis Albert Sayre|Lewis A. Sayre]]<ref name="Sayre1875"/>

In 1958, [[Christine F. McDonald]] said "the same reasons that apply for the circumcision of males are generally valid when considered for the female."<ref name="McDonald1958">{{McDonald1958}}</ref>

In 1958, [[Christine F. McDonald]] said "the same reasons that apply for the [[circumcision]] of males are generally valid when considered for the female."<ref name="McDonald1958">{{McDonald1958}}</ref>

In 1966, Masters and Johnson erroneous claim that there is no difference in sensitivity between penises with and without foreskin.

In 1966, Masters and Johnson erroneous claim that there is no difference in sensitivity between penises with and without [[foreskin]].

: ({{NOTE}} Their work helps propagate the medical dogma that circumcision has no effect on sexuality go practically unquestioned for nearly the next four decades.)<ref name="MastersJohnson1966">{{REFbook

|last=Masters & Johnson

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-In the long history of genital mutilation aka [[foreskin]] [[amputation]] aka [[circumcision]], there have been many alleged reasons why this should be a ''medical procedure''. Please note that some of the alleged medical reasons are rather pseudo-hygienical reasons which should never be solved by cutting off intact body parts.
+In the long history of genital mutilation aka [[foreskin]] [[amputation]] aka [[circumcision]], there have been many false alleged reasons why this should be a ''medical procedure''. Please note that some of the alleged medical reasons are rather pseudo-hygienical reasons which should never be solved by cutting off [[intact]] body parts.
 {{Incomplete}}
@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 * Paralysis of the bladder - 1875: [[Lewis Albert Sayre|Lewis A. Sayre]]<ref name="Sayre1875"/>
-In 1958, [[Christine F. McDonald]] said "the same reasons that apply for the circumcision of males are generally valid when considered for the female."<ref name="McDonald1958">{{McDonald1958}}</ref>
+In 1958, [[Christine F. McDonald]] said "the same reasons that apply for the [[circumcision]] of males are generally valid when considered for the female."<ref name="McDonald1958">{{McDonald1958}}</ref>
-In 1966, Masters and Johnson erroneous claim that there is no difference in sensitivity between penises with and without foreskin.
+In 1966, Masters and Johnson erroneous claim that there is no difference in sensitivity between penises with and without [[foreskin]].
 : ({{NOTE}} Their work helps propagate the medical dogma that circumcision has no effect on sexuality go practically unquestioned for nearly the next four decades.)<ref name="MastersJohnson1966">{{REFbook
   |last=Masters & Johnson