Epispasm: Difference between revisions

Line 19:

}}</ref>

Hodges (2001) reported, ''Lipodermos'' is the name given by the Greeks to the condition of having a deficient foreskin. According to Hodges:

Hodges (2001) reported, ''Lipodermos'' is the name given by the Greeks to the condition of having a deficient [[foreskin]]. According to Hodges:

Through the development of the concept of ''lipodermos'', Greek medicine gave to Greek civilization a scientific reinforcement of its disapproval of the violations of genital integrity occurring in the Near East. This ethos posited not only that a circumcised penis is a deviation from the natural—although that is of real importance—but that a circumcised penis is a defective and disfigured penis, one that can be repaired by medical treatment. Medicine and law thereby entered into a mutually supportive relationship: circumcision was against the law because it mutilated its victims, but, taken to the next logical level in this medico-ethical argument, it was also against the law because it necessarily inflicted a state of ''lipodermos'' on its victims.<ref name="hodges2001">{{REFjournal

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 }}</ref>
-Hodges (2001) reported, ''Lipodermos'' is the name given by the Greeks to the condition of having a deficient foreskin. According to Hodges:
+Hodges (2001) reported, ''Lipodermos'' is the name given by the Greeks to the condition of having a deficient [[foreskin]]. According to Hodges:
 <blockquote>
 Through the development of the concept of ''lipodermos'', Greek medicine gave to Greek civilization a scientific reinforcement of its disapproval of the violations of genital integrity occurring in the Near East. This ethos posited not only that a circumcised penis is a deviation from the natural—although that is of real importance—but that a circumcised penis is a defective and disfigured penis, one that can be repaired by medical treatment. Medicine and law thereby entered into a mutually supportive relationship: circumcision was against the law because it mutilated its victims, but, taken to the next logical level in this medico-ethical argument, it was also against the law because it necessarily inflicted a state of ''lipodermos'' on its victims.<ref name="hodges2001">{{REFjournal