Desmond Morris: Difference between revisions

Line 112:

To be more precise, the claim that the “debris” called smegma which collects under retained foreskins could cause cancer of the penis and also cancer of the cervix of the wives of the uncircumcised. The paper which started this false rumour was founded on faulty statistics, but nobody minded because here was a plausible new reason for slicing away at the infantile penis. Subsequent experiments, however revealed that there is nothing remotely carcinogenic about the smegma produced under the fold of the foreskin, but they were widely ignored. Other investigations showed that women whose uncircumcised husbands always wore condoms were no more or less likely to develop cancer than those whose husbands never wore condoms. But again nobody wanted to know. In one country where there was no circumcision at all was compared to a country in which all males were circumcised. The results showed, to the relief of the foreskin snippers, that prostate cancer was higher in the uncircumcised country. Unfortunately this form of cancer is a disease of elderly men, and when a correction for age distribution was made the figures showed that this disorder was actually more likely in the circumcised country.

Not only was the cancer scare completely without foundation, but the operation of foreskin removal continued to prove a distinct health hazard for small babies. There were many cases of haemorrhage, ulceration of the urethra, surgical trauma and local infection. In rare cases, foreskin removal resulted in the death of the baby. There were also more subtle effects with possible long-term implications: following circumcision male babies showed an increase in the level of hormones related to stress; sleep patterns altered; there was more crying and more irritability.

Despite all this, “medical” circumcisions continued (and still continues) at a merry pace in certain countries where private medicine is the rule. In Britain, significantly, there was a dramatic decline in the operation following the introduction of the National Health Service scheme and free treatment. It is impossible to refrain from asking why it should be that the operation sank to a level of less than one per cent (only 0.41 per cent of male babies in 1972) in a country where there was no financial gain to be made from it, while in the United States, for example, in the same year, over 80 per cent of male babies were circumcised, at an annual cost to health-insurance companies of more than $200 million. The new deities demanding circumcision appear to be more fiscal than sacred.

Young females have also been assaulted in this fashion. This has been rare in the West, although as recently as 1937 a Texas doctor was advocating the removal of the clitoris to cure frigidity. The harshest traditions of female circumcision are found in Africa, parts of the Middle East, Indonesia and Malayia. It is a staggering fact that, far from being an ancient memory, the practice of cutting away all or part of the external genitals of young females is still going on in more than 20 countries.

@@ Line 112: / Line 112: @@
 To be more precise, the claim that the “debris” called smegma which collects under retained foreskins could cause cancer of the penis and also cancer of the cervix of the wives of the uncircumcised. The paper which started this false rumour was founded on faulty statistics, but nobody minded because here was a plausible new reason for slicing away at the infantile penis.  Subsequent experiments, however revealed that there is nothing remotely carcinogenic about the smegma produced under the fold of the foreskin, but they were widely ignored. Other investigations showed that women whose uncircumcised husbands always wore condoms were no more or less likely to develop cancer than those whose husbands never wore condoms. But again nobody wanted to know. In one country where there was no circumcision at all was compared to a country in which all males were circumcised. The results showed, to the relief of the foreskin snippers, that prostate cancer was higher in the uncircumcised country. Unfortunately this form of cancer is a disease of elderly men, and when a correction for age distribution was made the figures showed that this disorder was actually more likely in the circumcised country.
 Not only was the cancer scare completely without foundation, but the operation of foreskin removal continued to prove a distinct health hazard for small babies. There were many cases of haemorrhage, ulceration of the urethra, surgical trauma and local infection. In rare cases, foreskin removal resulted in the death of the baby. There were also more subtle effects with possible long-term implications: following circumcision male babies showed an increase in the level of hormones related to stress; sleep patterns altered; there was more crying and more irritability.
+Despite all this, “medical” circumcisions continued (and still continues) at a merry pace in certain countries where private medicine is the rule. In Britain, significantly, there was a dramatic decline in the operation following the introduction of the National Health Service scheme and free treatment. It is impossible to refrain from asking why it should be that the operation sank to a level of less than one per cent (only 0.41 per cent of male babies in 1972) in a country where there was no financial gain to be made from it, while in the United States, for example, in the same year, over 80 per cent of male babies were circumcised, at an annual cost to health-insurance companies of more than $200 million. The new deities demanding circumcision appear to be more fiscal than sacred.
+Young females have also been assaulted in this fashion. This has been rare in the West, although as recently as 1937 a Texas doctor was advocating the removal of the clitoris to cure frigidity. The harshest traditions of female circumcision are found in Africa, parts of the Middle East, Indonesia and Malayia. It is a staggering fact that, far from being an ancient memory, the practice of cutting away all or part of the external genitals of young females is still going on in more than 20 countries.