Desmond Morris: Difference between revisions

Line 111:

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.

Revision as of 11:40, 5 June 2026 view source WikiModEn2 (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats 22,393 edits →Comment on male and female circumcision (genital mutilation) ← Older edit		Revision as of 11:59, 5 June 2026 view source WikiModEn2 (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats 22,393 edits →Comment on male and female circumcision (genital mutilation) Newer edit →
Line 111:		Line 111:

	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.		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.