15,948
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→The myth: Improve footnotes.
=== The myth ===
A frequent argument against the non-therapeutic [[foreskin]] amputation is the concept that the [[foreskin]] not only contains numerous nerve endings and is more sensitive for touch than the [[Glans penis|glans]], but also that the number of nerve endings is “more than 10,000”, "(more than) 20,000" or even "up to 70,000" or “100,000”. There appears to be no reliable evidence for these figures.<ref name="Appendix">see Appendix: Documentary Part, p. 5f. – Ditto on facebook: The legend of the “20,000 nerve endings”: [https://www.facebook.com/notes/hannes-mueller/the-legend-of-20000-nerve-endings/2034618236765662/The legend of the “20,000 nerve endings]”:</ref> Nevertheless, this article identifies the origin and the calculation of these figures, explains how credible they are, and what magnitude range is the most realistic.
The [[Intactivists]] movement, which promotes the idea that the possession of intact genitals is a [[human rights| human right]], is active against the genital mutilation of all children. [[Intactivists]] clarify many widespread myths about [[circumcision]], especially those concerned with male genital cutting. Advocates of circumcision often allege there are advantages. But the results of evidence-based scientific studies disprove these. They provide convincing arguments that the [[foreskin]] is not a superfluous piece of skin, but a part of the body with many positive functions and its lack leads to many disadvantages. To explain this, it is important to provide reliable, i.e. also verifiable, information about the anatomy of the [[foreskin]].
Medical studies of the past 25 years have provided much good evidence for [[intactivists]]. Evidence can be found, for example, that the [[foreskin]], especially at the end, is very densely supplied with nerve endings<ref name="Taylor">Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. [http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the [[penis]] and its loss to circumcision]. ''Br J Urol'' 1996;77:291-295. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/</ref>, and is very sensitive to fine touch, even more sensitive than the [[Glans penis|glans]]<ref>{{Sorrells et al 2007}}</ref>. Basically this is enough to emphasize the special sensitivity of the [[foreskin]]. However, it is in this connection that the above figures are often quoted.
The traceable story of the legend of "20,000 nerve endings" began in October '''1997''', when the article "The Case Against Circumcision"<ref name="Fleiss">Fleiss, P. [http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997/ The case against circumcision]. ''Mothering Magazine'' (Santa Fe). Winter 1997. http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997/</ref> by Paul Fleiss appeared in the popular mothers’ magazine “''Mothering''”. This is the first documentation of the ‘fact’, that the [[foreskin]] contains "more than 20,000 nerve endings". Fleiss referred to an article from 1932 by the English physiologist H. C. Bazett (1885-1950) together with other authors within a medical scientific journal.<ref name="bazett1932">Bazett HC, McGlone B, Willams RG, Lufkin HM. [http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/bazett/ I. Depth, distribution and probable identification in the prepuce of sensory end-organs concerned in sensations of temperature and touch thermo-metric conductivity]. ''Arch Neurol Psychiatry'' 1932;27(3):489-517.</ref>
The popular American pediatrician [[Paul Fleiss]] (1933-2014), in empathy with the children, was very active against the genital mutilation of newborns by [[RIC]](non-therapeeutic) (Routine Infant Circumcision) in USA. Fleiss, [[Marilyn Milos|Marilyn F. Milos]], and alongside them many other [intactivist]] pioneers, have contributed enormously to explaining its negative consequences. Fleiss knew of the article by Bazett et al. (1932) through the medical historian F. Hodges. Fleiss and Hodges were well known to each other. They appeared both in the 1995 film “[[Whose Body, Whose Rights?]]”<ref name="WhoseBody">film "Whose Body, Whose Rights?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kr6BiVZMM</ref>, and together they co-authored several articles<ref>Letter; Neonatal circumcision does not protect against penile cancer; [[foreskin]] IS NECESSARY; AIDS and circumcision; Circumcision in infancy; Authors’ reply; Immunological functions of the human prepuce</ref> and two books<ref name="SweetDreams">a) Sweet Dreams 2000; b) www.amazon.com/What-Your-Doctor-About-Circumcision/dp/0446678805 2002</ref>. In “The Case Against Circumcision” Fleiss referred to Hodges’ article: “A short history of circumcision in the United States” from Jan. 1997, wherein Hodges writes about Bazett’s “detailed anatomical description of the innervation of the [[foreskin]].”<ref>http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=0: Fn 50</ref>