From: Johnny4444@aol.com Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 19:54:59 -0500 Message-ID: <951220190150_20136298@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: noharmm-l@eskimo.com Subject: "The Darker Regions of the Human Mind" Sender: owner-noharmm-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: noharmm-l@eskimo.com "THE DARKER REGIONS OF THE HUMAN MIND" Some Statements About Circumcisers From "The Unkindest Cut of All," by John M. Foley, MD Fact, July 1966, Ralph Ginzburg, Publisher [Quoted with permission] . . . why anyone would want circumcision made compulsory may seem puzzling . . . . . . One answer, of course, is that if circumcision were made compulsory, the circumciser would be protected whenever he happens to cripple or kill the little boy he operates on--a "complication" that is not so very uncommon. Another answer, I think, must be sought in the darker regions of the human mind, because circumcision is simply an unmitigated fraud. It is nothing but wanton and unnecessary mutilation. The annual 2 million assembly-line circumcisions in this country are a monument to the gullibility and stupidity of the American public. For 60 years, a powerful and articulate minority in our profession has tried to enforce a taboo against any objective discussion of the merits or demerits of circumcision. . . . To question its value has become all but unthinkable. The medical literature is virtually closed except to those who drool over the operation's alleged advantages. . . . William Keith C. Morgan, M.D., . . . has written in the Journal of the American Medical Association[:] . . . "Why is the operation of circumcision practiced? One might as well attempt to explain the rites of voodoo!" . . . Peter Van Zante, M.D., . . . writes in the Medical Tribune: "Circumcision of a helpless child is a crime." Elsewhere he has said: "Circumcision is cruel and mutilating and actually should be outlawed." In 1920, a British physician named G. S. Thompson, who had once circumcised himself, later concluded that circumcision was nothing more nor less than "a barbarous and unnecessary mutilation" (British Medical Journal, 1920). Efforts to justify circumcision have been made since the very beginnings of history. The desire to mutilate came first; the "reasons" came later . . . This process of rationalization has culminated in the supposed relationship between the husband's foreskin and cancer of the genitals--one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of medicine . . . . . . Circumcision provides a convenient and socially acceptable outlet for the perverted component of the circumciser's libido. I have had personal experience with the psychopathology that underlies the wish to circumcise. The pitiful wails of the suffering infant are all too often the background for lewd and obscene commentary by the obstetrician to his audience of nurses. Several years ago I saw an infant born with multiple deformities. He could not live more than a few months at most, but to add to his miseries, this unfortunate bit of humanity had to undergo a thorough circumcision. I have seen two medical students fight over the privilege of doing circumcisions on the newborn, although these same students showed neither interest nor aptitude for opening boils or doing other surgical tasks. In 1951, I witnessed an autopsy on an infant who had died from an infected circumcision--a death rendered even more tragic because the mother had tried to persuade the obstetrician to spare her infant the ordeal. Dr. Alexander Schaffer, a noted pediatrician, tells with horror of a case in which an infant was being delivered as a frank breech (buttocks first). Before delivering the baby, and just as the penis came into view, the obstetrician seized it and circumcised it. That obstetrician, I would say, may be capable . . . . But sexually I say he is a monster. And I say that one of the reasons why circumcision is so common in this country stems from the sadism of the crypto-pervert. . . . psychiatrists have long been agreed that circumcision is basically a punitive act . . . . . . they [those who want all males circumcised] suffer from "foreskin envy." Cut off a man's tonsils and it does not affect his feelings about his neighbor's tonsils, but cut off his foreskin and his neighbor's foreskin becomes an object of envy and hatred. The circumcised have always behaved as if their circumcision were a stigma of inferiority. Jew, Moor, and Turk forced circumcision on servants, slaves, and whole nations of conquered people. Because the motivations of the foreskin-phobes are so irrational, these people are hard to combat. The introduction of routine circumcision as a "medical" measure at the turn of the century aroused vigorous opposition within the profession. Dr. Warren Stone Bickham, an eminent surgeon, declared that circumcision was a disgrace and a discredit to the surgeon responsible. Nevertheless by 1920 the opposition had dwindled, and the fanatical circumcisers were in possession of the field. The opponents of circumcision failed because they did not understand the motives of the circumcisers and therefore could not grapple with them. . . . Only the circumcised refer to the foreskin as a "useless appendage." [Has anyone done a study on circumcisers? What kind of person trains himself (or herself) and maneuvers himself (or herself) into a position where he (or she) can get paid to cut healthy erotogenic tissue -- living flesh -- from the genitals of unwilling, unconsenting children and babies -- or, for that matter, from willing, consenting adults?] [This document, formatted here as an ASCII text file, is from Deeper Into Circumcision: An Invitation to Awareness and Guide to Resources for Researchers, Parents, Restorers, Activists and the Merely Curious, by John A. Erickson.]