Medical history and medical practice: persistent myths about the foreskin

Although many 19th-century misconceptions about the foreskin have been dispelled since it was shown that infantile phimosis was not an abnormality, the ideas that ritual or religious circumcision arose as a hygiene measure, and that circumcision makes no difference to sexual response, have persisted...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inMedical journal of Australia Vol. 178; no. 4; p. 178
Main Author Darby, Robert J L
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Australia 17.02.2003
Subjects
Circumcision, Male - history
History, 19th Century
Humans
Hygiene - history
Male
Mythology
Penis - physiology
Sensation
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

More Information
Summary:Although many 19th-century misconceptions about the foreskin have been dispelled since it was shown that infantile phimosis was not an abnormality, the ideas that ritual or religious circumcision arose as a hygiene measure, and that circumcision makes no difference to sexual response, have persisted. The first idea should be dismissed as a myth and the second has been seriously questioned by modern research.
ISSN:0025-729X
DOI:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05137.x