Submitted by dazzlingupstairz t3_10nx5so in history
Edit:
I took the liberty of removing it myself. It was a mobile edit done nearly four years ago. I guess this goes to show why you never rely on Wikipedia. No original research, and a big thing at the top of the page if you rely too much on primary sources...
I don't know how anyone could read Plain Facts For Old And Young and not get it. He literally says there's quacks who exaggerate the effects of masturbation to scare boys and young men, then goes on to write an obviously satirical section in A Chapter for Boys.
In that chapter he literally writes.
>Closing Advice to Boys and Young Men.—One word more and we must close this chapter, which we hope has been read with care by those for whom it is especially written. Let every boy who peruses these pages remember that the facts here stated are true.
And before that wrote.
>What Makes Boys Dwarfs.—How many times have we seen boys who were born with good constitutions, with force and stamina sufficient to develop them into large, vigorous men, become puny dwarfs.
>What Makes Idiots.—Reader, have you ever seen an idiot? If you have, the hideous picture will never be dissipated from your memory. The vacant stare, the drooping, drooling mouth, the unsteady gait, the sensual look, the emptiness of mind,—all these you will well remember. Did you ever stop to think how idiots are made? It is by this very vice that the ranks of these poor daft mortals are being recruited every day.
>He circumcised himself at age 37. His methods for the "rehabilitation" of masturbation addicts included measures up to the point of cutting off part of the genitals, without anesthetic, on both sexes; he wrote men who did should be circumcised and women that did should have carbolic acid applied to their clitoral glans.[46] In his Plain Facts for Old and Young, he wrote:[46]
The larger piece Plain Facts For Old And Young.
Frankly, it reads like a satire. The section Wikipedia uses to say that he recommended circumcision seems to be a joke when looking at it in context of the whole text.
>A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.[58]
Evidence that this is a joke.
># ANATOMY OF THE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS.
> Circumcision.—The fold of integument called the prepuce, which has been previously described, has upon its inner surface a large number of glands which produce a peculiar secretion. Under certain circumstances, and from inattention to personal cleanliness, this secretion may accumulate, and then often becomes the cause of irritation and serious disease. To prevent such disorders, and to insure cleanliness, the Jewish law required the removal of the prepuce, which constituted the rite of circumcision. The same practice is followed by several modern nations dwelling in tropical climates; and it can scarcely be doubted that it is a very salutary one, and has contributed very materially to the maintenance of that proverbial national health for which the Jews are celebrated. Eminent physicians have expressed the opinion that the practice would be a salutary one for all men. The maintenance of scrupulous cleanliness, by daily cleansing, is at least an imperative duty.
> In some countries, females are also circumcised by removal of the nymphæ. The object is the same as that of circumcision in the male. The same evils result from inattention to local cleanliness, and the same measure of prevention, daily cleansing, is necessitated by a similar secretion. Local cleanliness is greatly neglected by both sexes. Daily washing should begin with infancy and continue through life, and will prevent much disease.
...
># CURATIVE TREATMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF SELF-ABUSE.
>Circumcision.—In cases of phimosis, in which irritation is produced by retained secretions, division of the prepuce, or circumcision, is the proper remedy. These cases are not infrequent, but the exciting cause of much of the difficulty is often overlooked. The same remedy is often useful in cases of long prepuce.
>When the glans penis is unusually tender and sensitive, this condition will usually be removed by the daily washing with soap and water necessary for cleanliness. If this does not suffice, or if there are slight excoriations caused by acrid secretions, apply, in addition, a weak solution of tannin in glycerine once a day.
...
>Varicocele.—Patients suffering from this difficulty should wear a proper suspensory bag, as the continued pressure of the distended veins upon the testes, if unsupported, will ultimately cause degenerative changes and atrophy. A surgical operation, consisting of the removal of a portion of the skin of the scrotum, is proper if the patient desires an operation; no other operation is advisable.
>The wearing of a suspensory bag is also advisable for those whose testicles are unusually pendulous.
...
> # Quacks
>Another trap set is called an "Anatomical Museum." The anatomical part of the exhibition consists chiefly of models and figures calculated to excite the passions to the highest pitch. At stated intervals the proprietor, who is always a "doctor," and by preference a German, delivers lectures on the effects of masturbation, in which he resorts to every device to excite the fears and exaggerate the symptoms of his hearers, who are mostly young men and boys. Thus he prepares his victim, and when he once gets him within his clutches, he does not let him go until he has robbed him of his last dollar.
> We might present almost any number of illustrations of the ways in which these human sharks pursue their villainy. If there were a dungeon deep, dark, and dismal enough for the punishment of such rascals, we should feel strongly inclined to petition to have them incarcerated in it. They defy all laws, civil as well as moral, but are cunning enough to keep outside of prison bars; and thus they wax rich by robbery, and thrive by deceit. A terrible recompense awaits them at the final settlement, though they escape so easily now.
To me, this reads like a lampoon on the whole idea of masturbation causing disease, with allusions to the problems of VD in a time before antibiotics. It sounds like he's talking about how ridiculous it would be to circumcise someone to prevent a disease induced by masturbation. For example, with a varicocele, he offers the idea of a surgery to fix it, but then offers a suspensory bag as a soluton. Likewise, with phimosis and long foreskin, he he offers the idea of circumcision, then says washing daily is fine. He then goes on to state that there are quacks that deliver lectures exaggerating the effects of masturbation so that they can sell some sort of cure.
What do you think? I can't find the evidence he circumcised himself.
dazzlingupstairz OP t1_j6bdtdz wrote
I made this same post on /r/AskHistorians, but figured I'd put it here too.
I've probably seen this guy posted a dozen times on reddit as the guy who "popularized circumcision as masturbation prevention in America".
It doesn't seem to be the case, at all. Honestly, this is a fascinating read. It was published in 1877.
I'll add another source below.
P. C. Remondino, M.D., 1891
>In the United States, France, and in England, there is a class which also observe circumcision as a hygienic precaution, where, from my personal observation, I have found that circumcision is thoroughly practiced in every male member of many of the families of the class,—this being the physician class. In general conversation with physicians on this subject, it has really been surprising to see the large number who have had themselves circumcised, either through the advice of some college professor while attending lectures or as a result of their [iv]own subsequent convictions when engaged in actual practice and daily coming in contact both with the benefits that are to be derived in the way of a better physical, mental, and moral health, as well as with the many dangers and disadvantages that follow the uncircumcised,—the latter being probably the most frequent incentive and determinator,—as in many of these latter examples the operation of circumcision, with its pains, annoyances, and possible and probable dangers, sink into the most trifling insignificance in comparison to some of the results that are daily observed as the tribute that is paid by the unlucky and unhappy wearer of a prepuce for the privilege of possessing such an appendage.
It was not uncontroversial at the time, either.
>By many surgeons the idea of circumcision, unless connected with an immediate demand for interference,—such as a phimosis unmanageable by any other means, an induced phimosis from gonorrhœa or other irritation, syphilis in its initiatory sore, cancer or some such cause,—is looked upon as an unwarrantable operation, a procedure not only barbarous, painful, and dangerous, but one that directly interferes with the intentions of nature. The prepuce is by many looked upon as a physiological necessity to health and the enjoyment of life, which, if removed, is liable to induce masturbation, excessive venereal desire, and a train of other evils.
It seems to me, circumcision in America arose mainly out of a belief that that there is a hygiene benefit to it. This belief spread among physicians, and became recommended for newborns. It was also used as a treatment for all sorts of diseases.
>Agnew believes in circumcision in the treatment of reflex troubles. He relates a case, in the second volume of his “Surgery,” of eczema extending over the abdomen, of over a year’s standing, cured in a child by circumcision; he operates by incision on the dorsum, in which he leaves nature to make away with the flaps, or he circumcises by the Bumstead method.
The thesis that the widespread adoption of circumcision in America was due to prude Christian influence to get their their offspring to stop masturbating doesn't seem to hold up when you look at the sources.
>There is one thing that must be admitted concerning circumcision: this being that, among medical men or men of ordinary intelligence who have had the operation performed, instead of being dissatisfied, they have extended the advantages they have themselves received, by having those in their charge likewise operated upon. The practice is now much more prevalent than is supposed, as there are many Christian families where males are regularly circumcised soon after birth, who simply do so as a hygienic measure.