Infant Circumcision got a big boost in England when Prince Albert convinced his wife Queen Victoria that they have their sons circumcised.
He had been influenced by a group of doctors in his native Germany, who at that time believed it improved hygiene and discouraged masturbation.
(of course he never had it done to himself!) As a result of the Royal Princes being “clipped” it became fashionable among some of the aristocracy to follw suit with their sons.Once some of the aritocracy started doing it, the upper middle class followed suit. Evidently it never became vey popular with the working classes, and there were holdouts among some of the upper classes. Unfortunately, since the Amaerican upper classes wanted to emulate the British upper classes in everything, they started the practice in this country in the late 1800s. Unlike in England, the practice filtered down to all classes, reaching about a 90% rate by the 1980s.There were some natable “holdouts, such as the Italian-Americans in the Norteast and the Polish-Americans in the Chicago area.
Two other groups that didn’t follow the “trend” were the Amish and most Native Americans.( Not surprisingly the practice was followed by certain segments of the population in different parts of the former British Empire, such as Canada, Australia, South Africa etc.)
At the end of World War II Grat Britain instituted a National Health system, and the decision was made to exclude “infant cicumcision” from the procedures they would pay for, as there was no proven medical need for it. As a result the practice has dclined to less than !% of infants.
Of the few “holdouts” were the Royal Family. As a result, Queen Elizabeth’s sons and nephews were all “cut”. The one to put an end to this (no pun intended!) was Princess Diana, when she refused to have her son William circumcised, against great pressure from the Queen and the"Palace” to follow their tradition. Similarly, Prince Harry remained intact. So we have Princess Di to thank for putting the final “nail in the coffin” as it were to this needless practice , in the U.K. It’s a shame that this did not get more press in the U.S. so as to have speeded up the already ocurrinring reversal of this trend. In the mean time in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the British Commonwealth has followed the example of Britain in almost eliminating the practice of infant circumcision. Its time we speede the process along in the U.S. by bringing the debate into the publics face!!! Any ideas out there of how to accomplish this?
Thanks so much for that information! It’s important to me to know that history!
You can read more about the demise of routine infant male circumcision at
http://www.geocities.com/stopric/
This barbaric practice is gradually being phased out in all civilized communities where it is practised for non-religious reasons. (And why any religion should require body mutilation is beyond me).
:stretch:
New York is considering promoting adult circumcision. See article in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-04-07-nyc-circumcision_N.htm?csp=15
jonjon
It seems Prince William was convinced by his father to be cut himself too (and probably his brother) after his mother died. He would have undergone a “hernia” surgey in a private clinic in London, that in fact could have been a circumcision. It is possible that among all circumcised royals, uncut heir to the crown could have felt himself out of the family tradition.
Also an interesting webpage here : http://www.circlist.com/rites/british.html
In France, circumcision was very rare until the 70s-80s, only performed in the Jewish community and for rare phimosis cases.
A “half-circumcision à la francaise” was en vogue in the 80s, which consisted in only cutting the half of the foreskin, in order to keep the head half-covered when being flaccid. I indeed well remember two young basket-ball players who had undergone this “posthectomy” (its actual medical name). I freely spoke about it with one of them, he told me that there was no difference in sensitivity, while masturbating and having oral sex and sexual intercourse (with girls) were more comfortable. He even showed me the result - that I used to see in our lockerrrooms - and this was very well made : neither scar nor loose opening skin, the penis looks like bein a “short-skinned” intact one. (Waw… The guy was very handsome… so nice was his lovely “half-hooded” willly !).
Since hundreds of thousands African, Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian families migrated to France in the 70s-80s, circumcision which is required for their religious or traditiional rites boosted in the French hospitals and clinics, where it is performed under “phimosis” official reason, in order to be indemnified by French Social Security. A doc told me that for a long time it has been decided by French authorities to prevent the threat of serial-butcherring by barbers and other non-professional circumcisers - with hygiene and mutilation risks involved.
If this French ballplayer had NO scar and looked just like he had a naturally short foreskin, then is it possible that he DID just have a short foreskin. If someone had cut it off there would be a scar.
The only hard facts are that Buckingham Palace announced in 1948 that a London mohel had come to the
palace to circumcise Prince Charles. There was no such announcement for William or Harry. Routine circumcision was fairly popular with the UK upper
and upper middle classes, between 1870 and 1950. This fact is consistent with the mention of circumcision in the biographies of a number
of distinguished Englishmen from that era. Richard Dawkins, born 1941, has written of the rich mix of cut and uncut in the locker rooms
of the boarding schools he attended in the 1950s. The rest of the narrative that started this thread is, I submit, urban myth.
Hi Monica,Some might also say,so is describing Richard Dawkins as a " distinguished Englishman from that era".
I don’t know what you had for lunch on the 26th,but most of your emails of that date are both pompous and fatuous.Doug
Frank44: reread my post. A full stop appears between “era” and “Richard Dawkins.” You are free to make up your own mind as to how
distinguished and reliable Dawkins is. I merely report what he wrote in one of his books.
Its interesting that Fritz49 brings this all up It was german doctors who helped bring the idea in for one and also in this country USA kelloggs also promoted the idea that all males be circed as well. Aftyer WWI and especially the Second world war the military really promoted it due to the lack of hygiene in the war zones so from that point on it grew even more. And in the early 1940’s a Dr ben Spock the baby doctor also promoted the idea that ever baby should be cut the trend really grew even more again the hold outs being the Italian and polish Americans some german families the Amish ( German Baptists) and the Natives Americans (Indians of the south west) and today the influx of hispanic families in the south west . It was in the Southwest the three nurses of ST Vincent Hospital in Santa Fe and a Nurse in California who lost their jobs because they refused to help in Circumcisions the movement to halt Circs in the USA really got started. that and the Fact the a fella by the name of Bud Burkley who started a club called USA (Uncircumcised Society of America) also promoted the trend to be uncut. so in 1975-76 NO CIRC was formed and Wayne R Griffith also started the restoration Movement about 3 yrs later and It grew from there . In 1962 The UK stopped Circs all together but not much was heard about that trend. In the late 1980 to mid 1990 another action took place and it was to try and pass laws to hault circs like that in the UK it started www.mgmbill.org where the bill was drafted all that was needed is to present it the the Govt body and pass it to make it law . Today with the Economy as it is there may be a chance with the new health ruling that we could get it passed like the UK in that it SAVES Dollars if the Insurance and medical folks dont pay for such actions the trend may infact get changed and we be more like the UK Intact. i hope so Scoop
Nonreligious circ began in the UK upper middle class around 1880, as the clean and proper thing
to do. In those days, sexual pleasure by any means other than vaginal between married parties was deemed seriously unethical. Hence boys masturbation was held in
horror. Circ was seen as making masturbation less likely or even impossible. The foreskin was also seen as a major player in STDs. Finally, circ was seen as making men
less randy, and much marital unhappiness was blamed on husbands who were too randy. The germ theory of disease made personal cleanliness imperative. That meant
that a boy’s foreskin had to be checked for retractability, and he had to be taught to clean under it. This was deemed too sexually gross for mothers and nannies to do,
and fathers were seldom involved with the intimate hygiene of their sons in those days. Cutting the foreskin off nicely solved this embarrassing problem.
Soon circ came to be seen as a sort of cattle brand proving that one had educated and proper upper middle class parents. Never never underestimate the power of snob appeal!
We now know that masturbation is OK, that cut men contract STDs and masturbate, that cut men do not have more moral sex lives, and we are less embarrassed about
teaching a boy to keep himself clean. The other English speaking countries have largely given up circ. The USA has been slow to get the point, altho the percentage of baby
boys exiting the maternity ward intact is creeping up to 50%.
This thread is seeding a number of urban myths. My comments in capitals.
“It was german doctors who helped bring the idea in…”
I DOUBT IT.
…in this country USA kelloggs also promoted the idea that all males be circed as well.
TRUE
Aftyer WWI and especially the Second world war the military really promoted it due to the lack of hygiene in the war zones so from that point on it grew even more.
OUTSIDE OF COMBAT SITUATIONS, MILITARY DOCS/SURGEONS DON’T HAVE ENOUGH TO DO. MANY YOUNG RECRUITS WEREN"T CLEAN UNDER THE FORESKIN.
ERGO, CUT IT OFF. IN WWII, THE MEN FROM COMFORTABLE FAMILIES, WITH FATHERS IN THE PROFESSIONS AND MOTHERS WITH COLLEGE EDUCATIONS, WERE
USUALLY CUT. THE BOYS FROM FARM BACKGROUNDS, OR WHOSE FATHERS WORKED IN A MILL, TYPICALLY WERE NOT. GIs FROM LESS SOPHISTICATED BACKGROUNDS
TOOK THE HINT: CUT WAS COOL, PROPER, SOPHISTICATED, CLEAN.
And in the early 1940’s a Dr ben Spock the baby doctor also promoted the idea that ever baby should be cut
I HAVE READ MANY TIMES ABOUT SPOCK’S ADVOCATING CIRC. HE LATER RECANTED, BY THE WAY. IN 1941, THE MAIN USA MAGAZINE FOR PARENTS PUBLISHED A LONG
ARTICLE BY ALAN GUTTMACHER (PROF OF OBSTETRICS AT JOHNS HOPKINS) ADVOCATING CIRC.
the trend really grew even more again the hold outs being the Italian and polish Americans some german families the Amish ( German Baptists) and the Natives Americans (Indians of the south west) and today the influx of hispanic families in the south west .
ALL THIS JELLS WITH MY READING AND EXPERIENCE. THE CIRC RATE AMONG USA CAUCASIANS NEVER EXCEEDED ~90%. THE AMISH HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BORN AT HOME. CIRC IS VERY MUCH ASSOCIATED WITH HOSPITAL BIRTH, WHICH DID NOT BECOME A MAJORITY THINGS UNTIL THE 1930s. ETHNIC CATHOLICS WERE LATE COMING TO THE CIRC PARTY, AND IN SOME CASES NEVER CAME AT ALL (CHICAGO POLES). WORKING CLASS AMERICANS DID NOT MUCH CIRCMCISE UNTIL THE 1940s.
It was in the Southwest the three nurses of ST Vincent Hospital in Santa Fe and a Nurse in California who lost their jobs because they refused to help in Circumcisions the movement to halt Circs in the USA really got started. that
MARILYN MILOS, MARIN CO CA, 1984. SHE FOUNDED NOCIRC IN 1985.
THE SANTA FE NURSES TOOK THEIR STAND A FEW YEARS LATER.
and the Fact the a fella by the name of Bud Burkley who started a club called USA (Uncircumcised Society of America) also promoted the trend to be uncut.
BERKELEY HAS NOT HAD MUCH IMPACT AMONG RESPECTABLE PEOPLE.
Wayne R Griffith also started the restoration Movement about 3 yrs later and It grew from there.
GRIFFITH AND MILOS ARE FRIENDLY. DON’T KNOW IF HE RESTORED BEFORE 1985 OR 1990. AFTER 1990, TUGGING REALLY TOOK OFF.
In 1962 The UK stopped Circs all together
THE UK GOVERNMENT STOPPED DOING IT FOR FREE IN 1950.
INTERESTING TO SEE WHETHER NEONATAL CIRC WILL BE COVERED BY ANY HEALTH CARE PLAN TO EMERGE FROM THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
CIRC DIES WHEN FAMILIES ARE OUT OF POCKET FOR IT.