THE CIRCUMCISION REFERENCE LIBRARY
Journal of Health Psychology
An Interdisciplinary, International Journal
Volume 07 Issue 03 - Publication Date: 1 May
2002
Male Circumcision:
GREGORY J. BOYLE
Bond University, Australia
RONALD GOLDMAN
Circumcision Resource Center, Boston, USA
J. STEVEN SVOBODA
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, Berkeley, USA
EPHREM FERNANDEZ
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, USA
Among the structural changes circumcised men may have to live with are surgical complications such as skin tags, penile curvature due to uneven foreskin removal, pitted glans, partial glans ablation, prominent/jagged scarring, amputation neuromas, fistulas, severely damaged frenulum, meatal stenosis, and excessive keratinisation. In addition, Immerman and Mackey (1998) and Prescott (1989) postulated that severing of erogenous sensory nerve endings in the foreskin during infancy leads to atrophy of non-stimulated neurons in the brain's pleasure centre during the critical developmental period.
There are also serious functional consequences of circumcision. Impaired sexual functioning was reported by 84% of respondents in a survey of circumcised men (Hammond, 1997). Taylor, Lockwood, and Taylor (1996) provided anatomical and histological support for these self-reports of circumcised men by documenting the irreplaceable loss of specialised erogenous mucosa through circumcision. Further difficulties attributed to circumcision included intimacy problems (45%) and addiction/dependency problems (26%). Specific physical problems reported included glans insensitivity (55%), need for excess stimulation to enable ejaculation (38%), prominent scarring (29%), and insufficient residual shaft skin to accommodate full, untethered erections (27%).
Apart from reducing sexual sensation and pleasure (Bensley & Boyle, 2001; Gemmell & Boyle, 2001; Immerman & Mackey, 1998; Milos & Macris, 1994; Money & Davison, 1983; O'Hara & O'Hara, 1999), circumcision also leads to changes in sexual practices. For example, Laumann, Masi, and Zuckerman (1997) reported that circumcision is associated with more elaborate sexual behaviours. It is possible that reduced sexual sensation may impel some circumcised men to engage in more elaborate sexual practices in order to attain sexual gratification. In regard to unsafe sex practices, Bensley and Boyle (2001) found that circumcised men were significantly less likely to use condoms than were genitally intact men. Presumably, use of a condom reduces sexual sensation, which may be of somewhat greater concern to circumcised men (cf. Gemmell & Boyle, 2001; Van Howe, 1999).
Circumcised men have often provided anecdotal reports pertaining to their negative feelings about involuntary circumcision. For example, one man who contacted one of the authors (RG) at the Circumcision Resource Center in Boston told of an indelible scene when he was four. He was talking with a genitally intact boy who showed him his penis and explained circumcision to him. He was shocked and ashamed at what had been done to him and thought, "Why would somebody want to do that to me? They just chopped it off. It didn't make any sense to me." As an adult he thinks about it "every time I take a shower or urinate" (personal communication, December, 1993).
One limitation of some of the foregoing research is that random sampling was not always enforced in subject recruitment (e.g., Rhinehart, 1999; Hammond, 1997, 1999). This may be understandable because of the difficulties in boosting sample sizes and the fact that participants were sometimes confined to certain "captive groups." In any case, the result is that there may be a self-selection bias as widely noted in survey research. Arguably, this could have led to inflation of some statistical effects of circumcision-related sequelae.
Underestimation
Conversely, it is possible that problems related to circumcision may be greater than reported. The following speculations may explain why we don't hear more from many circumcised men about how they may truly feel (see Goldman, 1998, pp. 43-44):
Cognitive dissonance
Although in recent years cognitive dissonance theory has fallen somewhat into disrepute (Walker, Burnham, & Borland, 1994, p. 535), the theory may still be useful in explaining certain entrenched attitudes surrounding circumcision. Thus, the common resistance of some parents and doctors to information associating circumcision with harm invites speculation to explain it. Generally, people have a desire for coherence and consistency in their beliefs and experiences and it is possible that this factor may contribute to some extent to the perpetuation of cognitions supportive of circumcision. When inconsistency occurs, thereby creating cognitive dissonance, people may align their beliefs to fit their experience (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). Choosing to seek or to provide parental consent and then to circumcise or to allow one's child to be circumcised is a serious and irreversible choice. In accordance with cognitive dissonance theory, it would be expected that once the decision has been made and the circumcision carried out, most people would tend to appreciate the chosen alternative (circumcision) and depreciate the rejected alternative (leaving the child genitally intact)--(cf. Brehm, 1956).
If involuntary circumcision can bring about psychological consequences through the aftermath of trauma, then it is possible that "uncircumcision" (Schultheiss, Truss, Stief, & Jonas, 1998) may go some way towards attenuating those effects. In recent years, there has been an increasing awareness among circumcised men about the possibility of restoring a foreskin (albeit devoid of the amputated erogenous nerve endings), through a process of stretching and skin expansion over some years (Bigelow, 1995). Some men who have undergone foreskin restoration have reported discernible recovery of sexual sensation and function previously lost to circumcision, and sometimes a lessening of associated negative emotions (Goodwin, 1990; Greer, Mohl, & Sheley, 1982; Griffiths, 2001; O'Hara & O'Hara, 2001).
Even though research suggests harmful effects of circumcision (e.g., Denniston & Milos, 1977; Denniston, Hodges, & Milos, 1999; Cold & Taylor, 1999; Hammond, 1999; Van Howe et al., 1999), psychological factors may make it difficult for circumcision advocates to stop promoting the practice (Goldman, 1997, 1998, 1999). Presumably, grief for the lost sexual body part and its functions, and the resultant denial of loss is important because it may explain the circumcised "adamant father" (who unreasonably insists on the circumcision of a son in the face of contrary evidence) as well as other manifestations of the circumcised male such as the "I'm circumcised and I'm fine" syndrome (Bigelow, 1995; Ritter & Denniston, 1996). Grief and denial in relation to involuntary circumcision may well play a role in the psychology of the circumcised male (Parkes, 1998). Such factors may figure even more prominently among those doctors who devote their entire medical practice or a substantial portion thereof to circumcising normal healthy boys when there is no medical reason to do so (cf. Bigelow, pp. 94-99). Some trauma victims experience a compulsion to re-enact the trauma (van der Kolk, 1989). Circumcising infants may to some extent involve re-enacting the trauma of one's own circumcision. A survey of randomly selected physicians showed that circumcision was more often supported by male doctors who themselves happened to be circumcised (Stein, Marx, Taggert, & Bass, 1982).
Men's Health
Male Circumcision:
Pain, Trauma and
Psychosexual Sequelae
GREGORY J. BOYLE
Bond University, Australia
RONALD GOLDMAN
Circumcision Resource Center, Boston, USA
J. STEVEN SVOBODA
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, Berkeley, USA
EPHREM FERNANDEZ
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, USA
GREGORY J. BOYLE,
PhD (Melbourne & Delaware), is Professor of Psychology at
Bond University. His research covers psychological, ethical
and medico-legal issues pertaining to men's health issues.
URL: http://www.bond.edu.au/hss/staff/gboyle.htm.
RONALD GOLDMAN, PhD Psychologist, is Executive Director, Circumcision Resource Center, PO Box 232, Boston, Massachusetts 02133 USA. His research concerns the psychological aspect of circumcision. URL:
http://www.circumcision.org/
J. STEVEN SVOBODA, MA, JD, is Executive Director, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child. His research encompasses the legal, ethical, and human rights implications of harmful procedures performed on children for non-medical reasons. URL: http://www.arclaw.org/.
EPHREM FERNANDEZ, PhD, is Associate Professor of Psychology at Southern Methodist University and special faculty in clinical psychology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. His research focuses on cognitive-behavioral approaches to the management of chronic pain with special emphasis on emotional aspects of pain. URL: http://www2.smu.edu/psychology/faculty/fernandez.html
RONALD GOLDMAN, PhD Psychologist, is Executive Director, Circumcision Resource Center, PO Box 232, Boston, Massachusetts 02133 USA. His research concerns the psychological aspect of circumcision. URL:
http://www.circumcision.org/
J. STEVEN SVOBODA, MA, JD, is Executive Director, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child. His research encompasses the legal, ethical, and human rights implications of harmful procedures performed on children for non-medical reasons. URL: http://www.arclaw.org/.
EPHREM FERNANDEZ, PhD, is Associate Professor of Psychology at Southern Methodist University and special faculty in clinical psychology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. His research focuses on cognitive-behavioral approaches to the management of chronic pain with special emphasis on emotional aspects of pain. URL: http://www2.smu.edu/psychology/faculty/fernandez.html
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
The authors acknowledge the contribution of George Hill,
Executive Honorary Secretary, Doctors Opposing Circumcision,
and librarian, Circumcision Information Resource Pages URL:
http://www.cirp.org.
COMPETING INTERESTS:
None declared.
ADDRESS:
Correspondence should be directed to:
G. J. BOYLE, PhD, Department of Psychology, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, 4229, Australia.
G. J. BOYLE, PhD, Department of Psychology, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, 4229, Australia.
Abstract
Infant male circumcision continues despite growing questions about its medical justification. As usually performed without analgesia or anaesthetic, circumcision is observably painful. It is likely that genital cutting has physical, sexual and psychological consequences too. Some studies link involuntary male circumcision with a range of negative emotions and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some circumcised men have described their current feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation and sexual assault. In view of the acute as well as long-term risks from circumcision and the legal liabilities that might arise, it is timely for health professionals and scientists to re-examine the evidence on this issue and participate in the debate about the advisability of this surgical procedure on unconsenting minors.Keywords
child abuse, male circumcision, pain, sexual dysfunction, traumaBackground to circumcision
"To circumcise (from the Latin, "to cut around") means to cut off part or all of the foreskin of a penis, permanently exposing the normally covered glans..." (Boyd, 1998, p. 13). Circumcision involves the amputation of both layers of the foreskin, and is often performed on baby boys a few days after birth (Ritter & Denniston, 1996). The inner layer of the foreskin comprises thousands of erogenous nerve endings (Taylor, Lockwood, & Taylor, 1996; Cold & Taylor, 1999; Cold & McGrath, 1999).
Moses Maimónides (1135-1204), known as
the "Rambam," was a medieval Jewish rabbi, physician and
philosopher who stated unequivocally that the real purpose of
circumcision was to reduce sexual gratification. According to
Maimónides (see 1963 translation, p. 609),
Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of
the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about
a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ
in question, so that this activity be diminished and the
organ be in as quiet a state as possible... In fact this
commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting
what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is
defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is
the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities
necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed
thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent
concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are
diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of
sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the
pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been
made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it
must indubitably be weakened.
In the English speaking world, circumcision was introduced
as a medical procedure in the late-nineteenth century
(Hodges, 1997). Victorian notions about the "ills of
masturbation" influenced some physicians to endorse
amputation of the erotogenic foreskin as "preventative
therapy" since circumcised boys could not use their foreskins
for masturbation (Moscucci, 1996). Circumcision subsequently
was accepted as a panacea for many conditions, including
epilepsy, paralysis, malnutrition, "derangement of the
digestive organs," chorea, convulsions, hysteria, and other
nervous disorders (Gollaher, 2000). In the ensuing decades,
as each claimed benefit of circumcision was disputed, another
would come to take its place (Hodges, 1997).
Various national medical associations have
evaluated studies on therapeutic rationales for infant
circumcision under standard surgical conditions and
management (see Denniston, Hodges, & Milos, 1999, for
example). However, no national medical association anywhere
in the world that has studied the issue recommends routine
circumcision (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1999;
Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, 1996;
Australian College of Paediatrics, 1996; British Medical
Association, 1996; Canadian Paediatric Society, 1996).
Recently, the American Medical Association (2000) has gone
even further, confirming that infant circumcision is
non-therapeutic. It is now generally acknowledged that
any potential medical benefits of routine circumcision are
outweighed by its risks and drawbacks (AAP, 1999).
Although approximately 80-85% of the world's
adult males remain genitally intact (Lang, 1986; Wallerstein,
1985; Williams & Kapila, 1993), an estimated 650 million
males alive today nevertheless have been circumcised
(Hammond, 1999). In the United States alone, each year 1.2
million males are circumcised shortly after birth (National
Center for Health Statistics, 1998). In addition, the social
anthropological literature on ritual circumcision in
non-western cultures (see Gollaher, 2000) indicates that
circumcision of boys during late childhood also is
commonplace.
Objections to circumcision have been articulated
for a while (e.g., Wallerstein, 1980) with increasing
concerns coming from the professional mental health community
(e.g., Boyle, 2000; Goldman, 1997, 1998, 1999). There is also
mounting anxiety about issues of legal liability (see Boyle,
Svoboda, Price, & Turner, 2000; Richards, 1996; Smith,
1998; Somerville, 2000; Svoboda, Van Howe, & Dwyer, 2000;
Van Howe, Svoboda, Dwyer, & Price, 1999). Moreover,
Giannetti (2000) has pointed to psychosexual sequelae that
appear to go well beyond those acknowledged in the recent
American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) circumcision policy
statement. The present paper recounts many of these concerns.
Evidence for both short- and long-term manifestations of
circumcision are reviewed. Among the sequelae considered are
pain, problems in sexual functioning, and emotional distress
or trauma--all factors that impact on men's psychosexual
health and well-being.
Circumcision pain
One of the fundamental issues that divides opinion on the practice of circumcision regards the presence or degree of pain. To address this issue, we turn to the concept of pain and the evidence for pain sensitivity in infants. As defined by scientists, pain is an unpleasant sensory experience associated with tissue damage (IASP, 1986). There is no doubt that circumcision entails observable pain and identifiable tissue damage (see joint statement of American Academy of Pediatrics and American Pain Society (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001). The only matter of some interpretation is the infant's behaviour during circumcision. As with adults, pain in infants is expressed in stereotypic ways involving vocalisation, facial expression, body movements, and autonomic activity. Analysing the vocalisations of 30 newborn males during circumcisions of varying levels of invasiveness, Porter, Miller, and Marshall (1986) found that the invasiveness of the procedure was positively correlated with duration of crying, more pronounced peak fundamental frequencies, reduced harmonics, and greater variability of the fundamental. Crying extended to a day after circumcision and was interrupted by greater periods of quiet when anaesthesia was provided (Dixon, Snyder, Holve, & Bromberger, 1984). It is also notable that adult listeners agreed on the urgency of these cries as a function of the intensity of the pain-producing stimulus. Levine and Gordon (1982) reviewed literature on the spectrographic analysis of pain-induced vocalisations (PIV) in infants and found remarkable similarity with the basic features of PIV in animals.
Despite the obvious unavailability of
self-report, further evidence of pain has been demonstrated
through observation of the facial expressions of infants
undergoing circumcision. Regarded as the most definitive
behavioural evidence of pain in the infant, it consists of a
lowered brow, eyes squeezed shut, deepened nasolabial furrow,
opened mouth, and a taut cupped tongue (Grunau, Johnston,
& Craig, 1990). This expression closely resembles the
adult facial expression of pain, but it occurs with even
greater consistency in infants undergoing painful procedures
such as circumcision.
Infants also evidence considerable autonomic
arousal during noxious stimulation. Of course, this
generalises to other situations such as fear and frustration
too. However, in combination with the facial and vocal
evidence, such arousal is highly informative about the pain
the infant is undergoing. For example, Porter, Porges, and
Marshall (1988) observed that vagal tone significantly
declined during circumcision, a result which was paralleled
by significant increases in pitch of the infant's cries. The
further discovery that vagal tone prior to circumcision
predicted physiological reactivity to subsequent stress
leaves little doubt that circumcision is highly noxious to
the infant.
With regard to motor behaviour, infants tend to
be a bit more limited than adults in responding to noxious
stimuli (Tyler, 1988). This has occasionally been mistaken as
an indication that infants experience less pain than adults.
However, the infant's overall rigidity of the torso and limbs
are indicative of pain (Johnston & Strada, 1986). With
increasing age and postnatal maturation of the somatosensory
system, there is greater motor responsiveness to
pain-producing stimuli like circumcision.
Pain pathways are well-developed late in
gestation and neurochemical systems associated with pain
transmission are functional (Anand & Hickey, 1987). Many
scientists (e.g., Field, 1995; Fitzgerald, 1987) have stated
that we should now safely assume that all viable newborns
feel pain. What is more critical is how pain is modulated in
infancy. Andrews and Fitzgerald (1997) have reviewed the
neurobiological evidence suggesting that the relative
immaturity of the infant's nervous system may raise
excitability in the spinal cord. Thus, the system for
modulation of pain signals appears to be less developed in
infants and this may render them highly susceptible to pain
during procedures such as circumcision (Fitzgerald, 1998).
Moreover, cognitive coping strategies (Fernandez, 1986;
Fernandez & Turk, 1989; Maiz & Fernandez, 2000) and
other descending cortical influences postulated as part of
the gate control theory of pain (Melzack & Wall, 1965)
evidently are far less developed in infancy than later in
life.
The pain that is apparent in circumcised infants
and is intensified by their lack of coping resources can have
further ramifications. Prescott (1989) referred to the stress
hormones triggered by intense pain and the adverse effects
they may exert on brain development, sexual function, and
behaviour. Anand and Scalzo (2000) postulated that severe
pain during infancy may permanently and irreversibly alter
neurological circuitry responsible for pain perception and
memory. Hepper (1996) documented functioning memory prior to
and immediately after birth. An adverse painful perinatal
event, through a process of classical conditioning, may
sensitise the infant to pain later in life (Chamberlain,
1989, 1995; Field, 1995; Jacobson et al., 1990). Thus, Taddio
et al. (1997) found that circumcised boys displayed
heightened physiological pain responses to vaccinations four
to six months after circumcision suggestive of an infant
analogue of post-traumatic stress disorder, as compared with
genitally intact children.
Circumcision trauma
A traumatic experience is defined in DSM-IV as the direct consequence of experiencing or witnessing of serious injury or threat to physical integrity that produces intense fear, helplessness or (in the case of children) agitation (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). The significant pain and distress described earlier is consistent with this definition. Moreover, the disturbance (e.g., physiological arousal, avoidant behaviour) qualifies for a diagnosis of acute stress disorder if it lasts at least two days or even a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) if it lasts more than a month. Circumcision without anaesthesia constitutes a severely traumatic event in a child's life (Lander, Brady-Freyer, Metcalfe, Nazerali, & Muttit, 1997; Ramos & Boyle, 2001; Taddio, Katz, Ilersich, & Koren, 1997). It is possible that the trauma of genital surgery might have long-lasting psychological effects (Bigelow, 1995; Levy, 1945; Jacobson & Bygdeman, 1998; Anand & Scalzo, 2000).
Van Howe (1996, p. 431) reported that, "Newborn
males respond to circumcision with a marked reduction in
oxygenation during the procedure, a cortisol surge, decreased
wakefulness, increased vagal tone, and less interactions with
their environment following the procedure..." Rhinehart
(1999) in a report of clinical cases noted that the only
response available to the infant is shock, wherein the
central nervous system is overwhelmed by pain, followed by
numbing, paralysis, and dissociation. Possibly, dissociation
of the traumatic experience and emotional pain may be
employed by the infant as a psychological defence (Chu &
Dill, 1990; Noyes, 1977; Rhinehart, 1999). While some babies
have been described as being "quiet" after circumcision,
Rhinehart concluded that the observed stillness most likely
represents a state of dissociation or shock in response to
the overwhelming pain.
Consistent with the early reports of Anna Freud
(1952), McFadyen (1998) observed psychological trauma in her
son following circumcision. This is sometimes extreme enough
to impede the maternal-infant bonding (Marshall et al., 1982;
Van Howe, 1996). As reasoned by Herman (1992) and Rhinehart
(1999) the common factor underlying circumcision trauma is an
experience of violence and powerlessness--inflicted by other
human beings. Such an event was described in a study of 12
Turkish boys circumcised in late childhood. Cansever (1965,
p. 328) reported that "Circumcision is perceived by the child
as an aggressive attack upon his body, which damaged,
mutilated, and, in some cases, totally destroyed him." Ritual
circumcision appeared to be associated with increased
aggressiveness, weakening of the ego, withdrawal, reduced
functioning and adaptation, and nightmares consistent with
PTSD.
Ramos and Boyle (2001) investigated the
psychological effects associated with medical and ritual
"operation tuli" circumcision procedures in the Philippines.
Some 1577 boys aged 11 to 16 years (1072 boys circumcised
under medical procedures; 505 subjected to ritual
circumcision) were surveyed to see if genital cutting led to
the development of PTSD. Interestingly, Mezey and Robbins
(2001) estimated the incidence of PTSD as 1.0% to 7.8%
in the general British population where circumcision is not
very prevalent. On the other hand, using the PTSD-I
questionnaire (Watson et al., 1991) in a predominantly
circumcised population, Ramos and Boyle observed an
incidence of PTSD of almost 70% among boys subjected to
ritual circumcision, and 51% among boys subjected to medical
circumcision (with local anaesthetic). Long-term follow-up
would be needed to gauge the extent to which PTSD persists
over the lifespan of these circumcised boys.
The outcome of painful childhood trauma includes
long-lasting neurophysiological and neurochemical brain
changes (Anand & Carr, 1989; Anand & Scalzo, 2000;
Ciaranello, 1983; Taddio et al., 1997; van der Kolk &
Saporta, 1991). Richards, Bernal, and Brackbill (1976) found
that circumcision may impact adversely on the developing
brain, and that reported "gender differences" may actually
arise from behavioural changes induced by infant or childhood
circumcision.
Rhinehart (1999) in a report of adult clinical
cases concluded that a man circumcised as a child is more
likely to react with terror, rage and/or dissociation when
confronted with situations interpreted as threatening. As in
any situation of post-traumatic stress, an event resembling
any aspect of the original traumatic experience is more
likely to provoke negative emotions such as panic, rage,
violence, or dissociation.
It is therefore not surprising that PTSD may
result from childhood circumcision (Goldman, 1997, 1999,
Menage, 1999; Ramos & Boyle, 2001), just as it does from
childhood sexual abuse and rape (Bownes, O'Gorman, &
Sayers, 1991; Deblinger, McLeer, & Henry, 1990; Duddle,
1991). Several researchers have concluded that PTSD may
result from circumcision and/or from circumcision-related
sequelae in later life. For example, Rhinehart (1999)
reported finding PTSD in middle-aged men who had been
subjected to infant circumcision. Circumcision involves an
imbalance of power between perpetrator and victim, contains
both aggressive and libidinal elements, and threatens a
child's sexual integrity by amputating part of the genitalia.
Some men circumcised in infancy or childhood without their
consent have described their present feelings in the language
of violation, torture, mutilation, and sexual assault
(Bigelow, 1995; Hammond, 1997, 1999).
Even if the psychological sequelae of
circumcision do not coalesce into a formal diagnosis of PTSD,
it is possible that there may be long-lasting effects on a
man's life, particularly in psychologically sensitive
individuals with comorbidity factors (cf. Mezey &
Robbins, 2001). Presumably responding to their current
interpretation and feelings, many circumcised men who have
recognised the loss of a highly erogenous, irreplaceable part
of their penis have reported long-lasting emotional
suffering, grief, anxiety, and depression, and a sense of
personal vulnerability (Hammond, 1997, 1999). Avoidance or
obsessive preoccupation with such a loss, along with anger,
can be difficult to reconcile for some men depending on their
particular personality (Bigelow, 1995; Maguire, 1998; van der
Kolk, 1989). Emotional numbing, avoidance of the topic of
circumcision, and anger are potential long-term psychological
consequences of the circumcision trauma (Bigelow, 1995;
Bensley & Boyle, 2001; Boyle & Bensley, 2001; Gemmell
& Boyle, 2001; Goldman, 1997, 1999). In extreme cases,
there might be aggressive, violent, and/or suicidal behaviour
(Anand & Scalzo, 2000; Bradley, Oliver, & Chernick,
1998; Jacobson et al., 1987; Jacobson & Bygdeman,
1998).
Circumcision and sexuality
Sigmund Freud (1920) asserted that circumcision
was a substitute for castration, suggesting a possible
connection between castration fears, neuroses, and
circumcision. Documented cases exist of circumcision
resulting in a life-impairing level of castration anxiety
(Ozturk, 1973). More recently, Immerman and Mackey (1998)
described circumcision as "low-grade neurological
castration." They argued that the resultant glans
keratinisation and neurological atrophy of sexual brain
circuitry (due to loss of sensory input to the brain's
pleasure centre) may serve as a social control mechanism
which produces a male who is less sexually excitable and
therefore more amenable to social conditioning.
Indeed, for centuries, circumcision has been
used as a strategy to reduce sexual gratification
(Maimónides, 1963, p. 609). According to Saperstein
(1980), quoting Rabbi Isaac Ben Yedaiah, as well as the
empirical findings of Bensley and Boyle (2001), and O'Hara
and O'Hara (1999), heterosexual intercourse is less
satisfying for both partners when the man is circumcised. Due
to the neurological injury caused by circumcision, and the
resultant reduction of sensory feedback (Immerman &
Mackey, 1998), it is highly likely that circumcision may
promote sexual dysfunction such as premature ejaculation, and
consequently, also the reduction of female sexual pleasure
(cf. Money & Davison, 1983). The possible deleterious
effects on social and marital relationships (cf. Hughes,
1990) may be considerable, especially in countries where most
men have been circumcised.
Structural ChangesAmong the structural changes circumcised men may have to live with are surgical complications such as skin tags, penile curvature due to uneven foreskin removal, pitted glans, partial glans ablation, prominent/jagged scarring, amputation neuromas, fistulas, severely damaged frenulum, meatal stenosis, and excessive keratinisation. In addition, Immerman and Mackey (1998) and Prescott (1989) postulated that severing of erogenous sensory nerve endings in the foreskin during infancy leads to atrophy of non-stimulated neurons in the brain's pleasure centre during the critical developmental period.
Gemmell and Boyle (2001) surveyed 162
self-selected men (121 circumcised; 41 intact) and found that
circumcised men reported significantly less penile sensation
as compared with genitally intact men. Participants rated
their current level of penile sensation (on a scale from 1 to
10) as compared with that experienced at age 18 years
(allocated 10 out of 10). Circumcised men complained
significantly more often than did genitally intact men of a
progressive decline in penile sensation throughout their
adult years--presumably due to increasing keratinisation of
the exposed glans and inner foreskin remnant in circumcised
men. Gemmell and Boyle also found that a significantly higher
proportion of circumcised as compared with intact men
reported bowing or curvature of the penis (also reported by
Lawrence, 1997), shaft skin uncomfortably/painfully tight
when erect, and scars/damage to the penis. Although the
frenulum was reported as an area of heightened erogenous
sensitivity, in the typical circumcised male, either no
frenulum remains or only a small severely damaged remnant
exists. The complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum
has been well-documented (Cold & McGrath, 1999; Cold
& Taylor, 1999; Fleiss, 1997; Taylor et al., 1996), and
the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch
receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings--many of
which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction
in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males
(Immerman & Mackey, 1998; O'Hara & O'Hara, 1999).
Functional ChangesThere are also serious functional consequences of circumcision. Impaired sexual functioning was reported by 84% of respondents in a survey of circumcised men (Hammond, 1997). Taylor, Lockwood, and Taylor (1996) provided anatomical and histological support for these self-reports of circumcised men by documenting the irreplaceable loss of specialised erogenous mucosa through circumcision. Further difficulties attributed to circumcision included intimacy problems (45%) and addiction/dependency problems (26%). Specific physical problems reported included glans insensitivity (55%), need for excess stimulation to enable ejaculation (38%), prominent scarring (29%), and insufficient residual shaft skin to accommodate full, untethered erections (27%).
Circumcised males may also be at risk of
premature ejaculation, or alternatively may have to resort to
prolonged thrusting during intercourse in order to stimulate
sufficiently the residual erogenous penile nerve endings to
trigger ejaculation (Bensley & Boyle, 2001). They report
that the unnatural dryness of their circumcised penis often
makes coitus painful, resulting in chafing and/or skin
abrasions (Gemmell & Boyle, 2001). Concomitantly, O'Hara
and O'Hara (1999) found that female partners reported
significantly greater sexual pleasure from intercourse with
genitally intact men as compared with circumcised men. Money
and Davison (1983) had previously documented a loss of
stretch receptors in the prepuce and frenulum and an
associated diminution in sexual response, thereby restricting
a circumcised man's ability to achieve arousal. Consequently,
erectile dysfunction may be a complication of male
circumcision (Glover, 1929; Ozkara, Asicioglu, Alici, Akkus,
& Hattat, 1999; Palmer & Link, 1979; Stief, Thon,
Djamilian, Allhoff, & Jonas, 1992; Stinson, 1973).
Bensley and Boyle (2001) surveyed women and gay
men who had previously had sexual intercourse with both
genitally intact and circumcised men. Bensley and Boyle's
samples comprised 35 women, and 42 gay men. In addition they
surveyed 83 self-selected men (53 circumcised; 30 genitally
intact) who provided self-reports regarding their sexual and
psychological functioning. The overall results (women
partners and gay male partners combined) were that
circumcised partners were significantly less happy about
their sexual functioning than were genitally intact
partners.
In Bensley and Boyle's (2001) study, sexual
dysfunction was more often reported by circumcised men who
complained either of premature ejaculation (with little
sexual sensation), and/or difficulty in gaining or
maintaining an erection--the two most prevalent forms of
erectile dysfunction. Reduced or insufficient neural feedback
may account for circumcised men's inability to detect the
moment when ejaculation is imminent. Premature ejaculation
previously has been ascribed to learning or conditioning
factors. For example, where a teenage boy is raised in an
environment in which sexual pleasure is regarded as "sinful
or dirty" he may have to hurry masturbation in order to avoid
being "caught in the act." Premature ejaculation would
therefore be negatively reinforced by avoiding an aversive or
punitive consequence (cf. Schwartz & Reisberg, 1991, pp.
121-122). However, information is now emerging on the role of
the prepuce in preventing premature ejaculation, wherein the
foreskin serves to protect the corona of the glans penis from
direct stimulation during intercourse (Halata & Munger,
1986; Zwang, 1997). Overall, circumcised men expressed
significantly greater dissatisfaction with their sex lives
than did genitally intact men. This result is consistent with
the findings by Hammond (1997, 1999), and O'Hara and O'Hara
(1999), that circumcision may impede psychosexual and
emotional intimacy between partners.
Altered Sexual BehavioursApart from reducing sexual sensation and pleasure (Bensley & Boyle, 2001; Gemmell & Boyle, 2001; Immerman & Mackey, 1998; Milos & Macris, 1994; Money & Davison, 1983; O'Hara & O'Hara, 1999), circumcision also leads to changes in sexual practices. For example, Laumann, Masi, and Zuckerman (1997) reported that circumcision is associated with more elaborate sexual behaviours. It is possible that reduced sexual sensation may impel some circumcised men to engage in more elaborate sexual practices in order to attain sexual gratification. In regard to unsafe sex practices, Bensley and Boyle (2001) found that circumcised men were significantly less likely to use condoms than were genitally intact men. Presumably, use of a condom reduces sexual sensation, which may be of somewhat greater concern to circumcised men (cf. Gemmell & Boyle, 2001; Van Howe, 1999).
Other psychological considerations in circumcised men
In Gemmell and Boyle's (2001) survey, involuntary circumcision impacted negatively on various psychological measures. They found that as compared with genitally intact men, circumcised men were often unhappy about being circumcised, experienced significant anger, sadness, feeling incomplete, cheated, hurt, concerned, frustrated, abnormal, and violated (cf. Hammond, 1999). They also found that circumcised men reported lower self-esteem than did genitally intact respondents.
Rhinehart (1999) stated that psychological
problems were almost universally noted by his self-selected
circumcised respondents. These included reports of a sense of
personal powerlessness, fears of being overpowered and
victimised, lack of trust, a sense of vulnerability to
violent attack, guardedness in relationships, reluctance to
have relationships with women, defensiveness, diminished
sense of masculinity, feeling damaged, sense of reduced
penile size or amputation, low self-esteem, shame about not
"measuring up," anger and violence towards women, irrational
rage reactions, addictions and dependencies, difficulties in
establishing intimate relationships, emotional numbing, a
need for greater intensity in sexual experiences, decreased
intimacy, decreased ability to communicate, as well as
feelings of not being understood.
Hammond's (1997) sample of circumcised men
reported emotional harm (83%), physical harm (82%), general
psychological harm (75%), and low self-esteem (74%). The
circumcised men frequently reported feeling mutilated (62%),
unwhole (61%), resentful (60%), abnormal/unnatural (60%),
that one's human rights had been infringed (60%), angry
(54%), frustrated (53%), violated (50%), inferior to
genitally intact males (47%), impeded sexually (43%), and
betrayed by one's parents (34%). Similar findings emerged
from a larger sample of 546 circumcised men studied by
Hammond (1999).
Anecdotal Accounts of Circumcision-Related
Psychological DistressCircumcised men have often provided anecdotal reports pertaining to their negative feelings about involuntary circumcision. For example, one man who contacted one of the authors (RG) at the Circumcision Resource Center in Boston told of an indelible scene when he was four. He was talking with a genitally intact boy who showed him his penis and explained circumcision to him. He was shocked and ashamed at what had been done to him and thought, "Why would somebody want to do that to me? They just chopped it off. It didn't make any sense to me." As an adult he thinks about it "every time I take a shower or urinate" (personal communication, December, 1993).
Another example of discovering the difference
between being genitally intact as compared with being
circumcised is the following retrospective anecdotal story
also told to the same author (RG):
The shock and surprise of my life came when I
was in junior high school, and I was in the showers after
gym... I wondered what was wrong with those penises that
looked different than mine... I soon realized I had part of
me removed. I felt incomplete and very frustrated when I
realized that I could never be like I was when I was
born-intact. That frustration is with me to this day.
Throughout life I have regretted my circumcision. Daily I
wish I were whole (personal communication, October,
1992).
Likewise, an Australian man recently wrote to another
author (GB) at Bond University:
I have been disadvantaged by inferiority and
non-assertiveness in the workplace and in social life so much
that I recently had to go onto a disability pension for
chronic anxiety/anger disorder. My lifelong psychological
distress of being circumcised definitely contributed strongly
to steering me into this pattern of human interaction. I have
no spare funds to take individual legal action, and no living
person to sue for my poor quality of life, but if ever a
class action for damages due to circumcision is mounted, I
wish to add my name to it (personal communication, April,
2001).
Many similar anecdotal stories by circumcised men telling
about psychological unhappiness that they perceived to be
related to involuntary circumcision have been reported, for
example, by Bigelow (1995) and Goldman (1997).Methodological caveats
SamplingOne limitation of some of the foregoing research is that random sampling was not always enforced in subject recruitment (e.g., Rhinehart, 1999; Hammond, 1997, 1999). This may be understandable because of the difficulties in boosting sample sizes and the fact that participants were sometimes confined to certain "captive groups." In any case, the result is that there may be a self-selection bias as widely noted in survey research. Arguably, this could have led to inflation of some statistical effects of circumcision-related sequelae.
Underestimation
Conversely, it is possible that problems related to circumcision may be greater than reported. The following speculations may explain why we don't hear more from many circumcised men about how they may truly feel (see Goldman, 1998, pp. 43-44):
- The pressure to accept sociocultural assumptions regarding circumcision may prevent some men from recognising and feeling dissatisfaction. For example, some men were told when young that circumcision was necessary for health reasons and they did not question that assertion. In countries where circumcision is commonplace, its effects may become familiar and it is possible that these effects may be interpreted as "normal" (Bigelow, 1995; Goldman, 1997).
- Verbal expression of preverbal feelings requires conscious awareness. Because preverbal traumas are generally unconscious, such feelings are expressed nonverbally through behavioural, emotional, and physiological forms (Chamberlain, 1989; Terr, 1988, 1991; van der Kolk, 1989).
- Any negative emotions associated with circumcision that may emerge into the conscious psyche may be very intense and disturbing. Repressing such emotions may serve to protect men from possible anguish. This may be compounded by the fear of dismissal or ridicule of one's feelings. If negative thoughts and/or feelings do momentarily become conscious, it is likely they will be suppressed.
- Privacy surrounding matters of sexuality may inhibit men from speaking out.
Cognitive dissonance
Although in recent years cognitive dissonance theory has fallen somewhat into disrepute (Walker, Burnham, & Borland, 1994, p. 535), the theory may still be useful in explaining certain entrenched attitudes surrounding circumcision. Thus, the common resistance of some parents and doctors to information associating circumcision with harm invites speculation to explain it. Generally, people have a desire for coherence and consistency in their beliefs and experiences and it is possible that this factor may contribute to some extent to the perpetuation of cognitions supportive of circumcision. When inconsistency occurs, thereby creating cognitive dissonance, people may align their beliefs to fit their experience (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). Choosing to seek or to provide parental consent and then to circumcise or to allow one's child to be circumcised is a serious and irreversible choice. In accordance with cognitive dissonance theory, it would be expected that once the decision has been made and the circumcision carried out, most people would tend to appreciate the chosen alternative (circumcision) and depreciate the rejected alternative (leaving the child genitally intact)--(cf. Brehm, 1956).
As a result, beliefs may be adopted to conform
with one's decision to circumcise. An example of these
beliefs involving the psychological defence mechanisms of
denial and rationalisation is the myth that newborn infants
do not feel or remember pain. Even though studies suggest
long-lasting memory of circumcision pain--particularly when
the circumcision occurred during post-infancy childhood years
(Chamberlain, 1989; Hepper, 1996; Rhinehart, 1999), some
doctors who circumcise normal healthy boys may simply ignore
this information (Stang & Snellman, 1998). As well, a
small proportion of doctors may proceed with the surgery on
the basis of ill-informed beliefs. Others, by invoking
psychological defences, may be perceptually blind to the pain
associated with circumcision--perhaps as a result of their
own circumcised status.
Inconsistency can also be reconciled by altering
our beliefs. A common misconception is that the prepuce has
no useful purpose. One circumcision advocate stated, "I
believe the foreskin is a mistake of nature" (Wiswell, 1994).
We may perceive and accept only information that fits our
beliefs. Some physicians who support circumcision dismiss
outright new information that conflicts with their
preconceived view (Briggs, 1985). The tendency to avoid new
information increases when the discrepancy between beliefs
and experience increases (Kumpf & Gotz-Marchand, 1973).
Even after learning something new, people better remember
information that supports established beliefs than they
remember conflicting information (O'Sullivan & Durso,
1984). Avoidance of new information about the possible
psychosexual sequelae of circumcision may lead to rigidity of
thinking and a dependence on previously acquired dogma and
cultural myths to counteract and subdue doubts, thereby
maintaining cognitive harmony. As Bigelow (1995, pp. 105-106)
stated. "This effect is very detectable among parents who
have elected to circumcise their son--especially since they
cannot retract their choice! These parents frequently do not
want to hear anything negative about infant
circumcision...."
Future directions
Foreskin RestorationIf involuntary circumcision can bring about psychological consequences through the aftermath of trauma, then it is possible that "uncircumcision" (Schultheiss, Truss, Stief, & Jonas, 1998) may go some way towards attenuating those effects. In recent years, there has been an increasing awareness among circumcised men about the possibility of restoring a foreskin (albeit devoid of the amputated erogenous nerve endings), through a process of stretching and skin expansion over some years (Bigelow, 1995). Some men who have undergone foreskin restoration have reported discernible recovery of sexual sensation and function previously lost to circumcision, and sometimes a lessening of associated negative emotions (Goodwin, 1990; Greer, Mohl, & Sheley, 1982; Griffiths, 2001; O'Hara & O'Hara, 2001).
Mohl, Adams, Greer, and Sheley (1981) failed to
mention that one of the main reasons for circumcised men to
restore themselves genitally was the crucial loss of prepuce
function during sexual activity. Instead, they claimed that
men who sought foreskin restoration were homosexually
orientated with psychopathology including narcissistic and
exhibitionistic body image, depression, inadequate early
mothering, and egocentrism. Yet this conclusion was based on
an unrepresentative sample of only eight men. These 20-year
old results suffer from an analysis based on what today would
be considered outdated therapeutic and discriminatory social
prejudices against individuals with a homosexual orientation.
Even so, Bigelow (1995), and Griffiths (2001) reported that
most men undergoing foreskin restoration are in fact
heterosexual. As Schultheiss et al. (1998, p. 1996) stated,
"Nowadays, the understanding of the psychological motivations
for uncircumcision is increasing, and the problem is dealt
with more seriously.... the majority of the males performing
skin-stretching are heterosexual." Postulated psychosexual
benefits resulting from foreskin restoration have been
discussed by Bigelow (1995).
Circumcision AdvocacyEven though research suggests harmful effects of circumcision (e.g., Denniston & Milos, 1977; Denniston, Hodges, & Milos, 1999; Cold & Taylor, 1999; Hammond, 1999; Van Howe et al., 1999), psychological factors may make it difficult for circumcision advocates to stop promoting the practice (Goldman, 1997, 1998, 1999). Presumably, grief for the lost sexual body part and its functions, and the resultant denial of loss is important because it may explain the circumcised "adamant father" (who unreasonably insists on the circumcision of a son in the face of contrary evidence) as well as other manifestations of the circumcised male such as the "I'm circumcised and I'm fine" syndrome (Bigelow, 1995; Ritter & Denniston, 1996). Grief and denial in relation to involuntary circumcision may well play a role in the psychology of the circumcised male (Parkes, 1998). Such factors may figure even more prominently among those doctors who devote their entire medical practice or a substantial portion thereof to circumcising normal healthy boys when there is no medical reason to do so (cf. Bigelow, pp. 94-99). Some trauma victims experience a compulsion to re-enact the trauma (van der Kolk, 1989). Circumcising infants may to some extent involve re-enacting the trauma of one's own circumcision. A survey of randomly selected physicians showed that circumcision was more often supported by male doctors who themselves happened to be circumcised (Stein, Marx, Taggert, & Bass, 1982).
Conclusion
The body of empirical evidence reviewed here suggests that there is severe pain at the time of circumcision and shortly thereafter in unanaesthetised boys, as well as heightened pain sensitivity for some considerable period of time afterwards. Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well. A variety of forces are converging from fields as diverse as psychology, medicine, law, medical ethics, and human rights, all questioning the advisability of circumcision which originated millenia ago and was promoted in the Victorian era. As Chamberlain (1998) pointed out, "parents are not warned that their infants will endure severe pain and will be deprived of a functional part of their sexual anatomy for life." Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is now being questioned by legal and ethics scholars in an unprecedented way. The mental health community can play an important role in the growing debate about circumcision. We encourage closer examination of this issue and even more empirical research into the psychosexual sequelae associated with circumcision.References
American Academy of Pediatrics (1999). Circumcision policy
statement (RE 9850). Pediatrics, 103, 686-693.
American Academy of Pediatrics (2001). Policy statement: The assessment and
management of acute pain in infants, children, and
adolescents. (0793). Pediatrics, 108, 793-797.
American Medical Association (2000). Report 10 of the
Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99). American
Medical Association (July).
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th edn). Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Association.
Anand, K. J., & Carr, D. (1989). The
neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neurochemistry of pain,
stress, and analgesia in newborns and children. Pediatric
Clinics of North America, 36, 795-822.
Anand, K. J., & Hickey, P. R. (1987). Pain and its effects in the human
neonate and fetus. New England Journal of Medicine,
317, 1321-1329.
Anand, K. J., & Scalzo, F. M. (2000). Can
adverse neonatal experiences alter brain development and
subsequent behavior? Biology of the Neonate, 77,
69-82.
Andrews, K., & Fitzgerald, M. (1997).
Biological barriers to paediatric pain management.
Clinical Journal of Pain, 13, 138-143.
Australasian College of Paediatric Surgeons.
(1996). Guidelines for Circumcision. URL: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aaps/
Australian College of Paediatrics. (1996). Position Statement:
Routine Circumcision of Normal Male Infants and
Boys.
Bensley, G. A., & Boyle, G. J. (2001). Physical, sexual, and psychological impact
of male infant circumcision: An exploratory survey. In G.
C. Denniston, F. M. Hodges, & M. F. Milos (Eds.),
Understanding circumcision: A multi-disciplinary approach
to a multi-dimensional problem. New York:
Kluwer/Plenum.
Bigelow, J. (1995). The joy of
uncircumcising: Exploring circumcision: History, myths,
psychology, restoration, sexual pleasure and human rights
(2nd ed.). Aptos, CA: Hourglass.
Bollinger D. (2000). Intact Versus
Circumcised: Male Neonatal Genital Ratio in the United
States. Circumcision Reference Library, 13 November
2000.
Bownes, I. T., O'Gorman, E. C., & Sayers, A.
(1991). Assault characteristics and post- traumatic stress
disorder in rape victims. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica,
83, 27-30.
Boyd, B. R. (1998). Circumcision exposed:
Rethinking a medical and cultural tradition. Freedom, CA:
The Crossing Press.
Boyle, G. J. (2000). El trastorno por
estrés postraumático (PTSD) de larga
duración como resultado de la cirugía de los
menores. Paper presented at the 3rd National Congress
on Violence and Mental Health, San Salvador, El Salvador,
C.A. (October 6-7). URL:
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle2
Boyle, G. J. (2001). Ending forced genital
cutting of children and violation of their human rights:
Ethical, psychological and legal considerations. In G. C.
Denniston, F. M. Hodges, & M. F. Milos (Eds.),
Understanding circumcision: A multi-disciplinary approach
to a multi-dimensional problem. New York:
Kluwer/Plenum.
Boyle, G. J., & Bensley, G. A. (2001). Adverse sexual and
psychological effects of male infant circumcision.
Psychological Reports, 88, 1105-1106.
Boyle, G. J., Svoboda, J. S., Price, C. P.,
& Turner, J. N. (2000). Circumcision of healthy boys:
Criminal assault? Journal of Law and Medicine, 7,
301-310. URL: http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1
Bradley, S. J., Oliver, G. D., Chernick, A. B.,
& Zucker, K. J. (1998). Experiment of nurture:
Ablatio penis at 2 months, sex reassignment at 7 months, and
a psychosexual follow-up in young adulthood.
Pediatrics, 102, e9.
Brehm, J. (1956). Postdecision changes in the
desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology 52, 384-389.
Briggs, A. (1985). Circumcision: What every
parent should know. Earlysville, VA: Birth &
Parenting Publications.
Canadian Paediatric Society Fetus and Newborn
Committee (1996). Neonatal circumcision revisited.
Canadian Medical Association Journal, 154,
769-780.
Cansever, G. (1965). Psychological effects of
circumcision. British Journal of Medical Psychology,
38, 328.
Chamberlain, D. B. (1989). Babies remember pain.
Pre- and Perinatal Psychology Journal, 3, 297-310.
Chamberlain, D. B. (1998). The selling of
circumcision. In R. Davis-Floyd & J. Dumit (Eds.),
Cyborg babies: From techno-sex to techno-tots. New
York: Routledge.
Chamberlain, D. B. (1995). Featured paper: Birth and the origins of
violence. Pre-and Perinatal Psychology Journal,
10, 57-74.
Chu, J., & Dill, D. (1990). Dissociative
symptoms in relation to childhood physical and sexual abuse.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 887-892.
Ciaranello, R. (1983). Neurochemical aspects of
stress. In N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds), Stress,
coping, and development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cold, C. J., & McGrath, K. A. (1999). Anatomy and histology
of the penile and clitoral prepuce in primates. In G. C.
Denniston, F. M. Hodges, & M. F. Milos (Eds.), Male
and female circumcision: Medical, legal, and ethical
considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Cold, C. J., & Taylor, J. (1999). The prepuce.
British Journal of Urology International, 83 Supplement
1, 34-44.
Deblinger, E., McLeer, S. V., & Henry, D.
(1990). Cognitive behavioural treatment for sexually abused
children suffering post-traumatic stress. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29,
747-752.
Denniston, G. C., Hodges, F. M., & Milos, M.
F. (1999). (Eds.), Male and female circumcision: Medical,
legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice.
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Diamond, M. (1997). Sex
reassignment at birth: A long term review and clinical
implications. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
Medicine, 151, 298-304.
Dixon, S., Snyder, J., Holve, R., &
Bromberger, P. (1984). Behavioral effects of circumcision
with and without anesthesia. Journal of Developmental and
Behavioral Pediatrics, 5, 246-250.
Duddle, M. (1991). Emotional sequelae of sexual
assault. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 84,
26-28.
Eth, S., & Pynoos, R. (1985). Developmental
perspective on psychic trauma in childhood. In C. Figley
(Ed), Trauma and its wake. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Fernandez, E. (1986). A classification system of
cognitive coping strategies for pain. Pain, 26,
141-151.
Fernandez, E., & Turk, D. C. (1989). The
utility of cognitive coping strategies for altering pain
perception: A meta-analysis. Pain, 38, 123-135.
Festinger, L. & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959).
Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 58, 203-210.
Field, T. (1995). Infancy is not without pain.
In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development: A research
annual (Vol. 10, pp. 1-26). Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Fitzgerald, M. (1987). Pain and analgesia in
neonates. Trends in Neurosciences, 10, 344-346.
Fitzgerald, M. (1998). The birth of pain.
MRC News, Summer, 20.
Fleiss, P. M. (1997). The case
against circumcision. Mothering Magazine, Winter, 36-45.
Located at URL:
http://www.MothersAgainstCirc.org/fleiss.html
Freud, A. (1952). The role of bodily illness in
the mental life of children. Psychoanalytic Study of
the Child, 7, 69-81.
Freud, S. (1966). Introductory lectures on
psychoanalysis (1920 reprint). New York: Norton, p.
165.
Gemmell, T., & Boyle, G. J. (2001).
Neonatal circumcision: Its long-term harmful effects.
In G. C. Denniston, F. M. Hodges, & M. F. Milos (Eds.),
Understanding circumcision: A multi-disciplinary approach
to a multi-dimensional problem. New York:
Kluwer/Plenum.
Giannetti, M. R. (2000). Circumcision and the
American Academy of Pediatrics: Should scientific misconduct
result in trade association liability? Iowa Law
Review, 85, 1507-1568. URL:
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/giannetti
Glover, E. (1929). The "screening" function of
traumatic memories. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 10, 90-93.
Goldman, R. (1997). Circumcision: The hidden
trauma. Boston: Vanguard.
Goldman, R. (1998). Questioning circumcision:
A Jewish perspective. Boston: Vanguard.
Goldman, R. (1999). The psychological impact of
circumcision. British Journal of Urology
International, 83, Supplement 1, 93-102. URL:
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/
Gollaher, D. L. (2000). A history of the
world's most controversial surgery. New York: Basic
Books.
Goodwin, W. E. (1990). Uncircumcision: A
technique for plastic reconstruction of a prepuce after
circumcision. Journal of Urology, 144,
1203-1205.
Green, A. (1983). Dimensions of psychological
trauma in abused children. Journal of the American
Association of Child Psychiatry, 22, 231-237.
Greer, D. M., Mohl, P. C., & Sheley, K. A.
(1982). A technique
for foreskin reconstruction and some preliminary results.
Journal of Sex Research, 18, 324-330.
Griffiths, W. (2001). The National Organization of
Restoring Men (NORM}. URL: http://www.norm.org
Grunau, R.V.E., Johnston, C., & Craig, K.D.
(1990). Neonatal facial and cry responses to invasive and
non-invasive procedures. Pain, 42, 295-305.
Halata, Z., & Munger, B. L. (1986). The neuroanatomical basis for
the protopathic sensibility of the human glans penis.
Brain Research, 371, 205-230.
Hammond, T. (1997). Long-term consequences of
neonatal circumcision: A preliminary poll of circumcised
males. In G. C. Denniston & M. F. Milos (Eds.), Sexual
mutilations: A human tragedy. New York: Plenum.
Hammond, T. (1999). A preliminary poll of
men circumcised in infancy or childhood. British
Journal of Urology International, 83, Supplement 1,
85-92.
Hepper, P. G. (1996). Fetal memory: Does it exist?
What does it do? Acta Paediatrica Supplement, 416,
16-20.
Herman, J. (1992). Trauma and recovery.
New York: Basic Books.
Hodges F. (1997). A short history of the
institutionalization of involuntary sexual mutilation in the
United States. In Denniston GC & Milos MF (Eds.),
Sexual mutilations: A human tragedy. New York:
Plenum.
Hughes, G. K. (1990). Circumcision: Another
look. Ohio Medicine, 86, 92.
Immerman, R. S., & Mackey, W. C. (1998). A proposed relationship
between circumcision and neural reorganization.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159, 367-378.
International Association for the Study of Pain
(1986). Classification of chronic pain: Descriptions of
chronic pain syndromes and definitions of pain terms.
Pain, 3, Suppl., S1-S226.
Jacobson, B., & Bygdeman, M. (1998). Obstetric care and proneness
of offspring to suicide.British Medical Journal,
317, 1346-1349.
Jacobson, B., Eklund, G., Hamburger, L.,
Linnarsson, D., Sedvall, G., & Valverius, M. (1987). Perinatal origin of adult
self-destructive behavior. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica, 76, 364-371.
Jacobson, B., Nyberg, K., Gronbladh, L., Eklund,
G., Bygdeman, M., Rydberg, U. (1990). Opiate addiction in
adult offspring through possible imprinting after obstetric
treatment. British Medical Journal, 301 (6760),
1067-1070.
Johnston, C.C., & Strada, M.E. (1986). Acute
pain response in infants: A multidimensional description.
Pain, 24, 373-382.
Kennedy, H. (1986). Trauma in childhood: Signs and
sequelae as seen in the analysis of an adolescent.
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 41, 209-219.
Kipnis, K., & Diamond, M. (1998). Pediatric ethics and the surgical assignment
of sex. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 9,
398-410.
Kumpf, M. & Gotz-Marchand, B. (1973).
Reduction of cognitive dissonance as a function of magnitude
of dissonance, differentiation, and self-esteem. European
Journal of Social Psychology 3, 255-270.
Kuhn, D., Phelps, E., & Walters, J. (1985).
Correlational reasoning in an everyday context. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology 6, 85-97.
Lander, J., Brady-Freyer, B., Metcalfe, J.B.,
Nazerali, S., & Muttit, S. (1997). Comparison of ring block, dorsal
penile nerve block, and topical anesthesia for neonatal
circumcision: a randomized controlled trial. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 278, 2157-2162.
Lang, K. (1986). Conservative therapy of
phimosis. Monatsschr Kinderheildkd, 132, 824-825.
Laumann, E.O., Masi C.M., & Zuckerman E.W.
(1997). Circumcision in
the United States: Prevalence, prophylactic effects, and
sexual practice. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 277, 1052-1057.
Lawrence, P. (1997). The first cut. Outrage
Magazine, Number 172 (September), p. 5.
Levine, J.D., & Gordon, N.C. (1982). Pain in
prelingual children and its evaluation by pain-induced
vocalization. Pain, 14, 85-93.
Levy, D. M. (1945). Psychic trauma of operations in
children. American Journal of Diseases of Children,
69, 7-25.
Maguire, P. (1998). Coping with loss: Surgery and loss of body
parts. British Medical Journal, 316,
1086-1088.
Maimónides, Moses. (1963). The guide of the
perplexed. Translated by Shlomo Pines. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. URL:
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides
Maiz, S., & Fernandez, E. (2000). Three
decades of pediatric pain treatment: What have we
learned? Paper presented at the 108th Annual Convention
of the American Psychological Association, Washington,
D.C.
Marshall R.E., Porter F.L., Rogers A.G., Moore
J.A., Anderson B., & Boxerman S.B. (1982). Circumcision: II. Effects
upon mother-infant interaction. Early Human
Development, 7, 367-374.
McFadyen, A. (1998). Children have feelings too. British
Medical Journal, 316, 1616.
Melzack, R., & Wall, P. D. (1965). Pain
mechanisms: A new theory. Science, 150, 971-979.
Menage, J. (1999). Post-traumatic stress
disorder after genital medical procedures. In G. C.
Denniston, F. M. Hodges, & M. F. Milos (Eds.), Male
and female circumcision: Medical, legal, and ethical
considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Mezey, G., & Robbins, I. (2001). Usefulness and validity of post-traumatic
stress disorder as a psychiatric category. British
Medical Journal, 323, 561-563.
Milos, M. F., & Macris, D. R. (1994). Circumcision:
Male-effects upon human sexuality. In V. L. Bullough
& B. Bullough (1994). Human sexuality: An
encyclopedia. New York: Garland.
Money, J., & Davison, J. (1983). Adult penile
circumcision: Erotosexual and cosmetic sequelae.
Journal of Sex Research, 19, 289-292.
Moscucci, O. (1996). Clitoridectomy,
circumcision, and the politics of sexual pleasure. In A. H.
Miller & J. E. Adams (Eds.), Sexualities in Victorian
Britain. Bloomington, Indianapolis, IN: Indiana
University Press.
National Center for Health Statistics (1998).
National USA circumcision statistics. Hyattsville, MD:
Department of Health & Human Services.
Noyes, R. (1977). Depersonalization in response
to life threatening danger. Comprehensive Psychiatry,
18, 375-384.
O'Hara, K., & O'Hara, J. (1999). The effect of male
circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female
partner. British Journal of Urology International,
83, Supplement 1, 79-84.
O'Hara, K., & O'Hara, J. (2001). Sex as
nature intended it: The most important thing you need to know
about making love, but no one could tell you until now.
Hudson, MA: Turning Point Publications.
O'Sullivan, C. & Durso, F. (1984). Effect of
schema-incongruent information on memory for stereotypical
attributes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
47, 55-70.
Ozkara, H., Asicioglu, F., Alici, B., Akkus, E.,
& Hattat, H. (1999). Retrospective analysis of
medicolegal cases and evaluation for erectile function.
American Journal of Forensic Medical Pathology, 20,
145-149.
Ozturk, O. (1973). Ritual circumcision and
castration anxiety. Psychiatry, 36, 55.
Palmer, J. M., & Link, D. (1979). Impotence following
anesthesia for elective circumcisions. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 241, 2635-2366.
Parkes, C. M. (1998). Coping
with loss: Facing loss. British Medical Journal,
316, 1521-1524.
Porter, F.L., Miller, R.H., & Marshall, R.E.
(1986). Neonatal pain cries:
Effect of circumcision on acoustic features and perceived
urgency. Child Development, 57, 790-802.
Porter, F.L., Porges, S.W., & Marshall, R.E.
(1988). Newborn pain cries
and vagal tone: Parallel changes in response to
circumcision. Child Development, 59, 495-505.
Prescott, J. W. (1989). Genital pain vs. genital
pleasure: Why the one and not the other? Truth Seeker,
1, 14-21.
Ramos, S., & Boyle, G. J. (2001). Ritual
and medical circumcision among Filipino boys: Evidence of
post-traumatic stress disorder. In G. C. Denniston, F. M.
Hodges, & M. F. Milos (Eds.), Understanding
circumcision: A multi-disciplinary approach to a
multi-dimensional problem. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Rhinehart, J. (1999). Neonatal circumcision
reconsidered. Transactional Analysis Journal, 29,
215-221.
Richards, D. (1996). Male circumcision: Medical or
ritual? Journal of Law and Medicine, 3,
371-376.
Richards, M. P. M., Bernal, J. F., &
Brackbill, Y. (1976). Early behavioral
differences: Gender or circumcision? Developmental
Psychobiology, 9, 89-95.
Ritter, T. J., & Denniston, G. C. (1996).
Say no to circumcision! 40 compelling reasons (2nd
ed.). Aptos, CA: Hourglass.
Saperstein, M. (1980). Decoding the Rabbis: A
thirteenth-century commentary on the Aggadeh.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (pp. 97-98).
Schultheiss, D., Truss, M. C., Stief, C. G.,
& Jonas, U. (1998). Uncircumcision: A
historical review of preputial restoration. Plastic
and Reconstructive Surgery, 101, 1990-1998.
Schwartz, B., & Reisberg, D. (1991).
Learning and memory. New York: Norton.
Smith, J. (1998). Male circumcision and the rights
of the child. In M. Bulterman, A. Hendriks & J. Smith
(Eds.), To Baehr in our minds: essays in human rights from
the heart of the Netherlands. Utrecht, Netherlands:
Netherlands Institute of Human Rights.
Somerville, M. (2000).The
ethical canary: Science, society and the human
spirit. Ringwood, Victoria, Australia: Penguin.
Stang, H. J., & Snellman, L. W. (1998). Circumcision
practice patterns in the United States. Pediatrics,
101, e5.
Stein, M., Marx, M., Taggert, S., & Bass, R.
(1982). Routine neonatal circumcision: The gap between
contemporary policy and Practice. Journal of Family
Practice 15, 47-53.
Stief, C. G., Thon, W. F., Djamilian, M.,
Allhoff, E. P., & Jonas, U. (1992). Transcutaneous
registration of cavernous smooth muscle electrical activity:
Noninvasive diagnosis of neurogenic autonomic impotence.
Journal of Urology, 147, 47-50.
Stinson, J. M. (1973). Impotence and adult
circumcision. Journal of the National Medical
Association, 65, 162-179.
Svoboda, J. S., Van Howe, R. S., & Dwyer, J.
G. (2000). Neonatal
circumcision: An ethical and legal conundrum. Journal
of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 17, 61-133.
Taddio, A., Katz, J., Ilersich, A. L., &
Koren, G. (1997). Effect of
neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent
routine vaccination. The Lancet, 349, 599-603.
Taylor, J.R., Lockwood, A.P., & Taylor, A.J.
(1996). The prepuce:
Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to
circumcision. British Journal of Urology, 77,
291-295.
Terr, L. (1988). What happens to early memories
of trauma? Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 96-104.
Terr, L. (1990). Too scared to cry. New
York: Harper & Row.
Terr, L. (1991). Childhood traumas: An outline
and overview. American Journal of Psychiatry 148,
10-20.
Tyler, D.C. (1988). Pain in the neonate. Pre-
and Peri-Natal Psychology Journal, 3, 53-59.
van der Kolk, B. (1989). The compulsion to repeat
the trauma: Re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism.
Psychological Clinics of North America, 12,
389-411.
van der Kolk, B., & Saporta, J. (1991). The biological response to
psychic trauma: Mechanisms and treatment of intrusion and
numbing. Anxiety Research, 4, 199-212.
Van Howe, R. (1996). Letter regarding
perinatal hospital stays and the performance of
circumcision. Journal of Family Practice, 43,
431.
Van Howe, R. (1999). Circumcision and HIV
infection: Review of the literature and meta-analysis.
International Journal of STDs and AIDS, 10, 8-16.
Van Howe, R., Svoboda, J. S., Dwyer, J. G.,
& Price, C. P. (1999). Involuntary circumcision: The
legal issues. British Journal of Urology
International, 83 (Suppl. 1), 63-73.
Walker, M., Burnham, D., & Borland, R.
(1994). Psychology (2nd ed.). Brisbane: Wiley.
Wallerstein, E. (1980). Circumcision: An
American health fallacy. New York: Springer.
Wallerstein, E. (1985). Circumcision: The
uniquely American medical enigma. Urologic Clinics of
North America, 12, 123-132.
Watson, C. G., Juba, M. P., Manifold, V.,
Kucala, T., & Anderson, P. E. D. (1991). The PTSD
interview: Rationale, description, reliability, and
concurrent validity of a DSM-III-based technique. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 47, 179-188.
Williams, N., & Kapila, L. (1993). Complications of
circumcision. British Journal of Surgery, 80,
1231-1236.
Williamson, P., & Evans, N. (1986). Neonatal
cortisol response to circumcision with anesthesia.
Clinical Pediatrics, 25, 412.
Wiswell, T. (1994, Fall). National
Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers
(NOCIRC) Newsletter, 2, Washington, DC: NOCIRC.
Zwang, G. (1997). Functional
and erotic consequences of sexual mutilations. In G. C.
Denniston & M. F. Milos (Eds.), Sexual mutilations: A
human tragedy. New York: Plenum.
Citation:
- Boyle GJ, Goldman R, Svoboda JS, Fernandez E. Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae. J Health Psychology 2002;7(3):329-43.
(File revised 1 December 2012)
The cabal is in everything involved with our lives. May they all be vaporized.
ReplyDelete