Textbook incitement to have one's boys circumcised

I've seen in older, out of copyright American family care books (I think pre-1923) incitements to have boys circumcised. The reasons were that it is cleaner and "prevents bad habits" (masturbation).

I don't have access to more recent books. I'd be curious to see in books from the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s how this surgery was presented and advocated for, to see the evolution.

I have some older medical text books from the 1940's. There is no discussion with regards as whether to circumcise or not. They simply go right into circumcision as if ALL males are to have their foreskin removed. Possibly explains why 99% of my male classmates were cut.

A bad trend begun, or at least accelerated by, John Harvey Kellog.

I wonder why he was so much against boys (and girls) enjoying masturbation? Maybe he was enjoying queen Victoria on the side. She was ugly enough to drive anyone to masturbation.

Yet, circumcision does not prevent masturbation. Depends on the technique used, it may make masturbation uncomfortable without lubricant, more difficult to perform, less enjoyable, but it does not prevent it.

Yet, circumcision does not prevent masturbation. Depends on the technique used, it may make masturbation uncomfortable without lubricant, more difficult to perform, less enjoyable, but it does not prevent it.

Anything to make it more difficult to enjoy something, is reason enough for some to advocate the practice. There really and truly are people who cannot abide the thought that others are enjoying themselves in one way or another.

A bad trend begun, or at least accelerated by, John Harvey Kellog.

The real anti-masturbation culprit you are looking for started more than a century prior to Kellogg. He was named Samuel Auguste Tissot and was a Swiss doctor (March 1728 – June 1797). He wrote best-selling medical treatises on the ill-effects of masturbation and posited that it caused all kinds of horrid degenerative and debilitating diseases of the body and the mind. Nowadays he would be called an utter fool and quack, but in his day he was one of the most respected physicians in Europe. Apparently even Napoleon complimented Tissot on his work. That is saying something when it comes to notoriety and fame.

You can look up more on Tissot on-line. There are all kinds of links. here a few....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel-Auguste_Tissot

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/375135843947405118/

I have always felt that the Victorian eras had a lot to answer for regarding all matters that involve the body and how it is viewed.

Also with reference to masturbation when at school in the 1960's it was always a thing of great derision and the term for masturbation "wanker" was a very derogatory term. Then there were all the old wives tales about doing it; you would get hairs on the palm of your hand or you would go blind if you masturbated.

How many kids lives were ruined during those times with social attitudes such as those. The other funny thing is that many of us "innocents" in those days did not even realise that girls did it as well.

“A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision.... 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.”

Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, Plain Facts for Young and Old

But do me a favor and keep eating your corn flakes, don’t sell your stocks because the Kellogg everyone knows is John Harvey’s brother, William K. Kellogg. The two had an ongoing feud and refused to speak to each other in the ten years preceding W.K.’s death.

Also, an interesting side note, J.H. Was excommunicated from the Seventh-Day Adventist church for favoring novel medical theories of disease over the prevailing belief of the time that health problems were related to morals and sinfulness.

In my Human Sexuality course in college, we studied some of the Victorian-era literature on the topic of masturbation. Seems that Swiss and French doctors in the late 18th century were being pressured into attributing to masturbation diseases such as syphilis because the argument could be made that white discharge of pus infected men were experiencing was actually semen. Therefore, losing semen was detrimental to the a man’s health and would lead to madness and death. Masturbation, being the primary way in which semen would be lost, became a public health crisis.

But when I say pressured, apparently there was a little civil war going on between doctors of the era over germ theory. The microscope had recently been invented and researchers like Pasteur were claiming that illness had nothing to do with immoral behavior, but was rather being caused by invisible bugs. The idea was perhaps seen as preposterous and everyone from the politicians to the church were crying foul - the literal anti-vaxxer movement of their day. The moralists were of course correct: abstain from masturbation and sex other than for reproduction, and you will never catch syphilis. Enter John Harvey Kellogg, a best-selling author on a crusade against masturbation, and circumcision became an imperative.

Anyone have any specific examples of books?

I have some older medical text books from the 1940's. There is no discussion with regards as whether to circumcise or not. They simply go right into circumcision as if ALL males are to have their foreskin removed. Possibly explains why 99% of my male classmates were cut.

It's a decision that should be left up to the adult man whose body it is. This nurse helps a man with his decision:

https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph5f92ce23142b4

I remember that a flatmate of mine did pick up an old medical textbook from a garage sale. It may have been 1920's. It did talk about the benefits of circumcision and was recommending universality. It also stated that a “tight” circumcision was the best i.e. to fully expose the head.

@kiwibloke What were the benefits, according to this book?

Thanks for the question @Pecan_nutjob . It was a while ago so I will try and remember. I seem to recall they thought it much cleaner. There may have been a “masturbation reduction” reason and better for sex. I think it also said that being circumcised “gave the boys fortitude” (whatever that ment)

@kiwibloke Cleanliness is commonly cited, but I'm surprised about better for sex!

@kiwibloke Cleanliness is commonly cited, but I'm surprised about better for sex!

When it came to masturbation in the recent past in the US, any argument seemed to be good enough, no matter how convoluted or moralistic. It was an article of faith, not to be questioned or queried.

It just was better. That is all people wanted to hear and even smart thinking people had to go through loops to justify the practice. Like talking about ‘fortitude’ which was probably nothing more than adult code for ‘anti-masturbatory’.

On second thoughts, maybe it's not that surprising that they could argue both against masturbation and for better sex.

In the 19th century there was a kind of movement against sex in general, considered as necessary for procreation but otherwise disgraceful. Thus the promotion of circumcision as hampering masturbation without (as opposed to castration) rendering vaginal sex and procreation impossible.

Post WW2 sex was considered less negatively. Laws against contraceptive products were lifted in a number of countries, at least for married women. It was considered more socially acceptable to enjoy vaginal sex within a married couple.

Yet oral sex, anal sex and masturbation were considered disorders. The new idea was that masturbation led married people away from their partners. (The same argument is used today against pornography.) Also, masturbation was considered immature.

So in the end I see how people could promote circumcision as hampering masturbation (even though it was said using euphemisms such as “preventing bad habits” or “promoting fortitude”) and enhancing vaginal sex.

“A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision.... 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.”

Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, Plain Facts for Young and Old

“A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision.... 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.”

Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, Plain Facts for Young and Old

What an incredible creep. Makes one want to swear off on eating Corn Flakes or even other kinds of breakfast cereals, doesn't it?

@JacobNC I know this text. It seems that Dr Kellogg was somewhat unhinged. But he's far from being the only one from that era… This is why I was asking about more recent textbooks. I think somebody on Zity mentioned seeing curbing masturbation as a motive for circumcision as late as the 1960s or perhaps early 1970s, though it may have been that the book was old or a reprint.

What an incredible creep. Makes one want to swear off on eating Corn Flakes or even other kinds of breakfast cereals, doesn't it?

Wrong Kellogg. John Harvey claimed to have invented corn flakes, but his brother Willian K. perfected them (fermented the mash and added sugar) and started his own cereal company. The two brothers feuded (mainly over the sugar) and both died having not spoken to the other in over a decade. There is no evidence that W.K. shared any of J.H.’s beliefs about sex, masturbation, or circumcision.

Wrong Kellogg. John Harvey claimed to have invented corn flakes, but his brother Willian K. perfected them (fermented the mash and added sugar) and started his own cereal company.

I've read so many versions of who invented corn flakes. I know in any case that the nutcase Kellogg brother didn't have anything to do with the sale and marketing.

Even so, whomever invented the breakfast staple, it is very difficult to disassociate anything with the same name from the wacky Kellogg.