by Unknown
(This article was originally housed at but the author was forgotten and it was due for deletion. I retrieved it from oblivion (RJW). Perhaps I should have let it die. If the author wants proper attribution please contact me.)

Representatives of the American psychiatric professions have looked into certain aspects of the circumcision question on many occasions.

Taken as a whole, their pronouncements and their silence on the topic provide a disturbing insight into the psychiatric profession itself.


Drs R. Dagher, M.L. Selzer, and J. Lapides from the Section of Urology and Department of Psychiatry at the University of Michigan Medical Center published an analysis of the anti-circumcision movement. Drs Dagher, Selzer and Lapides conclude that opposition to circumcision is a form of mental disorder. They conclude that opponents of circumcision are lobbying for the early deaths of hundreds of thousands of men who might otherwise be saved by routine infant circumcision. [Dagher R, Selzer ML, Lapides J. Carcinoma of the penis and the anti-circumcision crusade. J Urol 1973;110:79-80.]


Dr Paul C. Mohl of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and colleagues published a paper purportedly analyzing the mental states of circumcised men who desired foreskin restoration. Dr. Mohl points out that most of the medical profession consider men with such a desire to be psychotic. Dr. Mohl insists that there are no Jewish foreskin restoration seekers. Dr. Mohl stresses that all foreskin restoration seekers are homosexuals. Dr. Mohl recommends that foreskin restoration techniques be withheld from men until they have extensive psychiatric treatment. He councils that reconstruction be refused to those who have "unrealistic expectations" or who display "overt, untreated psychiatric symptoms." Dr. Mohl defines `untreated psychiatric symptoms' as "preference for uncircumcised partners," and "strong feelings about the role of physicians and/or society in neonatal circumcision."

Dr. Mohl reviews the "foreskin-fetish" element in pornography (i.e. Bud Berkeley's USA and Acorn) but only singles out the pro-foreskin, anti-circumcision theme for discussion. He ignores the extensive sado-masochistic circumcision-fetish theme in Bud Berkeley's works. [Mohl PC, Adams R, Greer DM, Sheley KA. Prepuce restoration seekers: psychiatric aspects. Archives of Sexual Behavior 1982;10:383-93.]


There are no published cases in the psychiatric literature dealing with males who are hired to cut off their foreskin without anesthesia while a group of naked, frequently mutilated men surround him masturbating.

There are no published cases in the psychiatric literature dealing with males who want to cut off the foreskins of other people.

There are no cases in the psychiatric literature dealing with males who want to and do tie down babies and torture their sexual organs with knives, clamps, safety-pins, twine, sharpened finger-nails, or electro-cautery torches.

Because of the profession-wide silence on this sort of behavior, it can be deduced that the American psychiatric profession does not regard it or the desire to do it as abnormal.

The following two published articles come from pornographic literature. All aspects of pornographic literature and sexual behavior have been thoroughly studied by the American psychiatric profession except, apparently, this one, which has been entirely ignored.

Case 1, a personal advertisement from Foreskin Quarterly #20 (March 1996) page 51.

Sacrificed White Australian male 37, sacrificed his foreskin at the age of 20. Unfortunately under general anaesthetic. Fantasizes about ritual circumcision. Would like to exchange letters and ideas with American brothers. Perhaps suggest alternatives to a now impossible ritual foreskin sacrifice. Perhaps willing to travel to USA if you are a competent and legal operator.

Case 2, part of a letter to the editor of Foreskin Quarterly #18 (August 1995) page 30. [note: I have transcribed it without correcting the spelling errors in the original.]

He said while in New York he met an older man who offered him a large amount of money if he'd be circumcised (How much, he didn't say.) But he wanted the cash for dope. Two weeks later at a Central Park West apartment, he stripped and danced as eight men and a woman watched. He was told to stand and jack off. He was then bound with his hands behind a large chair, legs spread and bound to the chair legs. Was given some Novocaine, and a large clamp was applied. He said it was humiliating and degrading, watching the people get their rocks off as he gritted his teeth in pain and embarrassment as he was being raped of this foreskin.

It sure wasn't a rush for him, maybe for some Acorn members. States he still sees their faces, and is depressed over prostituting his manhood.

This is only a small sampling of the sado-masochistic element implicit in the American circumcision problem.

Click here for more...   and here, if you can stomach it.

Does anyone think it peculiar or perhaps suspect that American medicine considers these sorts of reports of pro-circumcision, sado-masochistic penis torture to be unworthy of comment while it simultaneously expends a great deal of energy promoting the idea that foreskin restoration and opposition to circumcision are symptoms of psychiatric illness?

Does anyone still think that circumcisionists are simply uninformed or misinformed, and that if they only were led to the right medical journal articles, they would be transformed into anti-circumcision activists?

Does anyone think that they have all somehow managed to avoid reading Taylor's study, and that if they only read it, they would lay down their knives and stop circumcising?

What do you think of a medical profession that insists that protecting babies from circumcision is a dangerous psychological disorder?

What do you think of a medical profession that insists that the desire for a whole body is psychotic?

What do you think of a medical profession that insists on giving circumcisers access to the sexual organs of baby boys?

Do you still think that `gullible' parents are to blame for the circumcision problem?

How do you think parents could do anything but believe everything that the American medical profession has been saying about circumcision for the last 100 years?

When aggressive pro-circumcision forces write all the sexology textbooks for our society---when aggressive pro-circumcision forces working in the urological, obstetrical, pediatric, and neonatal wards of our nation's hospitals and clinics have defined the normal penis for our society---can our society be blamed for believing them?

Can parents be blamed for acting in good faith and nobly setting aside primal parental insticts by trusting our self-proclaimed medical authority figures?

Can we honestly blame parents for believing what they are told by our society's most respected medical experts?

Back to MGM Primer