Circumcision: What do you think of all this???

Question

John Harvey Kellogg who founded Kellogg’s cereal said that:

"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. In females, I found the application of pure carbolic acid [phenol] to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."

He died in 1943 he was aged 91 married for over 40 years, they never had sexual intercourse and had separate bedrooms all their lives.

What do you think of all this???
Why do people still listen to these people?

I think he is a nut ball along with a lot of other people out there. How could you hurt your children like that? Being circumcised against your will is the hardest thing to ever go though it will always affect my life.

Here are some web sites if you don't believe me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/10/graham.htm
http://www.gurl.com/findout/guides/articles/0,,605406_701349-3,00.html

Also he thought his cereal along with circumcision would stop any one from masturbating.

Answer 1

i think that all men should be given the choice if they want to get the cut. I'm intact and have never had a proble, to many people like beacher and ponysteel keep saying we are dirty and spread germs. is that because they are sorry they had it done? why cant they just accept that over 85% of the worlds men are happy with being intact. he chose to get cut and thats their choice but why force it on everyone else

Answer 2

john harvey kellogg was not "misquoted" he wrote this in a book, he felt it was best to do his mutilations with no pain medication so that it would be a greater deterrent to masturbation. He also "circumcised" girls in the same manor. In some cases caustic chemicals were used to burn and scar the genitals so no pleasure might be felt in them.

In his 1877 book, "Plain facts for old and young: embracing the natural history and hygiene of organic life", physician john harvey kellogg (co-inventor of the cornflake) wrote:

"A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, 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."

"In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement, and preventing the recurrence of the practice in those whose will-power has become so weakened that the patient is unable to exercise entire self-control."

Surely this "doctor" should have fit in quite well in a Nazi death camp, he should have been brought up on charges or even better yet taken out and stoned. If I had the name kellogg is would change it, I sure as heck will never buy anything with that hated name on it.

The medical industry until just recently stated that pain control was unnecessary for new born "circumcisions" because baby boys that young can't feel pain! It was just in the last few years that a "study" concluded that babies do feel pain DUH! But even now an AMA survey showed that only about 40% of surgeons use pain control for neo-natal "circumcisions" apparently the other 60% are still with kellogg. Can you trust any one that doesn't think a baby can feel pain, how dishonest or incompetent would that person be?

Answer 3

I agree, John Kellogg in my opinion was a nut; however, he did manage to create a great cereal which is very healthy. His ideas were not all for nothing, from them some radical ideas he had were tweak years later and worked, for instance many different (safe) diet methods were created and healthier eating habits were established.
His ideas about circumcision were in left field. I believe in circumcision, but done when the child is still an infant; this for health reasons and to prevent circumcising at an older age in case of problems that may arise. I agree that it DOES not stop masturbation and it is cruel of any person to inflict this or any other punishment upon children or teens to scare them mentally from masturbation in the future.

Answer 4

OK so the guy was a complete wacko but his cereals are the best. His wife was nuttier - she married him. Maybe she liked the cereal. By the way not so long ago they used to tell people that masturbation would make you go blind or insane (or both) so it wasn't just Kellogg who had wacky ideas. Most religions still consider it a sin.

Answer 5

Actually the whole logic he used it laughable. I know a lot fo circumcised guys who masturbate way more than most of my intact friends. The only way it would actually stop a boy from masturbating is to have him circumcised a little at a time every month or so until he turns 18. Personally I'd sooner leave his penis alone and let him masturbate anyway; it's as normal and healthy as having a penis.

Answer 6

This is a major reason the procedure became so popular in the US. The US is the only country in the world where boys are routinely circumcised for non-religious reasons. I think it should be a personal choice and not made for someone by somebody else. My husband did not have the procedure done and he does not have problems with urinary tract infections nor does he have any trouble keeping himself clean. I would say the only real difference between him and a circumcised man is that the head of his penis is more sensitive because it's covered up most of the time. Otherwise, there really isn't much difference. He's not dirty nor does he stink.

Answer 7

I've never fully understood why people would do that to their children either. For that reason, I'm against non-medical and non-religious infant circumcision. The foreskin is a very personal and sensitive part of the human body, and it should be that individual's choice whether or not to have it removed.

There's nothing wrong with having a foreskin. Most of the negative taboos surrounding it have been dispelled. It's actually very easy to clean and keep clean, and if this is don't properly and regularly, very few problems will arise. So it's not a big deal to still have the foreskin. Besides, 70-80% of the world's male population is uncircumcised. There surely can't be anything wrong with leaving nature as it, especially if it's something every guy's born with.

Answer 8

I like being circuimsized. It makes my penis look clean and neat. I have a friend with skin and it smells ans tastes horrible

Answer 9

It's unfortunate that Americans paid attention to that guy; as a result; we're the only developed nation still doing circumcision on newborns (although rates have dropped). However, he isn't the only one to blame. Many 'benefits' of circumcision are exaggerated and many avoid talking about the risks and negative side effects. It just takes a little research to figure out everything.

Circumcision is a traditionally Jewish and Muslim surgery, although it was introduced and encouraged to the Western, developed world (North America and Europe, but especially the USA) as a way to stop masturbation, especially with the help of Dr. Kellogg. (see link 1) However, although scientific studies have discovered that circumcision harms masturbation by up to over 60% (2), needless to say, it doesn’t completely stop masturbation. Many circumcised guys just find it more convenient to use a lube like KY or lotion as a result (3) since the typically moist foreskin (like the eyelids) is not there to rub the head of the penis with (4).

Most developed nations quickly rejected circumcision after noticing its ineffectiveness against masturbation (they were quite religious back then!), and as a result the United States remains the last developed nation doing it to a significant percentage of newborns. (5) This was done as a result of the for-profit American health care system promoting myths about benefits of circumcision (6), such as preventing penile cancer (6a, 6b), preventing HIV (6c, 6d) despite the USA being the developed nation with the highest HIV rates and circumcision rates (6e, 5), and preventing STDs (6d, 6f). As a result, circumcision now brings in hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors and the American health system. (7)

However, circumcision has been becoming less popular as years have passed by. In the 1960s over 90% of guys were circumcised in the USA, now circumcision rates are as low as 14% in some states. (8) More and more parents are discovering that circumcision carries more risks than benefits, and realize that by leaving their sons uncircumcised, their sons have the choice of choosing what they’d like, since the surgery is irreversible (you can't go back if you don't like it or if it goes wrong).

Circumcision risks include the loss of sexual pleasure according to multiple studies (2, 9, 10, 11). Those studies take into effect many sensation points, including the foreskin, and they involve many participants. There have been other studies that claim no difference, but they don’t even take into effect the nerve endings on the foreskin, which as seen in one study, are some of the most sensitive points on the penis (10). One study even found an increase in erectile dysfunction rates after circumcision (10a). In another study, it was found that females ended up reaching orgasm with and preferring uncircumcised males in 9 out of 10 cases (10b). In addition, circumcision is extremely painful on newborns (12, 13, 14), and you risk many bad conditions, such as a buried penis when too much foreskin is removed and limits the size of the penis (15), or adhesions or skin bridges that develop from the head to the shaft when the skin heals after the surgery (16), meatal stenosis [occurs in up to 10% of circumcised males!] when the opening of the penis becomes irritated from too much exposure and rubbing and begins to close up (17), and meatal ulcers (18). All those risks are, of course, not including the possibility of having too much skin removed, which can cause discomfort during erections due to lack of skin to allow the penis to expand, and could consequently cause a hairy penis by pulling pubic hair and skin to the shaft. Often a circumcision scar develops around the penis after circumcision. In addition, circumcision has negative effects on breastfeeding. (18)

To conclude, here is a link that describes the anatomy of the foreskin (19) and the development of the foreskin with infants, a link especially helpful for parents (19a). Ultimately, one survey found that although uncircumcised guys are a bit more satisfied percentage-wise, it’s within the margin of error. (20) The only difference is that those unsatisfied uncircumcised guys can simply get circumcised and end up satisfied either way. If you're cut or uncut and happy, you'll say that side is better. If you got cut later in life, you'll say cut because you had problems with your foreskin before. If you're cut and had something go wrong or wish to have had a choice, then you'll say uncut. One survey found that up to half of circumcised guys wished to have had the choice themselves (as in, been left uncircumcised and they could have chosen to get circumcised if they wished later on in life). That's a huge number. (21) That, along with the risks and negative effects that are being seen more with the help of the Internet, may be what is bringing down circumcision rates.

Answer 10

I find it rather disturbing that it was popularised in order to "cure" masturbation - and it didn't work anyway, because studies show circumcised men tend to masturbate more (quantity not quality perhaps?)

I think people should at least leave their kids the choice.