SEXIS WRONG

some tried foreskin-stretching to restore themselves even
back then. The ancient Greeks and their Hellenistic successors
considered the “ideal” prepuce to be long, tapered, and
well proportioned. Removing it was mutilation. 24
Philo of Alexandria wrote in the first century that circumcision
served to excise “pleasures that bewitch the mind.” He
may have been the first to state that circumcision decreases
sexual sensation, Glick suggests.
The amount of skin amputated
results in the loss of about one-third
or more of the penile shaft skin
system.
Later, in the twelfth century, Moses Maimonides, Jewish physician
and community leader, wrote, 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.... The fact that circumcision weakens
the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps
diminishes the pleasure in indubitable.” He adds:
The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have
explicitly stated: “it is hard for a woman with whom
an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse
to separate from him.” In my opinion this is the
strongest of the reasons for circumcision....
[B]ecause his foreskin has been removed from him,
and the power of his member has been diminished,
he has no strength to lie with many lewd women.
Women who have had an opportunity to make
comparisons, know quite well the difference
between circumcised and intact lovers. But it’s all
for the best, since Jewish men don’t waste time
and energy trying to satisfy women sexually.
her husband, ashamed and confounded, while the
seed is still in her reservoir. She does not have an
orgasm once a year…. 25
Even if the various health benefits touted by Schoen were
true, and they are hotly debated, medical ethicist Margaret
Somerville writes that that wouldn’t justify circumcision:
A common error made by those who want to
justify infant male circumcision on the basis of
medical benefits is that they believe that as long
as some such benefits are present, circumcision
can be justified as therapeutic, in the
sense of preventive health care. This
is not correct. A medical-benefits or
“therapeutic” justification requires
that overall the medical benefits
should outweigh the risks and harms
of the procedure required to obtain them, that
this procedure is the only reasonable way to
obtain these benefits, and that these benefits are
necessary to the well-being of the child.
None of these conditions is fulfilled for routine
infant male circumcision. If we view a child’s
foreskin as having a valid function, we are no more
justified in amputating it than any other part of
the child’s body unless the operation is medically
required treatment and the least harmful way to
provide that treatment. 27
Somerville said she once accepted circumcision without a
second thought. After studying it, she came to the conclusion
that it is “technically criminal assault.”
“Once you decide that circumcision is not medically necessary,
you take away the therapeutic intent,” she says. “Take
away therapeutic intent, and circumcision becomes an unjustified
wounding.”
Maimonides understood that the foreskin is a highly sensitive
source of sexual pleasure. His words could be slid in between
the comments of the women who responded to O’Hara’s
survey and no one would spot the 800-year gulf between
them. Maimonides wrote:
[W]hen a circumcised man desires the beauty
of a woman, and cleaves to his wife, or another
woman comely in appearance, he will find himself
performing his task quickly, emitting his seed as
soon as he inserts his crown.... He has an orgasm
first.... She has no pleasure from him...and it would
be better for her if he had not known her and not
drawn near to her, for he arouses her passion to
no avail, and she remains in a state of desire for
Dr. Leo Sorger told ObGYN News readers that circumcision,
“removing normal healthy functioning tissue,” violates the
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article
5) and the United Nations Convention of the Rights of
the Child (Article 13).
Northrup: “I am not Jewish, (or Muslim), but I can assure
you that many Jews are rethinking circumcision (I do not
have any information about Muslims). As a matter of fact,
two of the most well-researched and eloquent books on the
harmful nature of circumcision have been written by Jewish
men. I urge you to read Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma by
Ronald Goldman Ph.D. (Vanguard, 1997) and Circumcision:
288 EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT SEX IS WRONG