Freud, a victim and opponent of circumcision: chronicle of an unconscious trauma (updated 09.13.2023)

International Journal of Impotence Research, 2020

Male circumcision (MC) is the first planned surgical procedure ever performed. Nowadays many of these procedures are not necessarily carried out in a medical environment, therefore the real number remains unknown but it is estimated that one third of the men are circumcised. Some authors argue the negative impact of MC on men psychology and sexual life, but objective data are lacking. The purpose of this review is to summarize in the best possible way the literature to clarify this matter. A non-systematic narrative review was performed including articles between 1986 and 2019. The search for literature was carried out between July 2019 to October 2019 and any updates as of March 30, 2020. Although many authors support the hypothesis that circumcision status has an impact on sexual functioning, a negative outcome has not yet been entirely proven. Circumcision might affect how men perceive their body image, and consequently affect their sexual life. We should consider this when analysing the literature about MC and sexual dysfunction, as many of the results are based on specific populations with different attitudes towards this procedure. Sexual function consists of many elements that not only relate to measurable facts such as anatomy, somatosensory and histology. An objective evaluation of the impact of circumcision on sexuality is still challenging, as it affects a wide variety of people that confront sexuality differently due to their sociocultural and historical background. Therefore, individuals can either perceive their circumcision status as a blessing or a curse depending on the values and preferences of the different communities or social environments where they belong.

Excerpt from the American Journal of Sexual Medicine reviewer's "comments to the author": "Reading between the lines, it is clear that this is a political statement against circumcision masquerading as a medical definition of the foreskin as an organ. Although the authors’ pain and outrage are obvious, I really do not empathize. So what if the foreskin is a lip? Their deeper argument that its removal impoverishes the sexual lives of men does not rest on any solid scientific foundation." (Being the owner of a healthy and efficient prepuce, the author wouldn't give it away for an empire.) A review of the medical literature about the sexual functions of the foreskin BACKGROUND Elementary medical ethics forbids the excision of an organ without strict and serious medical motive. METHODS After the exposure of the concept of lip, its appliance to the foreskin makes it a full organ. Then, the article recalls the main medical literature that sets out the two functions of the foreskin: sexual and protective. RESULTS This article emphasizes that the foreskin is a full organ: the specific organ for autosexuality, an adjuvant for heterosexuality and the protective lip of the glans. CONCLUSION Anatomy has not generalized the notion of lip to all the organs with a similar structure and function. First, highlighting that the foreskin is a lip emphasizes its function of indispensable organ for protecting the glans. Second, the review of medical literature recalls that the foreskin includes an erogeneity and an ability to retract that make it not only the specific organ for solitary sexuality but also a useful tool of heterosexuality. Third: the concept of autosexuality replaces an insidiously making guilty and derogatory concept by a neutral one. So, this article brings medicine two useful concepts and takes the defence of a sometimes hastily neglected sexual organ. Keywords: anatomy, organ, lip, foreskin, sexual function, circumcision, mutilation.

2017

Surgically modifying the genitals of children—female, male, and intersex—has drawn increased scrutiny in recent years. In Western societies, it is illegal to modify the healthy genitals of female children in any way or to any extent in the absence of a strict medical indication. By contrast, modifying the healthy genitals of male children and intersex children is currently permitted. In this journal in 2015, Stephen R. Munzer discussed a controversial German court case from 2012 (and its aftermath) that called into question the legal status of nontherapeutic male circumcision (NTC), particularly as it is carried out in infancy or early childhood. Whether NTC is legal before an age of consent depends partly upon abstract principles relating to the best interpretation of the relevant laws, and partly upon empirical and conceptual questions concerning the degree to which, and ways in which, such circumcision can reasonably be understood as a harm. In this article, we explore some of these latter questions in light of Professor Munzer's analysis, paying special attention to the subjective, personal, and individually and culturally variable dimensions of judgments about benefit versus harm. We also highlight some of the inconsistencies in the current legal treatment of male versus female forms of nontherapeutic childhood genital alteration, and suggest that problematically gendered assumptions about the sexual body may play a role in bringing about and sustaining such inconsistencies.

Freud's theory of female sexuality begins with the Oedipus complex, in which Freud divides his theory on infantile sexuality along the lines of gender. The status of female genitalia is solidified by the castration complex and penis envy; which fundamentally imply that firstly, males fear the loss of their genitalia on sight of the female organ, and secondly that females are jealous or envious of the male phallus. It follows that Freud's definition of female sexuality as that of a lack of phallus appears to biologically separate femininity and masculinity in accordance with sex; insofar that young girls acknowledge their 'inorganic inferiority' through penis envy. This, seemingly controversial, aspect of Freud's theory has been adapted by Melanie Klein a psychoanalyst who suggested that it is the male, rather, that possess a lack: the lack of a womb. Freud's theory of femininity could be seen to discord with more contemporary theories that deviate from traditional conceptions of masculinity and femininity such as Judith Butler's who argues against any 'theory that restricts the meaning of gender in the presuppositions of its own practice sets up exclusionary gender norms within feminism.'Freud's theory of femininity becomes even more divisive amongst feminists due to the absence of clarity when he discusses the female condition; it is not clear whether the femininity that he theorises is a form of essentialism, or not.

Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 1999

STUDIES OF SIGMUND FREUD'S Jewish identity trace a trajectory from the "ten-or-twelve-year-old" son's shame over his father's submissive response to an antisemitic assault that Freud recalls in his first major work, The Interpretation of Dreams (1900:197), to the opening filial gam bit of his last completed work, the only one devoted to an extensive analy sis of Judaism and antisemitism, Moses and Monotheism. 1 Often attemp ting to psychoanalyze the father of psychoanalysis, these works render that identity as symptomatic of a son dutifully acting out his own ambiva lent Oedipal scenario whether with Jacob Freud, Judaism, or European modernity (cf., inter alia, Cuddihy; Robert; Rice; Geller 1997). Unlike that vast literature, this article examines the impact of Freud's Jewishness from his position as a father and not as a son. The focus of this analysis is one of Freud's classic case histories, "Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-Year-Old Boy," popularly known as the Case of Little Hans. This case, with one notable exception-a footnote in which Freud speculates

2025

The mythological motif of the hermaphrodite and its separation into man and woman is a universally prevalent theme. In Genesis, the act of drawing Eve from Adam's rib is an example of the separation of the hermaphrodite. In Plato's Symposium, we also find this separation of the hermaphrodite. While it is a universally prevalent motif, it is also a key signifier for understanding the psychology of the unconscious. Paradoxically, Freud was mistaken in his interpretation of the ritual of circumcision, which he wrongly considered as a castration. In contrast, circumcision is a symbol of the separation of the hermaphrodite and the determination of respective sexes and genital desire.

Morris and Krieger (2013) have argued that male circumcision does not impact adversely on sexual sensation, satisfaction, and/or function. In the present paper, it is argued that such a view is untenable. By selectively citing Morris’ own non-peer-reviewed letters and opinion pieces purporting to show flaws in studies reporting evidence of negative effects of circumcision, and by failing adequately to account for replies to these letters by the authors of the original research (and others), Morris and Krieger give an incomplete and misleading account of the available literature. Consequently, Morris and Krieger reach an implausible conclusion that is inconsistent with what is known about the anatomy and functions of the penile foreskin, and the likely effects of its surgical removal.

We disagree with Boyle’s recent article questioning our systematic review in Journal of Sexual Medicine in 2013 (Volume 10, pages 2644-2657). In particular, he disputed the quality ranking we assigned to 7 of the 36 articles that met our inclusion criteria. These had been ranked for quality by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) grading system. We found that, “the highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation or satisfaction.” This conclusion was supported by two randomized controlled trials, regarded as high-quality (1++) evidence and the majority of surveys and studies involving physiological measurements comparing uncircumcised and circumcised men. Here we explain why the 2 randomized controlled trials merit a 1++ ranking and why 4 reports that Boyle believes merit a higher ranking only meet the criteria set down for low quality (2−) evidence according to the SIGN system. We therefore stand by our conclusions. These are supported by a meta-analysis of sexual dysfunctions and by a recent detailed systematic review of the histological correlates of male sexual sensation.