What do you think?
Rate this book
Circumcision: A History Of The World's Most Controversial Surgery
From the extraordinarily painful initiation rite of the ancient Egyptians, through the Hebrew purification ritual, through its use by nineteenth-century doctors as prevention for ailments including bedwetting, paralysis, and epilepsy, circumcision has had a long and varied history. Perhaps the greatest mystery, however, is its persistence over time through vastly different social contexts.Historian of medicine David Gollaher takes a comprehensive look at the practice in this lively, scholarly history. Circumcision also addresses the growing controversy over the procedure’s continuance, and those opposing routine circumcision will find support here. Gollaher concludes that “if male circumcision were confined to developing nations, it would by now have emerged as an international cause célèbre.”
272 pages, Hardcover
First published March 20, 2000
5 people are currently reading
207 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
Read
June 5, 2013Damn. This was a really interesting book. Left me feeling like circumcision is indeed pretty fucked up. I miss my foreskin.
January 8, 2023
This book offers a balanced look at circumcision, including the origins of the ritual and how it moved from a religious and cultural practice to being normalized by the medical community. The author covered the perspectives of different religions and how/why the practice was adopted or rejected by different cultures. He also explored the medical reasons why circumcision has fallen in and out of favor throughout history. Lastly he explores the similarities and contrasts the practice of male circumcision with what has come to be known as female genital mutilation (by critics) or female circumcision (by advocates). Overall it was a fascinating look at a controversial subject. Although it was clear to me which way the author leaned, I appreciate how even-handed he was in presenting differing sides of the issue.
July 31, 2019
Following the birth of Titus, I had a couple of conversations about circumcision that led me to wonder about how and why it's such a popular surgery in the U.S., since it's not primarily done for religious reasons. I found this book, which the author claims "is a history, not a polemic or a tract for the times." He also claims that he "endeavored to write a balanced account." Unfortunately, he failed to do so, and the book, which does provide helpful information, in essentially an argument against routine circumcision. I'm glad to have read it, and I've certainly learned a lot about the reasons why circumcision is so common in the U.S.; I just wish that the author had been able to create a truly balanced account.
December 30, 2025
David L. Gollaher’s Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery is a must read for those who want to understand the various religious, cultural, historical, scientific, social, and political dimensions that have contributed to normalization of male circumcision in the West, especially America. Not only is it the first major scholarly history of the surgery, but it is well-written and largely well-researched.
Chapter one begins his history with the most ancient sources of circumcision recorded and known, namely ANE peoples and the Egyptians. The most significant and long-standing group from this part of the world that has practiced circumcision are the Hebrews/Jews. Gollaher provides insightful descriptions of the ritual of circumcision performed by mohels.
Chapter two focuses on circumcision with Christian and Muslim traditions. Although the former does place a special doctrinal weight upon circumcision, it is no longer given impetus to be given to males. The latter, however, is similar to Judaism in that Islam functionally requires men to be circumcised, although their doctrinal foundations for why this is the case is foggier compared to the Jews and Christians.
Chapter three analyses circumcision from other religious and cultural identities, namely native peoples and tribes in Africa, South America, and Asia. Of special interest are the aboriginal peoples of Australia, who are known for both their primitive and their brutal circumcision rituals. Why circumcision has appeared in so many different religious and cultural contexts from all over the world throughout history remains a sociological and anthropological mystery, but for many it is a rite of initiation into manhood and is built upon the premise that male and female organs are actually identical, with the exception of their inversion. So if women naturally bleed, then men are to bleed as well.
Chapter four begins Gollaher’s account of how circumcision became a commonplace medical practice in the United States. The time period for when this largely developed is primarily the late 19th century and the early 20th centuries. During those decades, multiple medical beliefs at the time (e.g., reflex neurosis and cellular friction as the origin of cancer cells), combined with apparently successful surgeries, coalesced with social events and processes (e.g., urban reform movements that emphasized personal hygiene) to produce a medical elite that consistently and successfully persuaded themselves and their patients that circumcision solved many health problems and made one more clean and sanitary. The proposal of the germ theory of disease was central to the uniquely American and English utilization of circumcision as a means to cleanliness rather than soap and water (88). This is the case because although germ theory eventually revolutionized medical practice, it was initially met with bafflement as to how to treat sick patients. Preventative medicine, therefore, was emphasized to a higher degree, including “preventative” surgeries. Since the genitalia are easily perceived as organs of the body that are intrinsically dirty, due to the various fluids that are excreted from them, circumcision became to be seen as an effective procedure that would not only prevent disease but also promote cleanliness (88–90). It should also be noted that medical journals during this era (and still today) were not completely objective or neutral entities: “Before the development of controlled clinical studies, no one thought to ask whether the case histories that proliferated in medical journals were biased toward success, reflecting only good results. Yet it is plain that writers had little incentive to broadcast their failures. Organized medicine is far more interested in discovering what works than ferreting out what doesn’t. The annals of failed experiments remain unpublished. The result of the professional preference for good news was to make it seem to readers of medical journals that circumcision was remarkably effective for a long list of complaints” (83).
Chapter five is Gollaher’s historical account of the anatomical understanding of the foreskin. What may be surprising to some, Gollaher points out that it appears that the Renaissance doctors and anatomists had a better understanding of the foreskin and its complexity and significance than the American doctors and anatomists of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Rather than just an extra flap of skin, the foreskin is filled with nerve endings and is actually closer to the skin of the lips and mouth than anywhere else. From the sources cited in Gollaher’s analysis, it is clear that it gives a functional and experiential advantage in coitus.
The sixth chapter will most likely be the most interesting chapter for many readers, for it is here where Gollaher analyses the various health claims that are made in favor of circumcision or against it. Gollaher works through the pain infants go through during the surgery, pointing out that there is always some level of pain, either during or after, or both, even when pain relief is administered. Gollaher then evaluates the health arguments made in support of circumcision, namely that coitus with uncircumcised males increases the chances of women having cervical cancer, uncircumcised males have a higher chance of penile cancer, uncircumcised males have higher chances of being infected with an STD including HIV, and uncircumcised males have higher chances of UTIs throughout life. What his analysis shows is that “The peer-reviewed medical literature on circumcision is riddled with contradictions….Statistically, the known pros and cons of circumcision cancel each other out” (131, 158). Moreover, some issues are cut through by common sense. For example, penile cancer, fundamentally a skin cancer, will be more common in uncircumcised males because their genitalia have 25% to 50% more skin than circumcised genitalia. Put analogously, in order to avoid breast cancer, women could opt for mastectomies in order to remove their breasts prior to any cancer diagnosis. Or, since skin cancer often occurs on the tip of the nose, one can avoid such cancer preemptively by prophylactic rhinoplasties (145). A similar point is made as it pertains to hygiene: one does not surgically remove the teeth of their children so that their child will never have to deal with regularly brushing and flossing their teeth so as to avoid oral health issues; why is such logic consistently used in regards to circumcision? Even deeper, many pro-circumcision studies draw causal conclusions when at best they are correlations, and due to the cultural and social elements that come to bear on circumcision, it is practically impossible to isolate circumcision as a truly dependent variable (151). The appendix to this volume is an extension of this chapter as it treats the various components and difficulties of medical research and interpreting such research.
Chapter seven accounts for the political and social movements that have come about against circumcision in the 20th century. Particularly illuminating is the evident political dimension to America’s medical institutions, as is seen in the APA’s flip-flopping on circumcision over the course of several years, and with the evident gatekeeping that occurs in medical scholarly journals. Moreover, the reader will be able to see how circumcision is widely social, aesthetic, and economic, rather than a purely medical or scientific issue. Circumcisions get doctors and hospitals money and make people feel “normal” (159).
The final chapter broaches the issue of female circumcision, or as some would prefer, female genital mutilation. This chapter is more or less a microcosm of the entire book, just addressing female circumcision rather than male. Perhaps the most powerful insight comes from a non-Western critique of the Western outrage against female circumcision: “For decades, in the developing world most efforts to convert communities away from the practice [of female circumcision] have met with failure. Like male circumcision, the cutting of girls is an expression of certain deeply held beliefs about the body, human sexuality, and individual and social identity. Proponents of female circumcision like to point out that American parents circumcise their newborns so the sons will look like their fathers and other boys in the community. What, they ask, gives Americans the right to apply a different standard to African women?” (200). As easy as it is to confront female circumcision as morally atrocious, it actually reveals cultural and moral complexities that are often avoided by many Americans.
In the end, Gohaller thoroughly demonstrates the complex relationship between religion, culture, science, and politics as it concerns circumcision. Just like many circumcisions, the history and meaning of the surgery is not clean cut, and this work should be at least a starting point for anyone interested in the subject from an ethical perspective, especially for young parents with newborn sons.
With all this said, the most valuable portions of this work, however, are found in chapters 4–8; the opening chapters of the book are its weakest. This is not surprising because Gollaher is professionally trained as a historian of science and medicine, not a biblical scholar, church historian, or sociologist. There are several very dubious points in his argument and method, especially as it concerns Jewish and Christian understandings of circumcision.
In chapter one, Gollaher makes the argument that Moses, despite being the leader of the Exodus and giver of the law to the Hebrews in the OT, was actually not circumcised. He bases this primarily on his own interpretation of Exodus 4:24–26 coupled with a citation of the Midrash-Nedarim that seems to support this view. Unfortunately for Gollaher, both the biblical text and the saying of the Rabbi can easily be interpreted differently, namely in the more common interpretation that Moses had neglected to circumcise his son. The arguments in favor of Moses’s circumcision (not countered by Gollaher) also outweigh Gollaher’s points: 1) if Moses were uncircumcised, surely not just the Bible itself, but also Christian and Jewish tradition would make a large deal of it, but this was the first time I personally have ever heard the claim of Moses being uncircumcised, even after reading much Christian theology. 2) From a more biblical perspective, in Exodus 2, one reads that Moses as an infant stayed with his parents well beyond the allotted time for when boys would be circumcised, and, this is perhaps the most crucial argument, Pharaoh’s daughter was immediately able to recognize Moses as a Hebrew child. It is highly likely that she was able to do this because Hebrews circumcised their male infants, while Egyptians did not (although they would circumcise males later in life). Although Gollaher’s argument concerning the uncircumcision of Moses is tangential to the main purpose of the book, it is a poorly argued point that he portrays as certain when it is definitely not and actually leans against the consensus view.
In chapter two, Gollaher demonstrates an evident lack of familiarity with biblical scholarship and utilizes a strange methodology for his summarization of the Christian understanding of circumcision. It is not surprising that Gollaher uncritically adopts higher criticism, as is evident when he portrays the teachings of Jesus and Paul as sharply contrasting and very late dating for certain Pauline epistles. Where the demonstrable lack of familiarity lays, however, is when he claims “In Corinth, where a bitter dispute broke out when a group of conservative Jewish converts pressured their Gentile counterparts to become circumcised, Paul was equally adamant: ‘Was anyone already circumcised when he was called? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone uncircumcised when he was called? Let him not seek circumcision’ (1 Corinthians 7:18)” (31–32). Anyone basically familiar with Paul’s epistles and their contexts should be able to recognize that Gollaher describes the context that surrounds Paul’s letter to the Galatians and then misapplies it to the church community at Corinth. Moreover, Gollaher completely omits any patristic discussion on circumcision and instead immediately goes to Abelard and Aquinas. Although these are strong figures in the history of doctrine, to jump from Paul to Abelard without justification is a methodological mistake.
Despite these errors, this work nonetheless remains valuable. We cannot be experts in everything; Gollaher is an expert in the history of medicine; he is not an expert in religious and biblical studies. The reader will learn much about circumcision and its complicated history, especially from a medical and social perspective. Furthermore, one will see how circumcision’s implementation and popularization corresponds directly with other major medical interventions that often go unquestioned, such as interventions utilized during birth and childhood vaccinations. There is a strong sociological element that Gollaher observes in America’s adoption of circumcision as a sign of the social and medical elite, one that a proponent of circumcision actually traced all the way back to the Egyptian priesthood (106). This is a helpful and remarkable history of circumcision that opens the eyes of the common man and woman to its risks, benefits, horrors, complexities, and evils.
Chapter one begins his history with the most ancient sources of circumcision recorded and known, namely ANE peoples and the Egyptians. The most significant and long-standing group from this part of the world that has practiced circumcision are the Hebrews/Jews. Gollaher provides insightful descriptions of the ritual of circumcision performed by mohels.
Chapter two focuses on circumcision with Christian and Muslim traditions. Although the former does place a special doctrinal weight upon circumcision, it is no longer given impetus to be given to males. The latter, however, is similar to Judaism in that Islam functionally requires men to be circumcised, although their doctrinal foundations for why this is the case is foggier compared to the Jews and Christians.
Chapter three analyses circumcision from other religious and cultural identities, namely native peoples and tribes in Africa, South America, and Asia. Of special interest are the aboriginal peoples of Australia, who are known for both their primitive and their brutal circumcision rituals. Why circumcision has appeared in so many different religious and cultural contexts from all over the world throughout history remains a sociological and anthropological mystery, but for many it is a rite of initiation into manhood and is built upon the premise that male and female organs are actually identical, with the exception of their inversion. So if women naturally bleed, then men are to bleed as well.
Chapter four begins Gollaher’s account of how circumcision became a commonplace medical practice in the United States. The time period for when this largely developed is primarily the late 19th century and the early 20th centuries. During those decades, multiple medical beliefs at the time (e.g., reflex neurosis and cellular friction as the origin of cancer cells), combined with apparently successful surgeries, coalesced with social events and processes (e.g., urban reform movements that emphasized personal hygiene) to produce a medical elite that consistently and successfully persuaded themselves and their patients that circumcision solved many health problems and made one more clean and sanitary. The proposal of the germ theory of disease was central to the uniquely American and English utilization of circumcision as a means to cleanliness rather than soap and water (88). This is the case because although germ theory eventually revolutionized medical practice, it was initially met with bafflement as to how to treat sick patients. Preventative medicine, therefore, was emphasized to a higher degree, including “preventative” surgeries. Since the genitalia are easily perceived as organs of the body that are intrinsically dirty, due to the various fluids that are excreted from them, circumcision became to be seen as an effective procedure that would not only prevent disease but also promote cleanliness (88–90). It should also be noted that medical journals during this era (and still today) were not completely objective or neutral entities: “Before the development of controlled clinical studies, no one thought to ask whether the case histories that proliferated in medical journals were biased toward success, reflecting only good results. Yet it is plain that writers had little incentive to broadcast their failures. Organized medicine is far more interested in discovering what works than ferreting out what doesn’t. The annals of failed experiments remain unpublished. The result of the professional preference for good news was to make it seem to readers of medical journals that circumcision was remarkably effective for a long list of complaints” (83).
Chapter five is Gollaher’s historical account of the anatomical understanding of the foreskin. What may be surprising to some, Gollaher points out that it appears that the Renaissance doctors and anatomists had a better understanding of the foreskin and its complexity and significance than the American doctors and anatomists of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Rather than just an extra flap of skin, the foreskin is filled with nerve endings and is actually closer to the skin of the lips and mouth than anywhere else. From the sources cited in Gollaher’s analysis, it is clear that it gives a functional and experiential advantage in coitus.
The sixth chapter will most likely be the most interesting chapter for many readers, for it is here where Gollaher analyses the various health claims that are made in favor of circumcision or against it. Gollaher works through the pain infants go through during the surgery, pointing out that there is always some level of pain, either during or after, or both, even when pain relief is administered. Gollaher then evaluates the health arguments made in support of circumcision, namely that coitus with uncircumcised males increases the chances of women having cervical cancer, uncircumcised males have a higher chance of penile cancer, uncircumcised males have higher chances of being infected with an STD including HIV, and uncircumcised males have higher chances of UTIs throughout life. What his analysis shows is that “The peer-reviewed medical literature on circumcision is riddled with contradictions….Statistically, the known pros and cons of circumcision cancel each other out” (131, 158). Moreover, some issues are cut through by common sense. For example, penile cancer, fundamentally a skin cancer, will be more common in uncircumcised males because their genitalia have 25% to 50% more skin than circumcised genitalia. Put analogously, in order to avoid breast cancer, women could opt for mastectomies in order to remove their breasts prior to any cancer diagnosis. Or, since skin cancer often occurs on the tip of the nose, one can avoid such cancer preemptively by prophylactic rhinoplasties (145). A similar point is made as it pertains to hygiene: one does not surgically remove the teeth of their children so that their child will never have to deal with regularly brushing and flossing their teeth so as to avoid oral health issues; why is such logic consistently used in regards to circumcision? Even deeper, many pro-circumcision studies draw causal conclusions when at best they are correlations, and due to the cultural and social elements that come to bear on circumcision, it is practically impossible to isolate circumcision as a truly dependent variable (151). The appendix to this volume is an extension of this chapter as it treats the various components and difficulties of medical research and interpreting such research.
Chapter seven accounts for the political and social movements that have come about against circumcision in the 20th century. Particularly illuminating is the evident political dimension to America’s medical institutions, as is seen in the APA’s flip-flopping on circumcision over the course of several years, and with the evident gatekeeping that occurs in medical scholarly journals. Moreover, the reader will be able to see how circumcision is widely social, aesthetic, and economic, rather than a purely medical or scientific issue. Circumcisions get doctors and hospitals money and make people feel “normal” (159).
The final chapter broaches the issue of female circumcision, or as some would prefer, female genital mutilation. This chapter is more or less a microcosm of the entire book, just addressing female circumcision rather than male. Perhaps the most powerful insight comes from a non-Western critique of the Western outrage against female circumcision: “For decades, in the developing world most efforts to convert communities away from the practice [of female circumcision] have met with failure. Like male circumcision, the cutting of girls is an expression of certain deeply held beliefs about the body, human sexuality, and individual and social identity. Proponents of female circumcision like to point out that American parents circumcise their newborns so the sons will look like their fathers and other boys in the community. What, they ask, gives Americans the right to apply a different standard to African women?” (200). As easy as it is to confront female circumcision as morally atrocious, it actually reveals cultural and moral complexities that are often avoided by many Americans.
In the end, Gohaller thoroughly demonstrates the complex relationship between religion, culture, science, and politics as it concerns circumcision. Just like many circumcisions, the history and meaning of the surgery is not clean cut, and this work should be at least a starting point for anyone interested in the subject from an ethical perspective, especially for young parents with newborn sons.
With all this said, the most valuable portions of this work, however, are found in chapters 4–8; the opening chapters of the book are its weakest. This is not surprising because Gollaher is professionally trained as a historian of science and medicine, not a biblical scholar, church historian, or sociologist. There are several very dubious points in his argument and method, especially as it concerns Jewish and Christian understandings of circumcision.
In chapter one, Gollaher makes the argument that Moses, despite being the leader of the Exodus and giver of the law to the Hebrews in the OT, was actually not circumcised. He bases this primarily on his own interpretation of Exodus 4:24–26 coupled with a citation of the Midrash-Nedarim that seems to support this view. Unfortunately for Gollaher, both the biblical text and the saying of the Rabbi can easily be interpreted differently, namely in the more common interpretation that Moses had neglected to circumcise his son. The arguments in favor of Moses’s circumcision (not countered by Gollaher) also outweigh Gollaher’s points: 1) if Moses were uncircumcised, surely not just the Bible itself, but also Christian and Jewish tradition would make a large deal of it, but this was the first time I personally have ever heard the claim of Moses being uncircumcised, even after reading much Christian theology. 2) From a more biblical perspective, in Exodus 2, one reads that Moses as an infant stayed with his parents well beyond the allotted time for when boys would be circumcised, and, this is perhaps the most crucial argument, Pharaoh’s daughter was immediately able to recognize Moses as a Hebrew child. It is highly likely that she was able to do this because Hebrews circumcised their male infants, while Egyptians did not (although they would circumcise males later in life). Although Gollaher’s argument concerning the uncircumcision of Moses is tangential to the main purpose of the book, it is a poorly argued point that he portrays as certain when it is definitely not and actually leans against the consensus view.
In chapter two, Gollaher demonstrates an evident lack of familiarity with biblical scholarship and utilizes a strange methodology for his summarization of the Christian understanding of circumcision. It is not surprising that Gollaher uncritically adopts higher criticism, as is evident when he portrays the teachings of Jesus and Paul as sharply contrasting and very late dating for certain Pauline epistles. Where the demonstrable lack of familiarity lays, however, is when he claims “In Corinth, where a bitter dispute broke out when a group of conservative Jewish converts pressured their Gentile counterparts to become circumcised, Paul was equally adamant: ‘Was anyone already circumcised when he was called? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone uncircumcised when he was called? Let him not seek circumcision’ (1 Corinthians 7:18)” (31–32). Anyone basically familiar with Paul’s epistles and their contexts should be able to recognize that Gollaher describes the context that surrounds Paul’s letter to the Galatians and then misapplies it to the church community at Corinth. Moreover, Gollaher completely omits any patristic discussion on circumcision and instead immediately goes to Abelard and Aquinas. Although these are strong figures in the history of doctrine, to jump from Paul to Abelard without justification is a methodological mistake.
Despite these errors, this work nonetheless remains valuable. We cannot be experts in everything; Gollaher is an expert in the history of medicine; he is not an expert in religious and biblical studies. The reader will learn much about circumcision and its complicated history, especially from a medical and social perspective. Furthermore, one will see how circumcision’s implementation and popularization corresponds directly with other major medical interventions that often go unquestioned, such as interventions utilized during birth and childhood vaccinations. There is a strong sociological element that Gollaher observes in America’s adoption of circumcision as a sign of the social and medical elite, one that a proponent of circumcision actually traced all the way back to the Egyptian priesthood (106). This is a helpful and remarkable history of circumcision that opens the eyes of the common man and woman to its risks, benefits, horrors, complexities, and evils.
May 26, 2024
For my demography internship...I now know so much about circumcision if anybody has any questions. Three stars because it says it's the world's most controversial surgery and mostly talks about the united states.
Read
March 19, 2010It’s the most common surgery in the United States. Yet in many people’s eyes it’s barbaric and indefensible. Yet if it’s barbaric, how does it come to be practiced worldwide by unrelated cultures, cultures both primitive and modern? Yet if it’s not barbaric, how can it be justified scientifically--and why do most cultures shun it? What's the rationale for it? Or should rationalism be omitted from the discussion? David Gollaher offers a thorough history and interpretation of the practice, covering everything from its pre-biblical roots to the scientific debate. He gives voice to all sides: those tending to view the uncircumcised as "lacking culture, manners, intelligence, and, in a word, civilization," those who defend circumcision "only for their own societal group and justify it culturally but not medically," those who see it as the product of "an unfortunate suspension of rational thought by otherwise reasonable people who wouldn't inflict unjustified pain on helpless children in any other circumstance," and those who don't quite fit into any of these categories. Informative, provocative, and very fair. (Jeff B., Reader's Services)
July 28, 2011
It's an interesting history of circumcision. I actually learned a lot, especially about how circumcision became so routine in the United States, which I had really wondered about. The author gives facts, which I appreciate. This is not some emotional diatribe or an attempt to sway ones opinion. It seems with some other sources that the facts get garbled in personal missions...but I never got the impression that this author was trying to say what is right or wrong. I didn't think he seemed completely unbiased either. It is a well presented history though, and I would say quite thorough. The politics and social class issues really fascinated me. The "Ode" made me laugh. I thought it was odd that when discussing circumcision in Judaism the author didn't really address the 8th day, which I think is significant. I would not say that the author wrote in a biased manner, he just did not seem completely unbiased in the end, but then it is probably easy to make the anti-circumcision movement seem more reasonable when most of "pro" reasons are simply cultural, a part of personal beliefs and group identity, in the not-so-reasonable, but often very important realm of tradition.
May 24, 2023
3/5⭐️
So! Interesting read! For sure!
Basically this book details the history of circumcision, within abrahamic religions but also within indigenous tribes and secular traditions. It delves into the discourse surrounding the procedure, the justification of it, the studies, the implications, etc etc.
Religiously/Culturally, circumcision meant two main things. 1) Purity/rightness with God, and 2) distinction within the larger world to become a fully fledged member of one’s group.
As time went on, and science improved, circumcision lost popularity, (especially in the face of anti-semitism and Islamophobia) however, it later regained popularity. (Think, Victorian era and onwards) A few obvious reasons (at the time) was hygiene, and limiting risk for sexually transmitted diseases, paralysis, and cancer. The book then explains that modern science has largely disproven these assumptions about the health of the circumcised vs non-circumcised.
Correlation does not equal causation < poor men are uncircumcised, poor men are more likely to have STDs or get infections, but this has more to do with class, education, and willingness to seek treatment rather than the state of their foreskin. In a similar vein, Jews were used as an example of circumcised individuals who were less likely to have an STD, but this has more to do with the fact that Jewish people have less unprotected sex with strangers.
I was less interested in the modern discourse (besides the stuff on whether or not to use pain medication on babies) and reasoning than the history and practices of it. Such as how Christian theology in the Middle Ages was very concerned about the fact that Jesus must’ve been circumcised, so there was debate about whether foreskin was restored in heaven.
I did skip the chapter on female circumcision at the very end, I cannot stomach the subject. So there, I cannot give my feminist analysis or anything.
So! Interesting read! For sure!
Basically this book details the history of circumcision, within abrahamic religions but also within indigenous tribes and secular traditions. It delves into the discourse surrounding the procedure, the justification of it, the studies, the implications, etc etc.
Religiously/Culturally, circumcision meant two main things. 1) Purity/rightness with God, and 2) distinction within the larger world to become a fully fledged member of one’s group.
As time went on, and science improved, circumcision lost popularity, (especially in the face of anti-semitism and Islamophobia) however, it later regained popularity. (Think, Victorian era and onwards) A few obvious reasons (at the time) was hygiene, and limiting risk for sexually transmitted diseases, paralysis, and cancer. The book then explains that modern science has largely disproven these assumptions about the health of the circumcised vs non-circumcised.
Correlation does not equal causation < poor men are uncircumcised, poor men are more likely to have STDs or get infections, but this has more to do with class, education, and willingness to seek treatment rather than the state of their foreskin. In a similar vein, Jews were used as an example of circumcised individuals who were less likely to have an STD, but this has more to do with the fact that Jewish people have less unprotected sex with strangers.
I was less interested in the modern discourse (besides the stuff on whether or not to use pain medication on babies) and reasoning than the history and practices of it. Such as how Christian theology in the Middle Ages was very concerned about the fact that Jesus must’ve been circumcised, so there was debate about whether foreskin was restored in heaven.
I did skip the chapter on female circumcision at the very end, I cannot stomach the subject. So there, I cannot give my feminist analysis or anything.
November 20, 2017
I'm slightly disturbed by Gollaher's suggestion that he is trying to present an even-handed description of genital mutilation: reading that at the beginning I was quite worried that he would fall into the journalist's fallacy of having to show both sides as equivalent. However, he does a good job of discussing the reality of this monstrosity in a referenced book. I probably am going to buy a copy for myself so I can have one for reference if needed.
January 25, 2020
This book is very well organized.
I got the feeling that I was traveling through history, while also spanning different angles on circumcision at the same time. I found the answers to the questions I was looking for within the chapter I expected to find them. What I didn't expect was for this book to gradually feel like a story.
I got the feeling that I was traveling through history, while also spanning different angles on circumcision at the same time. I found the answers to the questions I was looking for within the chapter I expected to find them. What I didn't expect was for this book to gradually feel like a story.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 1, 2022
Core reading for anyone interested in the topic of circumcision. Finely researched, well-written, eye-opening, and thought-provoking. As the author says regarding the purpose of the book, they seek to make the "familiar" practice of altering newborns' and children's genitals unfamiliar. This wide-ranging history does just that.
January 26, 2023
Inspirational
October 24, 2013
“It’s a lot easier to see what’s irrational in another culture than it is to see it in our own.” This quote by Cheryl Chase, serves to highlight some of the insights that this book gives into our culture. Gollaher takes the reader through the beginnings of this practice not only from the historical/religious side but also from the anthropological one, giving us a clear picture of the pervasiveness of this ritual as well as several other forms of bodily mutilations in almost all cultures. He then switches to the way in which this ritual was accepted as part of the medical norm, based on research that was anecdotal-based and which has been discredited. He goes through the medical literature to clearly explain the insignificance of this procedure in terms of preventive medicine, to the point where any benefit derived from it is offset by the complications that arise from it as well.
Yet the greatness of the book, aside from Gollaher’s ability to state all the evidence without poisoning it with his own opinion, is found in the last chapter. This chapter, dealing with female circumcision, is the perfect close to the book because he once again does not voice his opinion but puts forth all the relevant historical, anthropological, medical and psychological evidence needed to understand this practice. The same evidence that he previously expanded on for the more commonly accepted male surgery. Thus, it becomes painfully clear to the reader that any defense of one practice can be made for the other and it serves to highlight how atrocious both are and how by an accident of history one has become so normal so as to seem perfectly innocuous. If you want a book to make you aware of both the hidden faults of medical research and of our own cultural biases, you’ve found it.
Yet the greatness of the book, aside from Gollaher’s ability to state all the evidence without poisoning it with his own opinion, is found in the last chapter. This chapter, dealing with female circumcision, is the perfect close to the book because he once again does not voice his opinion but puts forth all the relevant historical, anthropological, medical and psychological evidence needed to understand this practice. The same evidence that he previously expanded on for the more commonly accepted male surgery. Thus, it becomes painfully clear to the reader that any defense of one practice can be made for the other and it serves to highlight how atrocious both are and how by an accident of history one has become so normal so as to seem perfectly innocuous. If you want a book to make you aware of both the hidden faults of medical research and of our own cultural biases, you’ve found it.
June 13, 2015
It took me months to get through this book. Definitely not a fast read but then, I dipped in here and there with no urgency to finish. As a review it didnt measure up to my expectations, as a discussion it was merely ok, as for insights into the practice, his take on circumcision's history, especially for males, was not revelatory. I wanted more but cant fault the book for being a nice overview.
June 26, 2008
A detailed look at circumcision, both in ancient and modern times. While the author claims to be unbiased, I felt that he leaned slightly in the anti-circ camp (this could be my own views coming through, though.) Overall I thought it was a good review of the practice.
March 13, 2011
Fascinating cultural history of the practice of circumcision, including the the origins and prevalence of this custom in modern American medical practice. Interesting on its own, but especially so for expectant parents who are trying to make a decision about whether to circumcise.
July 15, 2013
Very interesting and horrifying.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews