Sir Richard Burton [1821-1890; English explorer, writer, linguist; translator of Arabian Nights] listed "the saving rite of circumcision" as one of "the thousand external functions compensating for moral delinquencies." These delinquencies most certainly included masturbation. Among Arab and African tribes Burton had witnessed uninhibited masturbation by both men and women, and especially by precircumcised boys. Burton, we must recall, was a product of a staunchly Christian-Judaic Britain. His attitude was not much different from that of Dr. Rae, in India a century earlier, who wrote, "[My Muslim assistant] tells me that Moorish boys are addicted to violent Self-abuse till they be circumcised, whereupon they are temper'd to natural Venery: which seems a mere progression to Manhood, for a circumcised Christian will indulge his folly despite the removal of its Cause."

Unlike the Arabs, the Hebrews hated the vice of onanism. Onan, the son of Judah, deliberately interrupted coition to prevent insemination (Genesis 38:9). He spilled his seed on the ground, thus committing a sin according to early Judaic law. Onanism came to refer to any form of male sexuality which didn't end in insemination, and its most heinous form was masturbation, which was considered tantamount to murder. Pious Jews would not touch their penis, preferring to support their "aim" when urinating by pushing upward on their testicles. The Christians adopted the masturbation taboo and fortified it with threats of eternal damnation.

As science and medicine developed in Europe, masturbation was suspected to cause both disease and mental disorder. In 1847 a widely distributed paper was published by Dr. Vanier du Havre, the director of a children's hospital, entitled "Moral Cause of Israelite Circumcision, an Institution Preventive of Infant Onanism, and the Principal Causes of Enervation, Rehabilitation, and Reform."

At last, the notion of Jewish circumcision as an ancient evil was lifted from the European mind. Dr. du Havre's article was subtitled "Infant Onanism Combatted by Israelite Circumcision, an Improved and Painless Operation." Experts proclaimed that circumcision would hinder a boy's masturbation, making it so much work that, as his glans grew more desensitized from exposure, he would give up the habit altogether. An anti-masturbation mania spread through nineteenth-century Europe. Those marble Greek statues were still admired, but the real-life foreskins were coming off.

France and Germany both considered universal circumcision. The military classes of both countries, like the English upper classes, had long since adopted it. But to circumcise every penis in the land seemed an impossible job. Despite the claims of Dr. du Havre, they decided not to circumcise infants for aesthetic reasons; circumcision after a penis had developed its unique contours was thought to be more desirable. The Germans never decided on an age before they gave up the whole idea. The French decided on midteens; then they, too, gave it up. Victorian England did not.

Under Queen Victoria's rule, masturbation became the number-one enemy of God, and of the Throne—while also replacing Islam as the prime enemy of the foreskin. Modern sexologist Alex Comfort describes the British "masturbation hysteria" of 1850 to 1900:

"Over this period there was truly a remarkable upsurge in what can only be termed comic-book sadism. The advocacy of these bizarre [anti-masturbation] therapies was not confined to eccentrics. By about 1880 the individual who might wish for unconscious reasons to tie, chain, or infibulate sexually active children ... to adorn them with grotesque appliances, encase them in plaster of paris, leather or rubber, to frighten or even castrate them, could find humane and respectable medical authority for doing so in good conscience. Masturbational insanity was now real enough ... it was affecting the medical profession."

Dr. Thomas S. Szasz, in his book The Manufacture of Madness, compares this frenzy to the witch-hunts of several centuries earlier. The masturbator replaced the witch as a social scapegoat; physicians replaced the clergy as the inquisitors. One such "inquisitor," Dr. James Hutchinson, was president of the Royal College of Surgeons. His paper "On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation" opened the floodgates for routine neonatal circumcision. Even English working-class penises were succumbing to the Queen's surgeons.

Routine circumcision of British boys remained rampant through the first half of the new century. By the start of World War II, according to the British Dr. Douglas Baker, 80 percent of upper-class males were circumcised as were 50 percent of the working class. For the first decade, anti-masturbation prejudice remained as the rallying point for the circumcisionists.

In the second decade of the century, the medical establishment was increasingly challenged on this point, and it sought other excuses to continue the operation. The most popular one was that circumcision helped to prevent VD. With Tommy now mired in the trenches and back alleys of France, VD replaced masturbation as the favored reason to cut off foreskins. Military doctors went to work!

A few decades later, with the Battle of Britain, the loss of empire, and the coming of socialism, the tide changed again. As national health legislation was debated, a surprisingly large portion of the mostly circumcised medical establishment argued against government payment for circumcision.

Finally, routine neonatal circumcision ended with the advent of socialized medicine in 1950. At first, the upper classes continued to pay private doctors to circumcise their privileged sons. But their days were numbered. Today, England has two generations of mostly pillcocks.

For a century, the British Empire had proudly exported circumcision along with its other products. Even after the policy changed at home, it continued elsewhere. The English-speaking nations became the only Christian peoples (except the Filipinos and the Copts of East Africa) to practice routine circumcision. The hearty Australian men were about 80 percent clipped, while 40 percent of their New Zealand neighbors were. The Canadians of Ontario, much like their American cousins, were mostly trimmed; the men of western Canada and the Maritime Provinces less so; and their French compatriots of Quebec largely resisted this Anglicization of their penises. Those of British ancestry in South Africa were mostly circumcised, setting them apart from their uncircumcised Boer countrymen. Colonial Englishmen in isolated pockets around the world continued to "bear the mark." The Americans, who emerged from many ancestries, began this century with foreskin intact. But it did not last. (pages 70–73)

* * *

While it was historically conceded that the uncircumcised penis is more sensitive than the circumcised, many advocates claimed the desensitized penis to be better. One reason often given for circumcision is the incidence of premature ejaculation among uncircumcised men.

But even on the question of sensitivity, there is no universal agreement. Sex researchers Masters and Johnson, in their tests, found no difference in sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised penises. Most modern researchers agree that sensitivity is such a subjective perception that it would be difficult to measure. They also agree that premature ejaculation is primarily caused by psychological factors, not by differences in penile sensitivity.

So what was everyone complaining about? Was there anything missing from the circumcised penis, besides the "superfluous" foreskin? The men belonging to the USA certainly argued that something was missing. One man wrote, "My foreskin is the best part of my penis."

A long-shelved report from the Mayo Clinic might have given us an insight into a "natural" function of the foreskin. "Erogenous Zones: Their Nerve Supply and its Significance," by R.K. Winkelmann, was published by the clinic in 1959. It stated: "Two types of erogenous zones exist in the skin: nonspecific and specific ... The nonspecific regions perceive simply an exaggerated form of tickle ... It is the specific regions where one speaks of erotic sensations originating in the skin ... the rete ridges are well formed and more of the organized nerve tissue rises higher (than in other skin-type regions)."

The prepuce, said the clinic, had a strong concentration of specific regions, and was responsible for a high level of erogenous sensations. In short, the Victorian circumcisers knew what they were doing. Cutting off the foreskin diminished the potential pleasure of boys who wanted to masturbate.

Men, during their most pleasurable moments, are not inclined to analyze the sources of their sensations, but it appears the preputial nerve endings come to life when the foreskin experiences its only possible experience; being stretched back. When that happens, the foreskin becomes a primary source of erotic sensations ... and it is loaded! Possibly, part of the impulse to plunge it in again comes from the desire for another stretch. As exquisite as the stretch sounds, much less feels, how could anyone deprive a man of such experience? All the medical, religious, and fashion excuses for circumcision suddenly become insignificant upon discovering the ultimate male experience of s-t-r-e-t-c-h. (pages 90–92)

[The above is electronically reproduced by permission from Foreskin: A Closer Look by Bud Berkeley, Alyson Publications, 6922 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90028. Copyright 1993 by Bud Berkeley.]