Book review:
CIRCUMCISION: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery, by David L Gollaher (Basic Books, 2000)
by Ann R. Wood

Growing up in a family of four girls, and having four daughters and no sons myself, my knowledge of circumcision was minimal, to say the least. I disregarded Dr. Spock-discussions of the pros and cons of circumcision during my child-bearing years. I figured it was an issue, but seemingly not mine to deal with. Somehow I had absorbed the fact that my immediate family males were uncircumcised; so that was that, whatever that meant.

David L. Gollaher, in this remarkable new book has certainly given me a mind-bending education on the eon-long history of circumcisiom, the various religions that include circumcision in their tenets and the incredible rationalization for continuing this strange, human, torturous surgery over the centuries. He also supplies the primitive, the religious and the modern medical details of the procedure and its effects, for better or worse.

In Egypt evidence of carved images on a 2,400 B.C. temple clearly depict the temple priests cutting the genitals of two young noblemen. There is much evidence of circumcision in Ancient Egypt. Perhaps the Hebrews picked up the custom from the Egyptians, but whatever, circumcision is a cornerstone of Judaism, and a mark against their enemies. The Old Testament is full of references to its use and abuse, and as punishments or submission. In Samuel 18 24-29 David presented the foreskins of 200 Philistines as dowry for the daughter of King Saul. The New Testament seems to accept circumcision, but then asserts it is not necessary for salvation, or membership. The Muslims seem not to have written it into a law, but required it by tradition; and often in a punishment/initiation kind of manner. Historically, circumcision took place on youths or adults. Infant circumcision came into practice beginning about 1750, along with the advances in medical knowledge and care.

The initiation rites of the young men in tribal cultures The primal scream of the infant as the modern-day doctor jerks the penis up, stretching tight on the foreskin, tying it with a band and cutting -- as if it was not a living being.

The whys and why nots of circumcision include fantasy, myth, cleanliness, punishment, health, safety, submission, power, erotic pleasure, fertility and a hundred other factors. Occasionally shocking facts or statistics made me gasp. But this is not a book against circumcision. Rather it respectfully puts out all the facts, reporting the supportive studies dealing with such health issues as cancer, bladder infections, AIDS. and all sexually transmitted diseases. Also there are the facts of injury, often serious, caused by the cutting, such as the infant or youth often damaged by the careless or the untrained. (I personally knew a three-year-old child who was in the hospital for a second attempt to "fix" his penis, which had been cut up by a botched circumcision. When the poor little guy was attempting to urinate, it generally got him in the eye!!) Some doctors and practitioners still claim that the infant's nervous system isn't well-enough developed to feel pain, and there is no memory of it, therefore no need for anaesthetic. Others claim the tortuous moment is imbedded deep in the brain forever, with a lifetime psychological effect.

Gollaher also reports the "backlash" movement and the recent effort of a number of circumcised men to restore a foreskin that was cut from them as an infant.

I have to admit I came out of this reading ready to advise against circumcision. It is called cutting or mutilation. I for one say "What for?" A short chapter on female circumcision is included at the end.

The book is illustrated, principally with black and white, historical prints. It is easy to pick up and read almost at random, each chapter opening new material.

Ann R. Wood lives in Spokane, Wash.