As with any claim of psychology those concerning the mental effects of circumcision are difficult to be proven in a strict formal and objective scientific style. Circumcision cannot be undone and is not a subject of experimentation. Its effects may be multivalent, unobvious and develop slowly in time. Their judgment requires non-judgmental open-mindedness that is uncommon to specialized science and religion. For that reason we find statements about the psychological effects of circumcision instead of scientific proofs.
The bias of researchers is another unsurpassable difficulty. Please join us in getting a laugh while reading the following example of prejudice reflected in Wikipedia: “Moses et al. (1998) state that “scientific evidence is lacking” for psychological and emotional harm, citing a longitudinal study which did not find a difference “in relation to a number of developmental and behavioural indices.”[i] Is this a proxy or a replica of the Old Testament hero who delivers a modernized version of the circumcision covenant?
Can anyone take seriously the assertions about the insignificance of a body part made by people who lack it? Is it possible that researchers who have a deficiency are unbiased toward its function and possible effects? Can we expect that circumcised scholars can objectively examine the importance of foreskin? Can a blind man be an authority on sight? After all, even Freud who unravelled sexuality to threads failed to spot the effects of circumcision.
The psychological risks of circumcision that British medics point out such as psychological trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder leading to distrust and violence appear fully plausible to those who have intact foreskins. Is has been observed that circumcision of babies interferes with normal breastfeeding, sleep and bonding to the mother. Nevertheless, doctors focus on the emotional trauma that the pain accompanying the operation causes. It is assumed that the stress from the pain accompanying circumcision makes the babies withdraw from their environment and causes these undesirable effects.
Nevertheless, doctors focus on the emotional trauma that the pain accompanying the operation causes. It is assumed that the stress of the pain accompanying circumcision makes the babies withdraw from environment and causes these undesirable effects.
Generally, physicians narrowly regard circumcision as one-time stress event with possible prolonged traumatic effects. The side-effects of infant circumcision are regarded as only marginally psychological. Medics overlook the possibility that the absence of a part of the nervous system could affect mentality and perpetually generate psychological attitudes. They focus on the effect of a local pain and regard the foreskin as disconnected form the brain and on its sensitivity as disconnected from sexuality and the psyche. They leave the problem of sexuality to the concern of the brainy psychologists. What we have here is a convenient still irresponsible transfer of responsibilities. One can find whatever one likes on the topic of circumcision in the writings of religious, circumcised and specialized researchers. It seems that there is not much we can learn from these overlearned politically tolerant specialists collectively.
Now we understand why only the surficial psychological effects of circumcision are currently acknowledged. But we want to know more. Luckily enough, we are not narrow specialists so we can allow ourselves a deeper analysis of the phenomenon. It is perfectly clear to us that the functioning of the nervous system and of the mind are inseparable. That which happens physically with the peripheral nervous system affects the brain and inevitably has its physiological consequences. And this is especially so in sex-related matters.
Circumcision removes sexual receptors and impairs a somatosensory pathway. It affects the functioning of the nervous system. It triggers reorganization in the somatosensory cortex hence alters perception and mentality correspondingly. Besides the trauma from the pain it causes lasting psychological changes.
Folklore on both sides of the barricade rumours that circumcision does change sexuality. In the same time folk art sings about the praise of sexuality and confirms its central role in feelings. The circumcision in the heart that Judaism and Christianity preach about confirms that the original goal of the procedure is not a blood–shedding and painful sacrificial ritual but a deep mental transformation concerning love and faith.
So we may ask ourselves, what are the deep psychological effects of circumcision? What thoughts come to mind when the foreskin representative in the brain begins to think? What does the deep-rooted part of the foreskin assume? What thoughts does circumcision implant in the mind? What fancies does an absent foreskin evoke?