Something I just realized:
If literal infant trauma is a real phenomenon, then their should be some psychological impact of circumcision.
There aren't many things that are more traumatic than someone cutting off a piece of your penis.
If literal infant trauma is a real phenomenon, then their should be some psychological impact of circumcision.
There aren't many things that are more traumatic than someone cutting off a piece of your penis.
Circumcision rates vary widely.
For most of western history, it was just the Jews. Then in the late 19th century medicalized circumcision became common in the US.
link.springer.com/chapter/10.100…
For most of western history, it was just the Jews. Then in the late 19th century medicalized circumcision became common in the US.
link.springer.com/chapter/10.100…
Circumcision rates rose for decades, but there started to be push-back in the 40s and 50s. And they've falling again in the second half of the 20th century. 
It was never in popular in Europe as it was in America. Current European circumcision rates are around 20%.
Is there any trend (psychological or otherwise) that we saw mostly in Jews, and then, in the 19th and 20th centuries in the American, but not the European, population as a whole, but which is starting to receded now?
Bonus points if the trend seem to only impact men, not women.
Bonus points if the trend seem to only impact men, not women.
Can we detect the "footprints" of an infant trauma effect?
@threadreaderapp unroll
*THERE!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
