Circumcision In France

The French videotex system, Minitel, was a forerunner of the Internet, and still much used for directory enquiries, train timetables, theatre bookings etc. It is also used for " dating " and " chat " services, often explicitly sexual. Some have reference to circumcision.

On gay minitel services one occasionally finds mention made of circumcision status. This may be someone looking specifically for a circumcised or uncircumcised partner. But often it is a man, usually circumcised himself, seeking contact with others who are circumcised themselves or interested in circumcision.

In general, the men who announce their own status as circumcised are happy with their status, some are indifferent but anxious to compare notes, others declare they would rather have kept their foreskins. One comment often made by these men is that they prefer being masturbated by another circumcised man, as those with foreskins use a more direct method, which simply irritates the exposed cockhead. Men unhappy with their status, however, usually seek out uncircumcised partners.

One topic which often comes up is the percentage of circumcised men in France. Estimates vary widely, from a low 5% to a high 25% or even higher, but the general consensus is that it is probably somewhere above 10% in France in general but higher in Paris, and possibly in the South (Cote d’Azure) and, for an unexplained reason, in Lyon. Uncircumcised men tend to think the percentage is lower than circumcised men.

On comparing notes, one topic is masturbation techniques. Some report having enough skin left to do the job, sometimes just over the crown of the glans, but most say they have practically no loose skin. Many masturbate dry, others use oils or gels, but saliva is the most common lubricant.

I agree that only a small minority is circumcised in France. Neonatal circumcision is not a local custom. In my generation (I am 28), I estimate that from 10 % to 15 % of boys were circumcised, many of them done in childhood.

I was circumcised at age 9. For the yearly school physical visit, the doctor used to verify that we had 2 testicles and no hernia. The year he visited my school (age 9), he tried to roll back the foreskin, just a very quick try, didn't succeed and continued the exam. I forgot this but a letter was sent home to my parents.

A few days later, my mother came into the bathroom (I used to wash myself by this time) and asked me :

- "Do you clean your penis ?"
- "Yes of course." I replied.
- "Can you do it ?" she continued.

I put soap on my penis.

-"good, but can you wash it everywhere ?" she asked.

I didn't answer. I remembered that she removed my foreskin as I was a little boy. But as I didn't like this, I stopped to do it. I tried to roll back the skin but nothing occured. My mother told me to finish my bath and left the room.

A few days later, we went to a hospital. I showed my penis to a doctor, he try to roll back the foreskin, uncessufully and very painful. Then, he explain that he was obliged to operate on me to remove the tight skin. I rremember being very afraid, not because a modification of the penis, but because of being put to sleep. (I knew what a circumcised penis looked like and had no specific preference about it).

For spring holidays, I was circumcised. One week with a painful penis and then it was all over. I had no shame in removing my pants in the sport locker room as there are already two or three circumcised boys in the room.

Today books said to parents not to touch a babies foreskin. But a few of them say that circumcision is a minor operation and can avoid a lot of problems later. But every doctor has his method.

Our pediatrician tried to roll back the foreskin of our son (he was a 3 month baby). And at 5 years old, for the first school exam, the doctor also tried to do it. According to his recommendations, our son had to be circumcised and we are going to comply with the recommendation. I know that several of his classmates have been circumcised also, during this same time.

Chase (France)

I managed once again to spend the entire month of August naked -- only wearing clothing when it rained or got too cold. I spent two weeks at Cap d'Agde, the nudist city in France. The French guys were as uncut and gorgeous as ever, and the dicks were truly a sight to behold. I'd estimate the uncut to cut ratio as 90% to 10%, some of the cuts of which could have been Americans and Australians, although some were French. I noted several families with circumcised children, but was not able to get any explanation for this, as this is generally not done to infant boys in France.

There was a discussion a few weeks ago on circumcision in France, which led readers to believe that it was exceptional.  While there is no routine circumcision performed here, it seems to me to be more common than in many European countries. I spent a week in Finland in August and don't remember seeing any other circumcised men in locker rooms or saunas, whereas in France, and in Paris particularly, it would be difficult not to find at least some circumcised men similar surroundings. 

There does seem to be a big difference between Paris and the rest of France, which can partly be explained by the very cosmopolitan nature of the big city, with large Jewish, Muslim and foreign populations.  From what I casually see in locker rooms, gyms, etc. I would say that between 10% and 20%  of men in Paris appear to be circumcised.

The case of two friends – anecdotal of course  - may illustrate why there is perhaps a larger circumcised population than purely medical reasons could explain. 

One is from a family which was partly Jewish, and although he was not brought up in the religion, he and his brother were circumcised as babies… "just in case" and as it was thought to be less painful at that age.  I do know others though, from families of entirely Jewish origins, who were not circumcised, to show their integration into secular French society.

Another friend lived most of his childhood in Madagascar and Tahiti and was circumcised as a child for prophylactic reasons. 

Atchoum (Paris)

In France too there are considerable geographic differences between rates of circumcision.  In Paris my experience is between 10 and 20 %, but much lower in most other parts. In Nancy, where I was in the university sports club for years, it was unusual to see any circumcised man under the showers, but in Lyon (which I know admittedly much less well) I have always seen some. 
Africans here are often circumcised, though West Indians (? Antilles) are not.  Those from North Africa are not only "cock-shy", they rarely take part in sports such as swimming or water polo.

Atchoum (France)

I regularly visit Paris and several other large French cities and can report that it is trendy for the young, hip, French boys to get circumcised in their twenties. This "fad" is even showing up in their adult gay videos, where it is common to see at least one French boy who is circumcised. I suspect it is not unlike Germany, Spain and Great Britian, where circumcision is becoming popular with the younger crowd, much like foreskin is becoming more popular among the young, gay crowd in the United States.

First of all living all my life in France, I have to say that circumcision is not widely spread in our country except, of course, in the Jewish or Muslim communities. More precisely, neonatal circumcision is rarely practiced. French people don't understand why circumcision should be done, either at birth or later, except for medical reasons and in this case, the doctors try to circumcise as few as possible. They seem to consider male circumcision as useless and unnecessary. This can maybe be explained by the Roman Catholic background of almost all the population from European origin. So, many people, specially the females, don't even know that this surgery exists and when they see a cut penis or when we speak of circumcision, they do not understand. Even the word "coupe" which is the exact translation of "cut" is a synonymous of castrated, not of circumcised.

When I was born, the doctor told my mother that it would be better to circumcise me because my foreskin was very long and had a bad overhang. My Catholic mother refused telling that circumcision is only needed for dirty people. The doctor was right and it was impossible to discover the glans during childhood. When I was 12, I tried to do it and little by little I succeeded but it was not really pleasant. When I saw my glans so smooth (but the smell was not good), I immediately liked it in this way and tried to let it in this state. Unfortunately, the foreskin always recovered over my glans. With the time and the beginning of my sexual life, I forgot it. Some years later, I got married to a black french female (I am a white male) who quickly liked to be without hair. She removes her hair (legs, genitals, armpits). The view of her hairless body has been so delightful that I discussed with her my preference for circumcision. She agreed with me, and I decided to be circumcised. It was not so easy to do the step because of what we can named a French taboo concerning this little surgery.

At that time I worked in Africa where it was difficult to get regularly water to take at least a shower. So I grasped this reason and during vacation I asked a doctor to circumcise me. He asked no thing, examined my penis and sent me to a surgeon.

The surgery was easy and carried out quickly during an afternoon under general anesthetic. At Midday I arrived in the hospital having eating nothing from the morning and at 6 PM I left the building without a few square centimeters of skin. It healed in 2 weeks and my wife and I waited one week more to have sex. Actually I do not remember any pain and it seems to me that it was easy and almost "pleasant".

The first thing I remarked was the lack of smell the day after the surgery and I was very happy of this fact. The second thing my wife noticed later was when erected the glans could not be recovered by the skin so she was obliged to change a little her way to masturbate me. More generally she liked (and still likes) my bare glans as I like her hairless genitals.

On the contrary of what is commonly reported, I did not feel any loss of sensitivity and still now its seems that there was no prolongation of the period before ejaculation. To say the truth, neither I or my wife have remarked any change in the quality of our sexual life. Maybe because we did not expect any thing in this domain. My wife is now also considering getting her clitoral hood circumcised for many, similar reasons.

Paul (Paris)

This article which dates back to 1926 was found on the AME site: AME (French for "soul") = "Association contre la Mutilation des Enfants" (Association against the Mutilation of Children). Its general anti-circumcision stance is therefore a given. It is an interesting article, nevertheless, because is illustrates an on-going literary and artistic side to French medicine; often works of medicine have a historical or other section as well. This is perhaps good in the sense that it integrates medicine and society.`

The article contains a number on interesting references to art Ñ even if exclusively to the Louvre.

It has to deal with some quite difficult issues: if you start out with a prejudice against circumcision, how do you contend with the fact that the natural foreskin does not always work properly? The answer is "circumcision without circumcision": you operate, but while endeavoring to hide the fact that the operation has ever taken place.

I apologise for the translation: it was undertaken hastily. I could be improved upon. On the other hand, I do not believe I have deliberately falsified the original, and I think it is mostly comprehensible. For reference purposes the French text  is retained. The French is in blue and the English in red.

My evaluation is that in Europe about 50% of nudist men are circumcised.  I did quantitative checks on French naturists beaches in September 1998 and in August 1999.  If Circlist members are interested, I can give more details.
Gaetano

De la circoncision au point de vue historique et médical

I've recently been on the track of a 19th Century French treatise on circumcision which I purchased. What follows is a résumé of the essential points; followed by some comments of my own.  David Parris.
_____________________________________________________________________

"De la circoncision au point de vue historique et médical" par Ernest Abram, Docteur en médecine, Montpellier, 1864. 115pp.

"Circumcision from the Historical and Medical Viewpoint"

The cover and fly-leaf bear a quotation from Malgaigne "Lettre sur l'histoire de la chirurgie":

"La première opération fut la circoncision et le premier opératieur Abraham" "The first operation was circumcision, and the first surgeon Abraham".

There are several dedications "To the memory of my great-uncle Lévy" and "To my father, to my mother and my brothers Eugène Abram and Salvador Abram" with the words "restons toujours unis" - let us always stick together.

The text is divided into a historical part (pp 11 - 60) and a medical part (pp 61 - 115).

I) The historical part is largely devoted to speculation on the origins of circumcision, and the question "Who invented circumcision?".  There are three hypotheses:

1) The Jews were the first to circumcise;
2) The Jews borrowed the practice from the Egyptians;
3) Circumcision was an oriental practice that cannot be attributed to anyone in particular.

1) The Bible and various saints (Augustine, Gregory the Great, Fulcrandus, Eusebius) and other authorities are quoted in extenso in support of the view that Abraham was the inventor of circumcision.

2) The view that it was an Egyptian invention is supported by Herodotus (book 2 chap 114), Diodorus of Sicily, Strabo. Josephus, in countering Apio, seeks to accept Herodotus"s view. Tacitus merely repeats the majority opinion of older authors. Celsus (quoted in Origenus) thinks circumcision was the invention of Egyptian priests, as did the Emperor Julian. Voltaire is severely criticised not just for following Herodotus (like Marsham) but for mistranslating him and for a hostile attitude to the Jews. According to Voltaire, the Jews, who lived in Egypt for 205 years, only took over the custom 40 years after they had left Egypt. If the Jews did not circumcise while in Egypt, might one not conclude the practice was as yet not established in Egypt. Though Clement of Alexandria says Pythagoras had to be circumcised to gain admittance to the temple library, there is a gap of 1500 years between Abraham and Pythagoras during which the practice of circumcision might have been introduced to Egypt, possibly by Joseph. An article by Professor Malgaigne (1842) is quoted to suggest that Herodotus cannot be correct because he was writing 1400 years after the events he is dealing with.

3) Sanchoniaton (Phoenician 1364 BC) is the next earliest (and hence credible) author after Moses to deal with the subject, and claims their King Kronos was the first to circumcise himself, after sacrificing his son.

Abram considers it unlikely that circumcision was taken by the Jews from another people, because of the difference in the nature of the rites. The Egyptians circumcise women as well as men, and in early adulthood. The Jews circumcise only men, in the 8th day of life.

After the consideration of the origins of circumcision, Abram turns to its history.

When in 2059 (Jewish calendar) Abraham instituted circumcision, only the part of the foreskin the hung beyond the glans was removed. This was still the case when the Jews were in the desert. It might have been at the time of the Machabees that a second part of the operation was introduced so as to leave the glans completely uncovered, and prevent the accumulation of smegma ("sebaceous humour").

From then on, the history of circumcision is unclear, and difficult to disentangle from persecutions, many of which involved the prohibition of circumcision. The practice was abandoned early in the history of the Church, under the influence of St Paul.

Under Trajan, Adrian subjugated the Jews and forbade circumcision.
Antoninus allowed it again, but Marcus-Aurelius reintroduced the Prohibition. The Emperor Heliogabalus was himself circumcised,and his successor Alexander Severus who wanted a synthesis of the Jewish, pagan and Christian religions, ushering in a period of tranquillity for the Jews.

Persecutions began anew under Constantine. Julian the Apostate allowed Jews the free practice of their religion. In the 6thC Jews were forbidden to bring their children up as Jews. In the 7thC, Heraclius having been told his ruin would come from a circumcised people saw the Jews as his enemies.

However, Charlemagne was indulgent, and in the 12thC St Bernard showed tolerance. This was a great age of Jewish scholarship. The Jews further suffered under the Spanish inquisition.

However, circumcision thrived in periods of repression.

II) The medical part begins with the assertion that it is not
surprising that people in hot climates often sought to rid themselves of an organ that caused so many problems. A sebaceous secretion comes from follicles at the base of the glans, and accumulates under the prepuce, necessitating careful hygiene which is often neglected, especially where the to foreskin is too tight. It can then ferment, giving off a foul odour and leading to balanitis and posthitis.

Cases of seamen or workers with severe infections and an abundant discharge, but who claimed to have had no sexual relations are cited.
Others claimed the discharge due to women who, when examined, turned out to be perfectly healthy.

The symptoms of balano-posthitis are a certain burning, and a slight itch.  The glans and foreskin are at first red and dry, but a milky discharge soon appears, taking on a pustulating appearance. If the foreskin is long and tight, urination may be painful. Where the glans and foreskin can be examined, they are red and shiny, bathed in a cheesy mucus. Retraction of the foreskin becomes difficult, and where achieved, leads to paraphimosis, which can lead to gangrene of the end of the penis.

The situation may be treated with a silver nitrate solution (2gms to 200gms of distilled water) after which a dry lint is placed between the foreskin and the glans. If there are deep ulcers or enlargement of the sebaceous glands, cauterisation with a silver nitrate pencil may be necessary. In cases of phimosis, the solution may have to be injected under the foreskin.  Although these remedies may cure the inflammation, they offer no guarantee against further problems, since the root cause subsists.

Masturbation is often due to a long foreskin. Before puberty, the genitals should be in a state of inertia. Stimulation can bring about a pleasure which the subject will seek to repeat. Dr Tissot's book ("L'Onanisme" 1760) shows the dangers of this pernicious practice, leading to blue rings round the eyes, pale complexion, dull, sunken eyes, bad digestion, lack of appetite, loss of weight, leaden complexion, weak voice, dry cough, palpitations, nervousness, poor vision, vertigo, trembling, cramps and occasional fits.

There follows a series of cases borrowed from Dr Lallemand:

Long foreskin, small genitalia, delicate constitution, early but infrequent masturbation, impotence from 19 to 29, poor health, loss of semen during urination or defecation. Excision of prepuce, cauterisation of the prostatic section of the urethra: swift and complete recovery.

Excessively long foreskin, very small genitalia, masturbation from the age of 9, weakening and stiffening of the muscles, at 19, permanent catheter in the urethra; excision of the prepuce, cauterisation of the bladder and the urinary tract. Rapid improvement, probable recovery.

Natural phimosis: from puberty on, frequent nocturnal pollutions, foul-smelling smegma. at 23, circumcision: immediate recovery.

In cases of congenital phimosis, the urine may not be evacuated quickly enough, causing the foreskin to distend and balloon. Renal calculus or other matters can gather under the foreskin, and form stones. Brodie discover 60 under one foreskin,one of them 15mm by 10mm. Begin claims to have had in his possession one the size of a hen's egg, concave, with the glans fitting into its concavity. The patient it came from kept it to the age of 30-ish. One was removed during a circumcision weighing 225gms. One 14cms long was found under the foreskin of a 2 1/2 year-old child. Dr Morand has one 40 millimetres round. The author has a bigger one, 66 millimetres in length, and 15 centimetres in circumference at its widest point, weighing 3 ounces and 54 grains. It emerged on its own, tearing through the foreskin. Mostly, parents consult a doctor before things get this bad. Circumcision has the double advantage of removing the stone and the causes of its formation.

Quotation from Dr Lallemand: "After long and serious reflection on the numerous things I have seen, I remain convinced that it is to be regretted that circumcision has fallen out of use as an obligatory operation for all children. It would be of no use in many cases, but would be harmful in none, and might be of use to a great number."

Finally, there is a section on methodology. The Bible says noting about how to perform the operation, except that flint knives were used. The Talmudic prescriptions have serious disadvantages which could be obviated. The mohel's practice falls into three parts:

1) Cutting - hitush
2) Laying bare - periah
3) Sucking - mezizah

1) The foreskin is drawn through a slit in a protective plate. Care must be taken to ensure the skin and mucous are pulled through in the right proportions, because you almost always take away more skin than mucous.

2) The tearing of the remaining inner mucous is painful, and almost barbarous. Various mechanical devices would do the job better.

3) The mohel takes a mouthful of wine and sucks the wound. This is unhygienic and dangerous. Several boys having been infected by a single mohel, the Paris consistory forbade the practice (1844).

Surgical practice varies. There is incision, excision and circumcision.

Incision is a dorsal or ventral slit.

Excision is the removal of part of the foreskin. Lisfranc's method, similar to Dupuytren's procedure for cancer of the lip, uses curved scissors to remove a half-moon of flesh. Taxil"s procedure removes a V-shaped section which includes the frenum.

Circumcision removes all the foreskin all the way round. It is the most frequent procedure. There are several methods. Guilleumeau's procedure, attributed to Lisfranc, is that of the mohel: an assistant pulls the foreskin forward, the surgeon clamps it, and using scissors or a scalpel removes all the overhang. Healing can be hastened and a more even scar achieved by Ricord's procedure (1843): the skin is kept in its usual position, and an ink line traced following the base of the glans right the way round, 5 or 6 millimetres forward of the base. A slotted clamp is then used to insert sutures before the skin is severed. After, cold compresses are applied, and healing is normally complete after 6 days.

Vidal, from Cassis, uses clips instead of sutures. The foreskin is pulled forward, and a clamp is put in place at an angle so the more is removed from the dorsal side of the glans. The skin is then cut between the glans and the clamp. Clips are then inserted for 24 hours. The disadvantage is that the end of the glans is exposed to damage.

A military surgeon, Dr Chauvin, devised an apparatus consisting of a pair or tongs with round ends, and a four-branched apparatus with a claw at the end of each branch which is pushed under the foreskin. Once inside, these spring out and the claws engage on the foreskin. The glans is pushed down as far as it will go, and clamped in place. The mucous is thus pulled forward, while the outer skin is pushed backwards. The surgeon then uses strong scissors to cut through the foreskin and the handle of the apparatus pushed down the foreskin. The object of this complex method was to avoid ending up with too much mucous. It was successfully used by its inventor, but was taken up by no one else.

Vidal's method is the most widely used.

The dorsal slit leaves ugly flaps. Excision does not always achieve the desired result. Where the foreskin is short and tight, a dorsal or ventral slit may be best. If the foreskin does not extend beyond the frenum to the meatus; a V-shaped excision taking in the frenum. Lastly, excision may be preferable where the foreskin is deformed.
_________________________________________

A few personal comments.

The whole book reveals a deep interest in the subject, perhaps an example of the general preoccupation with human sexuality in the 19thC.

The historical part is in many ways disappointing. The question of who invented circumcision pales into insignificance alongside the overriding reflection that whoever it was, it is a jolly good idea. However, the discussion reveals a considerable number of authors and a body of texts.  Some of the discussions were prolonged in the 20thC, for example by Freud in "Moses end Monotheism" whose hypothesis of the name Moses and the Egyptian origins at least deserve examination.

There is little doubt that Abram was Jewish at least on his father's side (his mother's family had less obviously Jewish names). Although enough of a rationalist to object to some aspects of traditional mohel practice, his sympathy is emotionally on the side of the Jews. It is possibly because of this that he leaves out of account an important fact. The Phoenician Kronos, sacrificed his son and circumcised himself. Abraham nearly sacrificed his son and circumcised himself. Sacrifice stories are frequent in antiquity (Saturn, Agamemnon). But the combination of both the sacrifice of a son and also circumcision seems more than could reasonably be attributed to chance. The conclusion from which would be that both stem from a single ancient myth or event.

Dr Tissot's book on masturbation was one of the most influential in medical history, and was published from 1790 up to 1905. The view that masturbation lead to a variety of ailments brought about an interest first in gymnastics (Germany and Sweden, a fear that schools could lead to an excess of masturbation unless preventative measures were taken, and the rise of sports, in part as a way of making young men too tired to masturbate.

The descriptions of the problems brought about by the lack of circumcision (balanitis &c) strike one as very modern. But there is no allusion to any other associated problem, such and urinary-tract infections. The enthusiastic endorsement of the procedure thus only rests on a part of the evidence.

The descriptions of the absence of hygiene are horrifying. The collection of vast stones from under the foreskin seems to have been almost a competitive sport among medical men of the age.

The numbers of operative procedures discussed, and the numbers of eminent doctors mentioned seem to show that Abram was not alone in his opinions, and that there was a considerable and widespread interest in the subject.

The quotation from Dr Lallemand that he regretted that circumcision had fallen out of use is intriguing. I have seen no other evidence that it was ever the norm in France. It is just conceivable that Dr Lallemand was Jewish, and regretted that it was no longer the norm in the Jewish community, but there is absolutely no evidence that this was the case.

One must recall that all the procedures described were undertaken without anaesthetic.

Here is the claim that 15% of Frenchmen are cut (apart from Jewish and Muslim men).

Association contre la mutilation des enfants "En France, outre les juifs et les musulmans, plus de 15% des garçons sont circoncis officiellement pour phimosis (étroitesse du prépuce) quand ce n'est pas "par erreur" d'un chirurgien qui considère cette opération comme prophylactique et très rentable. "

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/enfant.org/commu2.html

---

Don't know of any reliable statistics on circumcision rates in France, but 15% would tally with my own impression. The French list circoncision:

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/circoncision/

 have a members poll on the subject, and the majority of those who answered indicate 11-15% as the most likely percentage.

---

CIRCLIST Home Page	Medical Terms & Penile Anatomy	Considering Circumcision?	Styles & Results of Circumcision	Instruments & Techniques
	Personal Preferences & Experiences	Rites & Practices Around the World	Circumcision Discussion Group	Circumcision Resources

Copyright 1992 - 2008, All Rights Reserved CIRCLIST