Medical Studies
An artist’s rendering
of the surgery is available here:
Although several reports by physicians prior to or shortly after the turn of the 20th century are sometimes cited and discussed by critics of hood removal, to the best of my knowledge, there have been very few published modern medical studies or reports by doctors who perform this form of surgery. All of those that I have found, however, report a striking percentage of those who had the procedure done experience enhanced sexual enjoyment.
1. Dawson, Benjamin E., “Circumcision in the Female: Its Necessity and How to Perform It.” American Journal of Clinical Medicine 22.6 (June 1915), 520-523.
A very early medical report of hood removal, claiming all kinds of clinical (and psychological) benefits. This article can be found at an anti-circumcision website.
2. Morris, Dr. R. O. Fifty Years a Surgeon. (London?), 1935.
Surgically removed many clitoral hoods to treat “preputial adhesions.” Dr. Morris noted a “frequent finding” of the clitoral glans “undeveloped and buried beneath an adherent prepuce. I investigated and found that because of the irritation caused by preputial adhesions, both boys and girls require circumcision in equal numbers” (160).
3. McDonald, C. F. “Circumcision of the Female.” General Practitioner 18.3 (September, 1958). 98-99.
Claims to have performed “circumcision” on “perhaps 40 patients,” including some adult women. Among the adult women who underwent the procedure, “Very thankful patients were the reward. For the first time in their lives, sex ambition became normally satisfied” (98). However, McDonald’s procedure actually does not remove the hood, but instead stretches it to the point where “It is seldom that the prepuce will overgrow again once it has been opened” (98). In other words, the effect of McDonald’s stretching technique is essentially the same as removing the hood. This article may now be found online at an anti-circumcision website.
4. Rathmann, W. G. “Female Circumcision, Indications and a New Technique.” General Practitioner 20.3 (September, 1959). 115-120. This article is now available online at a pro-circumcision website, and also at an anti-circumcision website.
Sent out a questionnaire to women whose hoods he had removed, and received 112 replies. Of the 72 women who reported having never experienced an orgasm prior to the surgery, 9 [12.4%] reported continued failure to achieve orgasm; 64 [87.6%] reported successful achievement of orgasm after the surgery. Of the 39 who reported achieving orgasm only with difficulty prior to the surgery, 5 [12.5%] reported no improvement; 34 [87.5%] reported improvement after the surgery. Rathmann provides a number of indications and contraindications for the surgery, and invented a new clamp for the procedure.
5. Wollman, Leo. “Hooded Clitoris: Preliminary Report.” The Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine 20.1 (1973), 3-4.
Provides a “Statistical analysis of one hundred cases.” Not clear whether the statistics Wollman reports include all one hundred women (32 of whom did not receive the surgery—see below) or a statistical report of those who were clitoridotomised. In this study, he reports the frequency of sexual intercourse before treatment as 3 times per week on average; after treatment as 5 times per week on average. 49 women were able to attain orgasm prior to treatment; 92 after. 92 subjectively report improvement in intensity of sexual response, rapidity of sexual response, and/or greater number of orgasms; 7 subjectively report no change, and 1 subjectively reports being worse off. The longest time since treatment was 20 years; 64 patients were followed up after 5 years since treatment. The treatment occurred in Wollman’s office 98 times; in the hospital (at patient’s request) 2 times.
6. Wollman, Leo. “Female Circumcision.” The Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine 20.4 (1973), 130-131.
Reports on one hundred consecutive patients referred to him by psychoanalysts and clinical psychologists. “Sixty eight benefited by surgical female circumcision: of the remaining thirty-two, twenty-eight showed no need for this procedure; four refused to be treated by this technique.”
7. Crist, Takey. “Female Circumcision.” Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 11.8 (August, 1977), 77.
Reports on Crist’s hood removals on of fifteen women, and provides a list of four conditions for when the surgery would be indicated: “a) they could achieve orgasm only by masturbation and/or oral sex, b) they could have orgasm in the lateral or female-superior positions only, c) they stated, “it feels good, I get there, but suddenly it’s over.” d) they had a positive cotton-tip test, where patients felt a distinct difference when a cotton-tipped applicator was applied directly to the clitoris when the foreskin was retracted as opposed to application to the foreskin” [77]. Crist’s study concludes, “Patients who have undergone this procedure have generally commented that they have enhanced sexual response.”
8. David Haldane, “Clitoral Circumcision.” Forum (UK), 1990 (?), 41-43, 49.
Haldane interviews several women who had their hoods removed,
and several doctors about the procedure.
Those who have actually undertaken studies (as opposed to simply
expressing opinions) include the following:
Dr. Stanley Daniels, who had performed hundreds of these surgeries. Daniels says that the surgery isn’t for everyone, and refuses to perform it on about half of those who request it. In those he does agree to perform the surgery on, however, Daniels claims that “a large percentage report a ‘significant increase’ in the level of sensation and satisfaction in their sex lives after the operation” (42).
Dr. W. G. Rathmann (see [4], above), who repeats his results and recommendations from his published article.
Dr. Leo Wollman (see [5] and [6], above), whose articles are cited and whose results are reported.
Constance Knowles, a marriage and family counselor, whose interest in the procedure began with her own hood removal in 1972 (for which, see Personal Reports in Print). Knowles was undertaking a long-term study of women who had the surgery and reported 75% as saying that the results were “significant and lasting improvement in their sex lives,” and “25% [who] reported no long term positive effects.”
It is interesting to note that Haldane quotes one critic of the surgery, Dr. Leon Zussman, who claims that removal of the clitoral hood is not necessary because women get all the sensation they need from “the motion […] transmitted through the labia to the hood and then from the hood to the clitoris” (42). Zussman seems oblivious to the fact that many women find this form of indirect stimulation inadequate and unsatisfying. Zussman goes on to warn that “Theoretically it [hood removal] could even be detrimental to sexual response,” but honesty requires him to add, “I am not willing to say that I’ve seen cases in which it [hood removal] has been [detrimental to sexual response]” (42). He does claim, “we have seen many women who have undergone the procedure and most of them admitted that it just doesn’t do much” [42]. Given the abundance of personal and medical reports to the contrary (which this web site is dedicated to making more readily available), one wonders how accurate Zussman’s impressions of what “most” women who had their hoods removed have to say about the results they have achieved from the surgery.
9. Krista Foss, “New Hot Cosmetic Surgery for Women,” Toronto Globe and Mail, Tuesday, November 10, 1998.
Dr. Stanley Daniels, who had performed hundreds of these surgeries. Daniels says that the surgery isn’t for everyone, and refuses to perform it on about half of those who request it. In those he does agree to perform the surgery on, however, Daniels claims that “a large percentage report a ‘significant increase’ in the level of sensation and satisfaction in their sex lives after the operation” (42).
Dr. W. G. Rathmann (see [4], above), who repeats his results and recommendations from his published article.
Dr. Leo Wollman (see [5] and [6], above), whose articles are cited and whose results are reported.
Constance Knowles, a marriage and family counselor, whose interest in the procedure began with her own hood removal in 1972 (for which, see Personal Reports in Print). Knowles was undertaking a long-term study of women who had the surgery and reported 75% as saying that the results were “significant and lasting improvement in their sex lives,” and “25% [who] reported no long term positive effects.”
It is interesting to note that Haldane quotes one critic of the surgery, Dr. Leon Zussman, who claims that removal of the clitoral hood is not necessary because women get all the sensation they need from “the motion […] transmitted through the labia to the hood and then from the hood to the clitoris” (42). Zussman seems oblivious to the fact that many women find this form of indirect stimulation inadequate and unsatisfying. Zussman goes on to warn that “Theoretically it [hood removal] could even be detrimental to sexual response,” but honesty requires him to add, “I am not willing to say that I’ve seen cases in which it [hood removal] has been [detrimental to sexual response]” (42). He does claim, “we have seen many women who have undergone the procedure and most of them admitted that it just doesn’t do much” [42]. Given the abundance of personal and medical reports to the contrary (which this web site is dedicated to making more readily available), one wonders how accurate Zussman’s impressions of what “most” women who had their hoods removed have to say about the results they have achieved from the surgery.
9. Krista Foss, “New Hot Cosmetic Surgery for Women,” Toronto Globe and Mail, Tuesday, November 10, 1998.
The text of this article is given here. Scroll to almost the bottom of the page.
Foss reports on a Toronto surgeon named Dr. Robert H. Stubbs, who performs various kinds of sexual enhancement surgery. Most of the article is about labiaplasty, but it is clear that Dr. Stubbs also performs hood removals. Dr. Stubbs is reported as saying, "Some women report to me they have had an orgasm for the first time after I have unhooded the clitoris.”
Foss reports on a Toronto surgeon named Dr. Robert H. Stubbs, who performs various kinds of sexual enhancement surgery. Most of the article is about labiaplasty, but it is clear that Dr. Stubbs also performs hood removals. Dr. Stubbs is reported as saying, "Some women report to me they have had an orgasm for the first time after I have unhooded the clitoris.”
There is a website for Dr.
Stubbs’s practice.
On the Web page, Dr. Stubbs shows some examples of his surgeries:
Before and after pictures of a “clitoral unhooding” (which seems also to have included a labiaplasty).
Before and after pictures of a “genital enhancement” (which seems to have included both a labiaplasty and at least a partial removal of the clitoral hood.
10. Dr. Irene Anderson contributed a report of her own hood removal to this website, and also reported the following results of nearly a hundred hood removals she performed in her surgical practice in Mexico:
I had it [her own hood removal] in November 1991. The reason was that I never had a vaginal orgasm, so I wanted to improve the sensitivity of my clitoris, releasing it from the hood. The result is great. Regarding my patients, the success rate was very high. I had nearly one hundred surgeries of that type, and only three patients were not satisfied by the result. I recommend the procedure to every woman, especially those who are not able to have vaginal orgasm.
On the Web page, Dr. Stubbs shows some examples of his surgeries:
Before and after pictures of a “clitoral unhooding” (which seems also to have included a labiaplasty).
Before and after pictures of a “genital enhancement” (which seems to have included both a labiaplasty and at least a partial removal of the clitoral hood.
10. Dr. Irene Anderson contributed a report of her own hood removal to this website, and also reported the following results of nearly a hundred hood removals she performed in her surgical practice in Mexico:
I had it [her own hood removal] in November 1991. The reason was that I never had a vaginal orgasm, so I wanted to improve the sensitivity of my clitoris, releasing it from the hood. The result is great. Regarding my patients, the success rate was very high. I had nearly one hundred surgeries of that type, and only three patients were not satisfied by the result. I recommend the procedure to every woman, especially those who are not able to have vaginal orgasm.
Comparison of the Glans of the Clitoris with the Glans of the Penis
11. Scott, F. Brantley. “Nerve Endings in Glans Clitoris vs.
Glans Penis.” Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality. 15.7 (July, 1981), 88.
Several arguments—some by famous sexologists (see, e.g. W. H. Masters, V. E. Johnson, and R. C. Kolodny, Masters and Johnson on Sex and Human Loving, 1986, 32-3)—have been published over the years claiming that the removal of the clitoral hood should not be compared to the removal of the male foreskin, on the ground that the clitoral glans was much more sensitive to stimulation than the male glans. This claim is repeated as fact by several self-identified “experts.” Scott’s brief answer to a question sent to the journal would appear to count against any such claim: “Anatomic studies have shown that on a per centimeter surface area, the number of nerve endings in the glans clitoris is equal to that in the same surface area of the glans penis” (88). The same evidence would seem to support the surgical removal of the clitoral hood, for women who find its presence has the effect of dampening stimulation, on the simple ground that the clitoral glans is so much smaller, and thus offers less opportunity for stimulation than does the male glans.
Several arguments—some by famous sexologists (see, e.g. W. H. Masters, V. E. Johnson, and R. C. Kolodny, Masters and Johnson on Sex and Human Loving, 1986, 32-3)—have been published over the years claiming that the removal of the clitoral hood should not be compared to the removal of the male foreskin, on the ground that the clitoral glans was much more sensitive to stimulation than the male glans. This claim is repeated as fact by several self-identified “experts.” Scott’s brief answer to a question sent to the journal would appear to count against any such claim: “Anatomic studies have shown that on a per centimeter surface area, the number of nerve endings in the glans clitoris is equal to that in the same surface area of the glans penis” (88). The same evidence would seem to support the surgical removal of the clitoral hood, for women who find its presence has the effect of dampening stimulation, on the simple ground that the clitoral glans is so much smaller, and thus offers less opportunity for stimulation than does the male glans.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق