The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Marked in Your Flesh
Abstract
This book traces the history of male infant circumcision from its origins in ancient Judea, through centuries of Christian condemnation and Jewish defense, to its current role in American culture and medical practice. Genesis 17 is the biblical text where infant circumcision was mandated by Judean priests in the 6th century BCE; they characterized it as confirming a covenant, but the deeper meaning of the practice was male supremacy and dominance. Early Christians vehemently rejected circumcision, while Jews defended it with equal vigor in the Talmud and other rabbinic texts. The circumcision rite, embellished by folk practices and raised to new heights of significance by Jewish mystics, evolved into its contemporary form in medieval and early modern Europe. Meanwhile, Christian theological writings and medieval European folk beliefs — including those connected with fantasies about ritual murder — contributed to the enduring negative image of circumcision in the non-Jewish world. In the modern period, a few Jews began to question circumcision for the first time. In Germany, where Reform Judaism originated, German-Jewish physicians debated whether ritual circumcision should be either modified or eliminated. In the late 19th and 20th centuries, infant circumcision became a widely accepted medical practice in Britain and the United States, not as a ritual practice but as a preventive or therapeutic procedure. A key element in the new attitude to circumcision was the belief that the practice explained Jewish health and longevity. In the United States, Jewish physicians became especially prominent advocates for the practice, but physicians throughout the country endorsed it with equal enthusiasm. The contemporary circumcision debate in America finds expression in a wide variety of media: most notably, fiction, guides to Jewish parenting, and television sitcoms. The book closes with an epilogue assessing whether circumcision is beneficial or harmful, and whether parents have the right to request genital alteration for their infants or children.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In England and the United States, for example, both male and female genital operations, including penile circumcision, breaking of clitoral adhesions, and removal of the clitoral hood, were used for decades to combat childhood masturbation [98–102].”
From Reconsidering the role of patriarchy in upholding female genital modifications: analysis of contemporary and pre-industrial societies (2023) · cites this paper as [100]
In the citing paper
“Genital cutting for this purpose was recommended by certain segments of the medical profession until the 1950s.”
From Reconsidering the role of patriarchy in upholding female genital modifications: analysis of contemporary and pre-industrial societies (2023) · cites this paper as [100]
In the citing paper
“In others, a “quieter” sexual organ, believed to result from cutting of the penis, is thought to help the boy focus his attention less on bodily temptations and more on his work, or on spiritual matters [61, 98, 100].”
From Reconsidering the role of patriarchy in upholding female genital modifications: analysis of contemporary and pre-industrial societies (2023) · cites this paper as [100]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Svoboda, J. S. (2013) · Global Discourse · doi:10.1080/23269995.2013.804757 · Cited by 42
Gruenbaum, E., Earp, B. D., & Shweder, R. A. (2023) · International Journal of Impotence Research · doi:10.1038/s41443-022-00581-5 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Glick, L. B.
- Corresponding author
- Glick, Leonard B.
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2005-07-01
- OpenAlex
- W2502168725
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 11.44
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Genital Health and Disease
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › History of Medicine Studies
- Keywords
- history of circumcision, Genesis 17, covenant, ancient Judea, early Christianity, Jewish mysticism, ritual murder accusation, Reform Judaism, American culture
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Marked in Your Flesh. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/019517674x.001.0001
- The paper
- Glick, L. B. (2005). Marked in Your Flesh. Oxford University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/019517674x.001.0001