The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain
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 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 [98]
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 [98]
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 [98]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Egan, R. D., & Hawkes, G. (2009) · Continuum · doi:10.1080/10304310902842975 · Cited by 100
The carcinogenicity of smegma: debunking a myth
Howe, R. S. V., & Fm, H. (2006) · Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology · doi:10.1111/j.1468-3083.2006.01653.x · Cited by 83
Imperiled and Perilous: Exploring the History of Childhood Sexuality
Egan, R. D., & Hawkes, G. (2008) · Journal of Historical Sociology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6443.2008.00341.x · Cited by 80
Current critiques of the WHO policy on female genital mutilation
Earp, B. D., & Johnsdotter, S. (2021) · International Journal of Impotence Research · doi:10.1038/s41443-020-0302-0 · Cited by 59
Rennie, S., Muula, A. S., & Westreich, D. J. (2007) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2006.019901 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Darby, R.
- Corresponding author
- Darby, Robert
- Venue
- University of Chicago Press eBooks
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2005
- OpenAlex
- W4254035745
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 24.78
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- University of Chicago Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Medical History and Innovations
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › General Medicine and Therapeutics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
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
