This obvious, but not for everybody!

I affirmed, last week, to Elisabeth Roudinesco (a French star of psychoanalysis), face to face in her home, that circumcision is threat of castration.

She answered no!???!

However it is obvious, for two reasons:

- A simple gesture can constitute a threat, and if handling a knife in direction of the penis of a child is not threat of castration...

- Circumcision is threat of castration all the more serious as it is more credible. Then it is all the more credible as it is beginning of realisation of castration.

For excusing the fascinating and incredible denial of reality committed by our contradictors, it can be said that Freud himself falled into it by saying, all along its works, that circumcision is symbol of castration.

What is implied, more or less consciously, by the father of psychoanalysis, is that if circumcision is symbol of castration, it would reassure about the fact that then, castration itself would be out of question.

Those are rationalizing and hypocrite quibbles, when we know that shrewd observers remarked that some babies fall into semi-coma from the very preparations of the operation (operation room, nurses, white gowns, scalpels, ether smell... )!

But let us go a little further, if you please, let us draw all the lessons of the Freudian bearing, let us not stop with the hangs-up of this dear Sig(is)mund:

If circumcision is threat of castration for little boys, it is also, inside families, threat of excision for little girls.

All this is a big as a lorry, so big that many do not want to see it.

Yours, Sigi