Psychological literature about male circumcision

From IntactiWiki
Revision as of 19:02, 2 July 2024 by WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Twenty-first century articles)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page collects and indexes psychological literature about male circumcision.

Work in progress: The following information does not claim to be complete. More content will be added gradually.

Introduction

The circumcision industry would like parents and the public to believe that circumcision is psychologically benign and has no effect on the patient, therefore the information provided to satisfy the requirements of informed consent typically excludes any discussion of the psychological trauma, injury, and emotional effects of circumcision.[1][2]

Some of the literature cited here will include certain articles of a psychological nature that appeared in medical journals.

Articles

Twentieth century articles

Twenty-first century articles


See also

References

  1. REFjournal Goldman R. Circumcision policy: a psychosocial perspective PDF. Paedatrics & Child Health (Ottawa). November 2005; 9(9): 630-3.. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 24 June 2024.
    Quote: The debate about the advisability of circumcision in English-speaking countries has typically focused on the potential health factors. The position statements of committees from national medical organizations are expected to be evidence-based; however, the contentiousness of the ongoing debate suggests that other factors are involved. Various potential factors related to psychology, sociology, religion and culture may also underlie policy decisions
  2. REFjournal Tye MC, Sardi LM. Psychological, psychosocial, and psychosexual aspects of penile circumcision. Int J Impot Res. May 2023; 35(3): 242-8. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 22 June 2024.
    Quote: Policy statements on penile circumcision have focused primarily on disease, dysfunction, or sensation, with relatively little consideration of psychological and psychosocial implications of the procedure. There has also been minimal consideration of potential qualitative changes in the subjective experience of sexual activity following changes in penile anatomy (foreskin removal) or associated sexual biomechanics.