17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Unfortunately, Watson & Golden (2017) report:
<blockquote>
We found that therapists were reluctant to accept that the grief was real, were unaware of foreskin functions, denied circumcision had physical or psychological sequelae and minimized patient grief using humor, cultural aesthetics, controversial
health benefits, sexism and an erroneous understanding of penile anatomy and sexual function. Male therapists were more likely to deny that circumcision is harmful and to be less empathetic than female therapists.<ref name="watson2017" />
</blockquote>
→Psychological value of foreskin restoration
}}</ref>
==Psychological value of foreskin restoration==
Unfortunately, Watson & Golden (2017) report:
<blockquote>
We found that therapists were reluctant to accept that the grief was real, were unaware of foreskin functions, denied circumcision had physical or psychological sequelae and minimized patient grief using humor, cultural aesthetics, controversial
health benefits, sexism and an erroneous understanding of penile anatomy and sexual function. Male therapists were more likely to deny that circumcision is harmful and to be less empathetic than female therapists.<ref name="watson2017" />
</blockquote>
Surgical foreskin restoration has been reported as having beneficial emotional results for [[circumcised]] men.<ref name="penn1963">{{REFjournal
|last=Penn
}}</ref>
Watson & Golden (2017) recommend that [[circumcised]] men "embrace the anguish and try to feel it as strongly as they can." They also recommend non-surgical [[foreskin restoration]] "since it empowers the patient."<ref name="watson2017" />
</blockquote>