Difference between revisions of "Sexual effects of circumcision"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Add link in SEEALSO section) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Comment out dated, inaccurate, and wrong material.) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The '''sexual effects of circumcision''' are the subject of some debate. Studies have been conducted to investigate the effect of circumcision (amputation of the [[foreskin]]) on sexual drive, erectile function, premature and delayed ejaculation, sexual satisfaction, sexual sensation and penile sensitivity. Studies have also assessed whether [[circumcision]] affects [[masturbation]] or other sexual practices, and the degree to which a heterosexual woman's experience of sex is affected by her partner's circumcision status. | The '''sexual effects of circumcision''' are the subject of some debate. Studies have been conducted to investigate the effect of circumcision (amputation of the [[foreskin]]) on sexual drive, erectile function, premature and delayed ejaculation, sexual satisfaction, sexual sensation and penile sensitivity. Studies have also assessed whether [[circumcision]] affects [[masturbation]] or other sexual practices, and the degree to which a heterosexual woman's experience of sex is affected by her partner's circumcision status. | ||
| − | Only medical trade associations, such as the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] (AAP), which represents doctors who profit from carrying out circumcisions, still contend that circumcision does not harm sexual function. The American Academy of Pediatrics points to a survey (self-report) finding circumcised adult men had less sexual dysfunction and more varied sexual practices, but also noted anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males.<ref name="AAP1999">{{REFjournal | + | <!--Only medical trade associations, such as the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] (AAP), which represents doctors who profit from carrying out circumcisions, still contend that circumcision does not harm sexual function. The American Academy of Pediatrics points to a survey (self-report) finding circumcised adult men had less sexual dysfunction and more varied sexual practices, but also noted anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males.<ref name="AAP1999">{{REFjournal |
|last= | |last= | ||
|first= | |first= | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
|date=1999-03 | |date=1999-03 | ||
|accessdate= | |accessdate= | ||
| − | }}</ref> In January 2007, The [[American Academy of Family Physicians]] (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."<ref name=" | + | }}</ref> In January 2007, The [[American Academy of Family Physicians]] (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."<ref name="AAFP2007"/> Conversely, a 2002 review by Boyle ''et al.'' stated that "the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males." They concluded, "intercourse is less satisfying for both partners when the man is circumcised".<ref>{{REFweb |
| quote= | | quote= | ||
| url=http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/ | | url=http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/ | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| date=2002-05-01 | | date=2002-05-01 | ||
| accessdate=2019-12-02 | | accessdate=2019-12-02 | ||
| − | }}</ref> | + | }}</ref>--> |
== Penile sensitivity and sexual sensation == | == Penile sensitivity and sexual sensation == | ||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
|date=2008-08 | |date=2008-08 | ||
|accessdate= | |accessdate= | ||
| − | }}</ref> In a 2009 study, Cortés-González ''et al.'' reported a statistically significant improvement in "perception of sexual events" (p=0.04).<ref name="cortes2009">{{REFjournal | + | }}</ref>--> <!--In a 2009 study, Cortés-González ''et al.'' reported a statistically significant improvement in "perception of sexual events" (p=0.04).<ref name="cortes2009">{{REFjournal |
|last=Cortés-González | |last=Cortés-González | ||
|first=J.R. | |first=J.R. | ||
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
|date=2009-11 | |date=2009-11 | ||
|accessdate= | |accessdate= | ||
| − | }}</ref> | + | }}</ref>--> |
=== Glans sensitivity === | === Glans sensitivity === | ||
| Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
|date=2007-03 | |date=2007-03 | ||
|accessdate=2019-12-16 | |accessdate=2019-12-16 | ||
| − | }}</ref> In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. Opinions differ about how this decreased sensitivity, which may result in prolonged time to orgasm, affects sexual satisfaction. An investigation of the exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination of the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised men found no difference on comparison. No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction." | + | }}</ref> <!--In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. Opinions differ about how this decreased sensitivity, which may result in prolonged time to orgasm, affects sexual satisfaction. An investigation of the exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination of the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised men found no difference on comparison. No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction." |
<ref name="AAFP">{{REFweb | <ref name="AAFP">{{REFweb | ||
| quote= | | quote= | ||
| Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
| date=2007 | | date=2007 | ||
| accessdate=2007-01-30 | | accessdate=2007-01-30 | ||
| − | }}</ref> | + | }}</ref>--> |
Yang ''et al.'' (1998) concluded in their study into the innervation of the penile shaft and glans penis that: "The distinct pattern of innervation of the glans emphasizes the role of the glans as a sensory structure."<ref name="yang1998">{{REFjournal | Yang ''et al.'' (1998) concluded in their study into the innervation of the penile shaft and glans penis that: "The distinct pattern of innervation of the glans emphasizes the role of the glans as a sensory structure."<ref name="yang1998">{{REFjournal | ||
| Line 213: | Line 213: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| − | An examination of 7 circumcised and 6 uncircumcised males found no difference in [[ | + | An examination of 7 circumcised and 6 uncircumcised males found no difference in [[keratinization]] of the [[glans penis]].<ref name="Szabo">{{REFjournal |
|last=Szabo | |last=Szabo | ||
|first=Robert | |first=Robert | ||
| Line 266: | Line 266: | ||
}}</ref>--> | }}</ref>--> | ||
| − | Sorrells ''et al.'' (2007) measured the fine-touch pressure thresholds of 91 circumcised and 68 uncircumcised, adult male volunteers, They reported "[the] glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity."<ref name="sorrells2007"/> In a letter to BJU International, however, on the basis of the unadjusted data, Waskett and Morris stated "we find no significant differences [...], consistent with previous findings."<ref name="waskett2007">{{REFjournal | + | Sorrells ''et al.'' (2007) measured the fine-touch pressure thresholds of 91 circumcised and 68 uncircumcised, adult male volunteers, They reported "[the] glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity."<ref name="sorrells2007"/> <!--In a letter to BJU International, however, on the basis of the unadjusted data, Waskett and Morris stated "we find no significant differences [...], consistent with previous findings."<ref name="waskett2007">{{REFjournal |
|last=Waskett | |last=Waskett | ||
|first=Jake H. | |first=Jake H. | ||
| Line 301: | Line 301: | ||
|date=2007-07 | |date=2007-07 | ||
|accessdate= | |accessdate= | ||
| − | }}</ref> | + | }}</ref>--> |
| − | Payne ''et al.'' (2007), in a study of the glans and shaft sensitivity of twenty circumcised and twenty uncircumcised men, reported that "No differences in genital sensitivity were found between the uncircumcised and circumcised groups."<ref name="payne2007">{{REFjournal | + | <!--Payne ''et al.'' (2007), in a study of the glans and shaft sensitivity of twenty circumcised and twenty uncircumcised men, reported that "No differences in genital sensitivity were found between the uncircumcised and circumcised groups."<ref name="payne2007">{{REFjournal |
|last=Payne | |last=Payne | ||
|first=Kimberley | |first=Kimberley | ||
| Line 327: | Line 327: | ||
|date=2007-05 | |date=2007-05 | ||
|accessdate= | |accessdate= | ||
| − | }}</ref> | + | }}</ref>--> |
=== Foreskin sensitivity === | === Foreskin sensitivity === | ||
| Line 436: | Line 436: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| − | Sorrells ''et al.'' (2007), in the study discussed above, measured fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis, and concluded "The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates" (removes) "the most sensitive parts of the penis." According to Sorrells ''et al.'', the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin.<ref name=" | + | Boyle ''et al.'' (2002) argued that circumcision and frenectomy remove tissues with "heightened erogenous sensitivity," stating "the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision."<ref name="boyle2002">{{REFjournal |
| + | |last=Boyle | ||
| + | |first=Gregory J. | ||
| + | |first2=Gillian A. | ||
| + | |last2=Bensley | ||
| + | |title=Adverse Sexual and Psychological Effects of Male Infant Circumcision | ||
| + | |journal=Psychological reports | ||
| + | |volume=88 | ||
| + | |issue=3, Part 2 | ||
| + | |pages=1105-1106 | ||
| + | |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle5/ | ||
| + | |quote= | ||
| + | |pubmedID=11597060 | ||
| + | |pubmedCID= | ||
| + | |DOI= | ||
| + | |date=2001-07 | ||
| + | |accessdate= | ||
| + | }}</ref> They concluded, "Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Sorrells ''et al.'' (2007), in the study discussed above, measured fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis, and concluded "The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates" (removes) "the most sensitive parts of the penis." According to Sorrells ''et al.'', the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin.<ref name="sorrells2007" /> <!--This is disputed by Waskett and Morris, who argue that when they re-analyse Sorrells' data, no significant differences are found; that light touch is only one form of sensitivity, and that sexual pleasure may sometimes require less sensitivity. They also criticized Sorrells' recruitment methods.<ref name="waskett2007"/> In response, Young criticizes Waskett and Morris's use of the [[Bonferroni correction]] and argues that the methods of selecting subjects would not affect the results, that the two most sensitive positions on the circumcised penis represent small areas of [[circumcision scar]], as compared to a much larger area of sensitive tissue on the foreskin, and that sales of sensation-dulling products do not necessarily indicate that such are widely used other than on scar tissue.<ref name="young"/>--> In 2009, Schober ''et al'' reported on self-assessed sexual sensitivity in 81 men, 11 of whom were uncircumcised. When assessing areas producing sexual pleasure, the foreskin was ranked 7th, after the glans, lower and upper shaft, and the left and right sides of the penis, but above the area between scrotum and anus, the scrotum itself, and the anus.<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Schober | |last=Schober | ||
|first=J.M. | |first=J.M. | ||
| Line 457: | Line 476: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Erectile function== | ==Erectile function== | ||
| Line 526: | Line 527: | ||
|date=2006 | |date=2006 | ||
|accessdate= | |accessdate= | ||
| − | }}</ref><ref name="Laumann1997"/> in erectile dysfunction among circumcised men, while other studies have shown little to no effect.<ref name="masood2005"/><ref name="krieger2008">{{REFjournal | + | }}</ref> <ref name="Laumann1997"/> in erectile dysfunction among circumcised men, while other studies have shown little to no effect.<ref name="masood2005"/><!--<ref name="krieger2008">{{REFjournal |
|last=Krieger | |last=Krieger | ||
|first=J.N. | |first=J.N. | ||
| Line 546: | Line 547: | ||
|date=2008-08 | |date=2008-08 | ||
|accessdate= | |accessdate= | ||
| − | }}</ref><ref name="senkul2004"/><ref name="Collins2002">{{REFjournal | + | }}</ref>--><ref name="senkul2004"/><ref name="Collins2002">{{REFjournal |
|last=Collins | |last=Collins | ||
|first=S. | |first=S. | ||
| Line 571: | Line 572: | ||
|date=2002 | |date=2002 | ||
|accessdate= | |accessdate= | ||
| − | }}</ref><ref name="kigozi2007">{{REFjournal | + | }}</ref><!--<ref name="kigozi2007">{{REFjournal |
|last=Kigozi | |last=Kigozi | ||
|first=G. | |first=G. | ||
| Line 611: | Line 612: | ||
|date=2007-01 | |date=2007-01 | ||
|accessdate= | |accessdate= | ||
| − | }}</ref><ref name="kimpang2006"/> | + | }}</ref>--><ref name="kimpang2006"/> |
Fink ''et al.'', in an American study of 123 men, found that medically necessitated circumcision resulted in worsened erectile function (p=0.01).<ref name=fink2002/> | Fink ''et al.'', in an American study of 123 men, found that medically necessitated circumcision resulted in worsened erectile function (p=0.01).<ref name=fink2002/> | ||
| Line 636: | Line 637: | ||
Laumann ''et al.'' reported that the likelihood of having difficulty in maintaining an erection was lower for circumcised men, but only at the 0.07 level (OR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42-1.03).<ref name="Laumann1997"/> | Laumann ''et al.'' reported that the likelihood of having difficulty in maintaining an erection was lower for circumcised men, but only at the 0.07 level (OR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42-1.03).<ref name="Laumann1997"/> | ||
| − | Cortés-González ''et al.'' reported a statistically significant improvement in erectile function following circumcision (p=0.0007).<ref name="cortes2009"/> | + | <!--Cortés-González ''et al.'' reported a statistically significant improvement in erectile function following circumcision (p=0.0007).<ref name="cortes2009"/>--> |
== Ejaculatory function == | == Ejaculatory function == | ||
Revision as of 12:48, 19 December 2019
The sexual effects of circumcision are the subject of some debate. Studies have been conducted to investigate the effect of circumcision (amputation of the foreskin) on sexual drive, erectile function, premature and delayed ejaculation, sexual satisfaction, sexual sensation and penile sensitivity. Studies have also assessed whether circumcision affects masturbation or other sexual practices, and the degree to which a heterosexual woman's experience of sex is affected by her partner's circumcision status.
Contents
Penile sensitivity and sexual sensation
Results of studies of the effect on penile sensitivity have been mixed. In a British study of 150 men circumcised as adults for penile problems, Masood et al. found that 38% reported improved penile sensation (p=0.01), 18% reported worse penile sensation, while the remainder (44%) reported no change.[1] In a survey of men circumcised as adults for medical (93%) or elective (7%) reasons, Fink et al. found an association between adult circumcision and decreased penile sensitivity that "bordered on statistical significance" (p=0.08).[2]
Glans sensitivity
A number of studies have looked at the question of whether sensitivity of the glans is affected by circumcision. Masters and Johnson (1966) reported: "Routine neurologic testing for both exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination were conducted on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penile body, with particular attention directed toward the glans. No clinically significant difference could be established between the circumcised and the uncircumcised glans during these examinations."[3] Sorrells et al. criticised this early study for being poorly documented and not subject to peer review.[4]
Yang et al. (1998) concluded in their study into the innervation of the penile shaft and glans penis that: "The distinct pattern of innervation of the glans emphasizes the role of the glans as a sensory structure."[5]
An examination of 7 circumcised and 6 uncircumcised males found no difference in keratinization of the glans penis.[6]
Sorrells et al. (2007) measured the fine-touch pressure thresholds of 91 circumcised and 68 uncircumcised, adult male volunteers, They reported "[the] glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity."[4]
Foreskin sensitivity
Some recent researchers have asserted that the foreskin may be sexually responsive.[7][8][9][10] Opponents of circumcision have cited these studies, which report on the sensitivity or innervation of the foreskin, claiming a sexual role based upon the presence of nerve-endings in the foreskin sensitive to light touch, stroking and fluttering sensations.
Circumcision removes the ridged band at the end of the foreskin.[11] Taylor (1996) observed that the ridged band had more Meissner's corpuscles — a kind of nerve ending that is concentrated in areas of greatest sensitivity — than the areas of the foreskin with smooth mucus membranes and a rich blood supply to serve the neurological tissue. Taylor (2000) postulated that the ridged band is sexually sensitive and plays a role in normal sexual function. He also suggested that the gliding action, possible only when there was enough loose skin on the shaft of the penis, serves to stimulate the ridged band through contact with the corona of the glans penis during vaginal intercourse.[12] This gliding action was also described by Lakshmanan (1980).[13]
Boyle et al. (2002) argued that circumcision and frenectomy remove tissues with "heightened erogenous sensitivity," stating "the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision."[14] They concluded, "Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well."
Sorrells et al. (2007), in the study discussed above, measured fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis, and concluded "The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates" (removes) "the most sensitive parts of the penis." According to Sorrells et al., the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin.[4] In 2009, Schober et al reported on self-assessed sexual sensitivity in 81 men, 11 of whom were uncircumcised. When assessing areas producing sexual pleasure, the foreskin was ranked 7th, after the glans, lower and upper shaft, and the left and right sides of the penis, but above the area between scrotum and anus, the scrotum itself, and the anus.[15]
Erectile function
Reports detailing the effect of circumcision on erectile dysfunction have been mixed. Studies have variously found a statistically significant increase,[2][16] or decrease,[17][18] [19] in erectile dysfunction among circumcised men, while other studies have shown little to no effect.[1][20][21][22]
Fink et al., in an American study of 123 men, found that medically necessitated circumcision resulted in worsened erectile function (p=0.01).[2]
Kim and Pang reported no significant difference in erection.[22]
Laumann et al. reported that the likelihood of having difficulty in maintaining an erection was lower for circumcised men, but only at the 0.07 level (OR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42-1.03).[19]
Ejaculatory function
Waldinger et al. recruited 500 men (98 circumcised and 261 not-circumcised) from five countries: the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Spain, Turkey, and the United States and studied their ejaculation times during sexual intercourse. They found that the circumcised men in the study took on average 6.7 minutes to ejaculate, compared with 6.0 minutes for the uncircumcised men. This difference was not statistically significant. The comparison excluded Turkey, which was significantly different from the other countries studied.[23] Commenting on the study, Sorrells et al. said "Turkish men, the vast majority of whom are circumcised, had the shortest IELT [Intravaginal ejaculation latency time]."[24]
Collins et al. conducted a prospective study of 15 adult circumcision patients, using the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BMSFI). The authors did not find a statistically significant effect on ejaculation scores.[21]
In a study of 42 Turkish men circumcised for religious reasons, Senkul et al. did not find a statistically significant difference in BMSFI ejaculation scores, but found a significant increase in the mean time to ejaculate. The authors suggested that delayed ejaculation may be seen as a benefit.[20]
In a telephone survey of 10,173 Australian men, 22% of uncircumcised men and 26% of circumcised men reported reaching orgasm too quickly for at least one month in the previous year. The difference was not statistically significant.[18]
In a study of 255 circumcised men and 118 uncircumcised men, Kim and Pang reported no statistically significant difference in ejaculation or ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised participants.[22]
In a study of men circumcised for benign disease, Masood et al. reported that of those who stated they had prior premature ejaculation, 13% reported improvement after circumcision, 33% reported that it became worse, and 53% reported no change.[1]
In a study of 22 men circumcised as adults, Cortés-González et al. reported that 31.8% suffered from premature ejaculation before the procedure; this diminished to 13.6% afterwards.[17]
Sexual practice and masturbation
In a study by Korean researchers of 255 men circumcised after the age of 20 and 18 who were not circumcised, Kim and Pang reported that masturbatory pleasure decreased in 48% of the respondents and increased in 8%. Masturbatory difficulty increased in 63% but was easier in 37%. They concluded that there was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure after circumcision.[22]
Laumann et al. reported that circumcised men in their survey displayed a greater rates of experience of various sexual practices, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation.[19] For example, among whites the "estimated ratio of the odds of masturbating at least once a month for circumcised men was 1.76 that for uncircumcised men." Dr. Laumann provides two explanations for the difference in sexual practices. "One is that uncircumcised men, a minority in this country, may feel a stigma that inhibits them. Another is that circumcision reduces sensitivity in the penis, leading circumcised men to try a range of sexual activities."[25]
Fink et al. did not find a change in sexual activity with adult circumcision (p=0.22).[2]
Sexual drive
Several studies have investigated the effect of circumcision on sexual drive. Studies that did not find a statistically significant difference include Kim and Pang,[22] Collins et al.,[21] Senkul et al.,[20] and Cortés-González et al..[17]
Satisfaction
Kim and Pang found that 20% reported that their sex life was worse after circumcision and 6% reported that it had improved. They concluded that "there was a decrease ... sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings."[22]
Masood et al., in their study mentioned earlier of men circumcised for benign disease, found that 61% reported satisfaction with the results, while 17% felt it made things worse, and 22% expressed neutral sentiments. 44% of the patients (p = 0.04) and 38% of the partners (p = 0.02) thought the penis appearance improved after circumcision. The authors of the study concluded that the satisfaction rate was a 'poor outcome,' given the pre-procedure penile disease state and recommended discussing with prospective patients the results of this study during the informed consent process.[1]
Krieger et al. reported that in a controlled trial of circumcision to reduce HIV incidence in Kisumu, Kenya, in which 1,391 men elected to be circumcised, more than 99% were "satisfied" with their circumcisions.[26]
Kigozi et al. reported finding "no trend in satisfaction among circumcised men". The authors concluded that "[a]dult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men".[27]
Shen et al. reported that adult circumcision appeared to result in improved satisfaction in 34 cases (of 95 adults being circumcised), the association was statistically significant.[16]
Senkul et al. reported that they did not find a statistically significant difference in BMSFI satisfaction scores in their study of 42 adult circumcision patients.[20]
Collins et al. reported on a study of 15 adult circumcision patients. No statistically significant difference in BMSFI scores was observed.[21]
Fink et al. reported improved satisfaction (p=0.04). Half of the circumcised men reported benefits, while 38% reported harm. "Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised." Fink attributes the improved satisfaction to the respondee's aesthetic considerations and to a resolution of previous painful conditions.[2]
Cortés-González et al. found no statistically significant differences in terms of overall sexual satisfaction (p=0.15), pain during intercourse (p=0.23), or enjoyment of intercourse (p=0.32).[17]
Female preferences and response
O'Hara and O'Hara argue that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and helping her achieve orgasm more quickly and more often. Without the foreskin's gliding action, they suggest, it can be more difficult for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse.[28] A study by psychologists Bensley & Boyle (2003) reported that vaginal dryness can be a problem when the male partner is circumcised.[29] Boyle & Bensley (2001) reported that the lack of a foreskin in the male partner produces symptoms similar to those of female arousal disorder. [Verification needed: 2008-10] The authors hypothesized that the gliding action possibly involved intercourse with an uncircumcised partner might help prevent the loss of vaginal lubrication. [Verification needed: 2008-10] They stated that the respondents were self-selected, and that larger sample sizes are needed.[14]
Cortés-González et al. studied 19 female partners of men scheduled for circumcision. They reported a significant reduction in vaginal lubrication following circumcision, from 78% to 63%, but found no statistically significant differences in "general sexual satisfaction, pain during vaginal penetration, desire, [or] vaginal orgasm".[30]
Kigozi et al. reported on a prospective study of 455 female partners of men, in Rakai Uganda, circumcised as part of a randomised trial. 39.8% reported improved sexual satisfaction following circumcision, 57.3% reported no change, and 2.9% reported reduced sexual satisfaction after their partners were circumcised.[31]
Williamson et al. (1988) studied randomly selected young mothers in Iowa, where most men are circumcised, and found that 76% would prefer a circumcised penis for achieving sexual arousal through viewing it.[32] Wildman and Wildman (1976) surveyed 55 young women in Georgia, US, reporting that 47 (89%) of respondents preferred the circumcised penis (the remainder preferred the uncircumcised penis).[33] Bailey et al. report that there is a preference by women for circumcised men, mentioning that the circumcised penis enters a woman more easily and is less likely to cause injury to the vagina.[34] [Verification needed: 2008-10]
Summary of research findings (Wikipedia table)
| Study | Design | Peer reviewed | Sample size | Finding | Significant¹ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual drive | ||||||
| Collins (2002)[21] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 15 | No difference found | No; p > 0.68 | |
| Senkul (2004)[20] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 42 | No difference found | No; p = 0.32 | |
| Kim and Pang (2006)[22] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 373 | No difference found | Not stated | |
| Senol (2008)[35] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 43 | No difference found | No; p = 0.11 | |
| Erectile function | ||||||
| Fink (2002)[2] | Cross-sectional; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 40 | Worse after circumcision | Yes; p = 0.01 | |
| Collins (2002)[21] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 15 | No difference found | No; p > 0.96 | |
| Senkul (2004)[20] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 42 | No difference found | No; p = 0.89 | |
| Masood (2005)[1] | Not stated; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 88 | No difference found | No; p = 0.40 | |
| Shen (2004)[16] | Not stated; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 95 | Worse after circumcision | Yes; p = 0.001 | |
| Laumann (1997)[19] | National probability study | Yes | 1410 | Better in circumcised males | Yes; p < 0.10 | |
| Richters (2006)[18] | Telephone survey | Yes | 10,173 | Better in circumcised males | Yes; p=0.022 | |
| Kim and Pang (2006)[22] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 373 | No difference found | Not stated | |
| Senol (2008)[35] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 43 | No difference found | No; p = 0.23 | |
| Ejaculation | ||||||
| Collins (2002)[21] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 15 | No difference found | No; p > 0.48 | |
| Senkul (2004)[20] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 42 | No difference found in BMSFI (Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory) Greater time to ejaculate after circumcision |
No; p = 0.85 Yes; p = 0.02 | |
| Shen (2004)[16] | Not stated; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 95 | Greater time to ejaculate after circumcision | Yes; p=0.04 | |
| Laumann (1997)[19] | National probability study | Yes | 1410 | Circumcised men less likely to ejaculate prematurely | Yes; p < 0.10 | |
| Waldinger (2005)[23] | Multinational, stopwatch assessment | Yes | 500 | No difference found | No | |
| Richters (2006)[18] | Telephone survey | Yes | 10,173 | Circumcised men more likely to ejaculate prematurely | No; p = 0.11 | |
| Senol (2008)[35] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 43 | No difference found in BMSFI Greater time to ejaculate after circumcision |
No; p = 0.48 Yes; p = 0.001 | |
| Penile sensation | ||||||
| Fink (2002)[2] | Cross-sectional, adult circumcision patients | Yes | 40 | Worse after circumcision | No; p = 0.08 | |
| Masood (2005)[1] | Not stated; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 88 | Better after circumcision in 38%, worse in 18% | Yes; p = 0.01 | |
| Denniston (2004), cited by Denniston (2004)[36] | Not stated; survey of males circumcised in adulthood | No | 38 | Better after circumcision in 34%, worse in 58% | Not stated | |
| Masters (1966)[3] | Neurologic testing; subjects matched for age | No | 70 (35 c, 35 uc)² |
No difference found | Not stated | |
| Bleustein (2003)[37] | Quantitative somatosensory testing | No | 79 (36 c, 43 uc)² |
No difference found when controlled for other variables | No; p = 0.08 | |
| Bleustein (2005)[38] | Quantitative somatosensory testing | Yes | 125 (63 c, 62 uc)² |
No difference found when controlled for other variables | No | |
| Richters (2006)[18] | Telephone survey | Yes | 10,163 | Better in circumcised males | No; p = 0.192 | |
| Yang (2008)[39] | Used biological vibration measurement instrument to determine sensitivity | Yes | 169 (73 uc, 96 c) | Worse after circumcision | Yes; p < 0.05 | |
| Payne (2007)[40] | Sensory testing to determine sensitivity to touch and pain | Yes | 40 (20 uc, 20 c) | No difference found | No | |
| Overall satisfaction | ||||||
| Fink (2002)[2] | Cross-sectional; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 40 | Better after circumcision | Yes; p=0.04 | |
| Collins (2002)[21] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 15 | No difference found | No; p > 0.72 | |
| Senkul (2004)[20] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 42 | No difference found | No; p=0.46 | |
| Masood (2005)[1] | Not stated; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 88 | "Sixty-one percent were satisfied with the circumcision (p = 0.04) ... Fourteen patients (17%) were not satisfied with the circumcision, but only one patient in this group had any obvious post-operative complications (bleeding)." | Not stated | |
| Shen (2004)[16] | Not stated; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 95 | Improved satisfaction in 34 cases | Yes; p = 0.04 | |
| Kim and Pang (2006)[22] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 373 | Better after circumcision in 6%, worse in 20% | Yes; p < 0.05 | |
| Kigozi (2007)[27] | Randomised trial; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 4456 | "no trend in satisfaction among circumcised men" | No; p = 0.8 | |
| Senol (2008)[35] | Prospective; adult circumcision patients | Yes | 43 | No difference found | No; p = 0.07 | |
Notes
- If stated, author's analysis is used. Otherwise, significance is considered to be p <= 0.05.
- c = circumcised; uc = uncircumcised.
See also
External links
(30 July 2013). Foreskin Sexual Function/Circumcision Sexual Dysfunction
, Foreskin Sexual Function/Circumcision Sexual Dysfunction, circumcision Information Reference Library. Retrieved 28 September 2019.
- Sexual impact of circumcision. Doctors Opposing Circumcision, 2018.
References
- ↑ a b c d e f g
Masood, S., Patel, H.R., Himpson, R.C., Palmer, J.H., Mufti, G.R., Sheriff, M.K.. Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men correctly?. Urol Internationalalis. 2005; 75(1): 62-66. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h Fink, K.S., Carson, C.C., DeVillis, R.F.. Adult circumcision outcomes study: effect on erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and satisfaction. Journal of Urology. May 2002; 167(5): 2113-2116. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ a b
Masters, W.H., Johnson, V.E. (1966): Human Sexual Response. Toronto; New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-20429-7.
- ↑ a b c Sorrells, Morris L., Snyder, James L., Reiss, Mark D., Eden, Christopher, Milos, Marilyn F., Wilcox, Norma, Van Howe. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU International. March 2007; 99(4): 864-869. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
- ↑ Yang, C.C., Bradley, W.E.. Neuroanatomy of the penile portion of the human dorsal nerve of the penis. British Journal Urology. July 1998; 82(1): 109-113. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ Szabo, Robert, Short, Roger V.. How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?. BMJ. June 2000; 320(7249): 1592-1594. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 9 July 2006.
- ↑ Winkelmann, R.K.. The cutaneous innervation of human newborn prepuce. Journal of investigative dermatology. January 1956; 26(1): 53-67. PMID.
- ↑ Winkelmann, R.K.. The erogenous zones: their nerve supply and significance. Proceedings of the staff meetings of the mayo clinic. January 1959; 34(2): 39-47. PMID.
- ↑ Taylor, J.R., Lockwood, A.P., Taylor, A.J.. The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. British journal of urology. February 1996; 77(2): 291-295. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ Taylor, J.R., Cold, C.J.. The prepuce. British journal of urology. February 1999; 83(Supplement 1): 34-44.
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedtaylor1996 - ↑ Taylor, J.R.. Back and forth (letter). Pediatric news. October 2000; 34(10): 50.
- ↑ Lakshmanan, S., Parkash, S.. Human prepuce: some aspects of structure and function. Indian journal of surgery. 1980; 44: 134-137.
- ↑ a b Boyle, Gregory J., Bensley, Gillian A.. Adverse Sexual and Psychological Effects of Male Infant Circumcision. Psychological reports. July 2001; 88(3, Part 2): 1105-1106. PMID.
- ↑ Schober, J.M., Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F., Dolezal, C.. Self-ratings of genital anatomy, sexual sensitivity and function in men using the 'Self-Assessment of Genital Anatomy and Sexual Function, Male' questionnaire. BJU Int.. September 2009; 103(8): 1096-103. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ a b c d e Shen, Z., Chen, S., Zhu, C., Wan, Q., Chen, Z.. Erectile function evaluation after adult circumcision. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. January 2004; 10(1): 18-19. PMID.
- ↑ a b c d Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedcortes2009 - ↑ a b c d e Richters, J., Patel, H.R., Himpson, R.C., Palmer, J.H., Mufti, G.R., Sheriff, M.K.. Circumcision in Australia: prevalence and effects on sexual health. International Journal of Sexually Transmissible Diseases and AIDS. 2006; 17(8): 547-554. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ a b c d e Laumann, E.O., Masi, C.M., Zuckerman, E.W.. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. [[Journal|JAMA]]. 1997; 277(13): 1052-1057. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h Senkul, T., Iseri, C., Sen, B., Karademir, K., Saracoglu, F., Erden, D.. Circumcision in Adults: Effect on Sexual Function. Urology. 2004; 63(1): 155-158. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h Collins, S., Upshaw, J., Rutchik, S., Ohannessian, C., Ortenberg, J., Albertsen, P.. Effects of circumcision on male sexual function: debunking a myth?. Journal of Urology. 2002; 167(5): 2111-2112. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i DaiSik, Kim, Pang, Myung-Geol. The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. BJU International. March 2007; 99(3): 619-622. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ a b Waldinger, M.D., Quinn, P., Dilleen, M., Mundayat, R., Schweitzer, D.H., Boolell, M.. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2005; 2(4): 492-497. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedsorrells - ↑ Study Is Adding to Doubts About Circumcision By SUSAN GILBERT Published: April 2, 1997. New York Times. [1]
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedkrieger2008 - ↑ a b Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedkigozi2007 - ↑ O'Hara, K., O'Hara, J.. The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU International. January 1999; 83(Supplement 1): 79-84. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ Bensley, Gillian A., Boyle, Gregory J.. Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm. New Zealand medical journal. September 2003; 116(1181): 595-596. PMID.
- ↑ Cortés-González, J.R., Arratia-Maqueo, J.A., Gómez-Guerra, L.S.. [Does circumcision has an effect on female's perception of sexual satisfaction?]. Rev. Invest. Clin.. 2008; 60(3): 227-230. PMID.
- ↑ Kigozi, G., Lukabwe, I., Kagaayi, J., et al. Sexual satisfaction of women partners of circumcised men in a randomized trial of male circumcision in Rakai, Uganda. BJU Int. June 2009; 104(11): 1698-1701. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ Williamson ML, Williamson PS. Women's Preferences for Penile Circumcision in Sexual Partners. J Sex Educ Ther 1988; 14: 8
- ↑ Wildman, R.W., Wildman, R.W., Brown, A., Trice, C.. Note on males' and females' preferences for opposite-sex body parts, bust sizes, and bust-revealing clothing. Psychological Reports. 1976; 38(2): 485-486. PMID.
- ↑ AIDS Care. 2002 Feb;14(1):27-40. The acceptability of male circumcision to reduce HIV infections in Nyanza Province, Kenya. Bailey RC, Muga R, Poulussen R, Abicht H. [2]
- ↑ a b c d Senol, M.G., Sen, B., Karademir, K., Sen, H., Saraçoğlu, M.. The effect of male circumcision on pudendal evoked potentials and sexual satisfaction. Acta Neurol Belg. September 2008; 108(3): 90-93. PMID.
- ↑ Denniston, G.C., Hill, G.. Circumcision in adults: effect on sexual function. Urology. 2006; 64(6): 1267. PMID. DOI.
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedbleustein2003 - ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedbleustein2005 - ↑ Yang, D.M., Lin, H., Zhang, B., Guo, W.. (Nanjing Jun Qu Nanjing Zong Yi Yuan zhu ban, Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue Za Zhi Bian Ji Bu bian ji chu ban) [Circumcision affects glans penis vibration perception threshold]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue (China). April 2008; 14(4): 328-330. PMID. Retrieved 16 April 2008.
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedpayne2007
