Changes

  The '''sexual effects of circumcision''' are the subject of some debatenow well documented. 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. Cold & Taylor (1999) stated:<blockquote>The [[prepuce]] is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function.<ref name="cold-taylor1999">{{ColdCJ TaylorJR 1999}}</ref></blockquote>

The human [[foreskin ]] was once thought to have little or no sexual function. Sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey (1948) placed no importance on the presence or absence of the foreskin.<ref name="kinsey1948">{{REFbook

|first2init2=AC

Masters & Johnson (1966) in their book, ''Human Sexual Response'', <ref name="masters-johnson1966" /> showed little interest or understanding of the human foreskin. One illustration, labelled normal pe-nis [[penis]] anatomy, showed a drawing of a [[penis ]] without a [[foreskin]]. A listing of penile pathology in their book included “uncircumcised penis”“[[uncircumcised]] [[penis]]”! Their work was done in St. Louis, located in the highly [[circumcised ]] Midwest, and almost all of their subjects were [[circumcised]]. There Their testing was quite limited. With regard to the [[foreskin]], they said only:

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]].</blockquote> With regard to the [[glans penis]], Masters & Johnson stated:<blockquote>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.<ref name="masters-johnson1966">{{REFbook

 Therefore, it appears that Masters & Johnson (1966) performed little or no testing on the [[foreskin| foreskins ]] of their few [[intact ]] subjects and provided no useful information.<ref name="sorrells2007">{{REFjournal |last=Sorrellsetal 2007}}</ref> |first=Morris L. |author-link=Morris L. Sorrells |first2=James LThe inaccurate reports of Kinsey (1948) and Masters & Johnson (1966) have long distorted and minimized the sexual effects of [[circumcision]] and the loss of the [[foreskin]] in the American view. |last2=Snyder |first3=Mark D. |last3=Reiss |first4=Christopher |last4=Eden |first5=Marilyn F. |last5=Milos |author5-link=Marilyn Fayre Milos |first6=Norma |last6=Wilcox |first7=Robert S. |last8=Van Howe |author8-link=Robert Van Howe |title=Fine-touch pressure thresholds in The dawning of the adult penis |journallight=BJU International |volume=99 |issue=4 |pages=864-869 |url=http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118508429/PDFSTART |quote= |pubmedID=17378847 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x |date=2007-03 |accessdate=2019-12-16}}</ref>

There were, however, some other little noticed papers overlooked by Masters & Johnson, that told a different story. Winkleman Winklemann (1956) investigated the innervation of the [[prepuce ]] and found it to be highly innervated.<ref name="winkleman1956">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=R.K.RK

|journal=Journal of investigative dermatologyInvestigative Dermatology

}}</ref> Winkleman (1959) later identified the [[prepuce ]] as "specific erogenous tissue".<ref name="winkleman1959">{{REFjournal |last=Winkelmann |first=R.K. |title=The erogenous zones: their nerve supply and significance |journal=Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=39-47 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/winkelmann/ |quote= |pubmedID=13645790 |pubmedCID= |DOI= |date=WinkelmannRK 1959-01 |accessdate=2019-12-21}}</ref>

[[William Keith LCampbell Morgan| William Keith C. Morgan]], M.D. {{MD}} (1965), a Canadian physician practicing in the [[United States]], had a comment critical of the then American practice of non-therapeutic (routine) [[circumcision ]] of infants. With regard to sexual function, he identified the ease of penetration and said:

Now let us consider whether the operation is in any way harmful or contraindicated. The function of the prepuce is to protect the glans, the latter being almost insensitive to most ordinary tactile and thermal stimuli. It has, however, specific receptors for other pleasurable sensations. Removal of the prepuce exposes the [[glans ]] to foreign stimuli which dull these special receptors. During the act of coitus the [[uncircumcised ]] phallus penetrates smoothly and without friction, the prepuce gradually retracting as the organ advances. In contrast, when the [[circumcised ]] organ is introduced during coitus, friction develops between the [[glans ]] and vaginal [[mucosa]]. Penetration in the [[circumcised ]] man has been compared to thrusting the foot into a sock held open at the top, while, on the other hand, in the intact counterpart it has been likened to slipping the foot into a sock that has been previously rolled up.<ref name="morgan1965">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=W.K.C.WKC |author-link=William Keith Campbell Morgan

Falliers (1970) commented in a critical letter to the ''Journal of the American Mmedical Association'':<blockquote>The sensory pleasure induced by tactile stimulation of the [[foreskin]] is almost totally lost after its surgical removal. The surface of the exposed [[glans]], as we know, has no capacity to receive and transmit any fine sensations of touch, heat, etc. Consequently, the fundamental biological sexual act becomes, for the [[circumcised]] male, simply a satisfaction of an urge and not the refined sensory experience that it was meant to be.<ref name= "falliers1970">{{REFjournal |last=Falliers |INIT=CJ |author-link= |etal=no |title=Circumcision (letter) |journal=JAMA |location= |date=1970-12-21 |volume=214 |issue=12 |pages=2194 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/falliers1/ |quote= |pubmedID= |pubmedCID= |DOI= |accessdate=2019-12-21}}</ref></blockquote> And so began the investigation of the sexual effects of male [[circumcision]].<!--Only medical trade associations, such as the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] (AAP), a [[medical trade association]] 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

}}</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&mdash;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= | url=http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/ | title=Male circumcision: pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae | last=Boyle, Gregory J.;Svoboda, J. Steven; Goldman, Ronald; Fernandez, Ephrem | first= | publisher=Bond University Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences | website=Circumcision Reference Library | date=BoyleGJ GoldmanR SvobodaJS FernandezE 2002-05-01 | accessdate=2019-12-02}}</ref>-->

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.'' (2005) found that 38% reported improved penile sensation (p=0.01), 18% reported worse penile sensation, while the remainder (44%) reported no change.<ref name= "masood2005">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=S.

|first2init2=H.R.HR

|first3init3=R.C.RC

|first4init4=J.H.JH

|first5init5=G.R.GR

|first6init6=M.K.

}}</ref> In a survey of men circumcised as adults for medical (93%) or elective (7%) reasons, Fink ''et al.'' (2002) found an association between [[adult circumcision ]] and decreased penile sensitivity that "bordered on statistical significance" (p=0.08).<ref name="fink2002">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=K.S. |first2=C.C.KS

|first3init2=R.F.CC

|journal=Journal of UrologyJ Urol

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."<ref name="masters-johnson1966"/> Sorrells ''et al.'' criticised this early study for being poorly documented and not subject to peer review.<ref name="sorrells2007" /> <!--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 | quote= | url=http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/circumcision.html | title=Circumcision: Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision | last= | first= | publisher=[[American Academy of Family Physicians]] | website= | date=2007 | accessdate=2007-01-30}}</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

|firstinit=C.C.CC

|first2init2=W.E.WE

An examination of 7 [[circumcised ]] and 6 uncircumcised [[intact]] males found no difference in [[keratinization]] of the [[glans penis]].<ref name="Szabo">{{REFjournal

|last2init2=ShortRV

Sorrells ''et al.'' (2007) measured the fine-touch pressure thresholds of 91 [[circumcised ]] and 68 [[uncircumcised]], adult male volunteers, They reported "the [[theglans]] 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"/> <

<=== [[Foreskin sensitivity ]] ===

Some recent researchers have asserted assert that the [[foreskin]] may be is sexually responsivesensitive highly-innervated erogenous tissue.<ref name="winkleman1956" /><ref name="winkleman1959" /> <ref name="taylor1996">{{TaylorJR LockwoodAP TaylorAJ 1996}}</ref><ref name="cold-taylor1999" /> The [[foreskin]] has a large population of [[Meissner's corpuscles]].<ref name="garcía-mesa2021">{{REFjournal |last=TaylorGarcía-Mesa |first=J.R.Yolanda |init= |author-link=John R. Taylor |last2=García-Piqueras |first2=A.P.Jorge |last2init2=Lockwood |first3author2-link=A.J. |last3=TaylorCobo |titlefirst3=Ramón |init3=The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision |journalauthor3-link=British journal of urology |volumelast4=77Martín-Cruces |issuefirst4=2José |pagesinit4=291 |author4-295link= |urllast5=http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/Suazo |quotefirst5=Iván |pubmedIDinit5=8800902 |pubmedCIDauthor5-link= |DOIlast6=10.1046/j.1464García-410X.1996.85023.xSuárez |first6=Olivia |dateinit6=1996 |author6-02link= |last7=Feito |first7=Jorge |init7= |accessdateauthor7-link=}}</ref><ref name |last8="taylorcold1999">{{REFjournal |lastfirst8=TaylorVega |firstinit8=J.RJosé A. |authorauthor8-link=John R. Taylor |first2etal=C.J.no |last2title=ColdSensory innervation of the human male prepuce: Meissner's corpuscles predominate |trans-title=The prepuce |language= |journal=British journal Journal of urologyAnatomy |location= |date=2021-10 |volume=83239 |issue=Supplement 14 |article= |page= |pages=34892-44902 |url=httphttps://www3.interscienceonlinelibrary.wiley.com/cgi-bindoi/fulltextfull/11909141810.1111/PDFSTART |quote=joa.13481 |pubmedID=34120333 |pubmedCID=8450466 |DOI=10.1111/joa.13481 |dateaccessdate=19992021-02 |accessdate=11-15}}</ref> Opponents Proponents of circumcision [[genital integrity]] 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|ridged band]] at the end of the [[foreskin]].<ref name="taylor1996" /> Taylor (1996) observed that the [[ridged band ]] had more [[Meissner's corpusclecorpuscles]]s — 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 [[shaft skin|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.<ref name="taylor2000">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=J.R.JR

|firstinit=S. |first2=S.

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&mdash;many of which are lost to circumcision."<ref name="boyle2002">{{REFjournal

|last2init2=BensleyGA

[[Morris L. Sorrells| 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" />

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.<refname= "schober2008">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=J.M.JM

|first2init2=H.F.HF

|first3init3=C.

|journal=BJU Int.

Reports detailing the effect of [[circumcision ]] on [[erectile dysfunction]] have been mixed. Studies have variously found a statistically significant increase,<ref name=fink2002/><ref name="shen2004">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=Z.

|first2init2=S.

|first3init3=C.

|first4init4=Q.

|first5init5=Z.

}}</ref> or decrease,<ref name="cortes2009"/><ref name= "richters2006">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=J.

|first2init2=H.R.HR

|first3init3=R.C.RC

|first4init4=J.H.JH

|first5init5=G.R.GR

|first6init6=M.K.MK

}}</ref> <ref name="Laumann1997"/> in erectile dysfunction among [[circumcised ]] men, while other studies have shown little to no effect.<ref name="masood2005"/<ref name="senkul2004"/><ref name="Collins2002">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=S.

|first2init2=J.

|first3init3=S.

|first4init4=C.

|first5init5=J.

|first6init6=P.

|accessdate=2020-02-18}}</ref><ref name="kimpang2006kimpang2007"/>

Fink ''et al.''(2002), in an American study of 123 men, found that medically necessitated circumcision resulted in worsened erectile function (p=0.01).<ref name=fink2002/>

Kim & Pang (2007) reported no significant difference in [[erection]].<ref name="kimpang2006kimpang2007">{{REFjournal |last=DaiSik |first=Kim |first2=Myung-Geol |last2=Pang |title=The effect of male circumcision on sexuality |journal=BJU International |volume=99 |issue=3 |pages=619-622 |url=http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118508378/PDFSTART |quote= |pubmedID=17155977 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x |date=KimDS PangMG 2007-03 |accessdate=2019-12-19}}</ref> 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"/>

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.<ref name="Waldinger2005">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=M.D.MD

|first2init2=P.

|first3init3=M.

|first4init4=R.

|first5init5=D.H.DH

|first6init6=M.

}}</ref> Commenting on the study, Sorrells ''et al.'' (2007) said "Turkish men, the vast majority of whom are [[circumcised]], had the shortest IELT [Intravaginal ejaculation latency time]."<ref name= "sorrells2007"/>

Collins ''et al.'' (2002) conducted a prospective study of 15 [[Adolescent and adult circumcision| adult circumcision ]] patients, using the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BMSFI). The authors did not find a statistically significant effect on [[ejaculation ]] scores.<ref name="Collins2002"/>

In a study of 42 Turkish men [[circumcised ]] for religious reasons, Senkul ''et al.'' (2004) 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.<ref name="senkul2004">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=T. |first2=C.

|first3init2=B.C

|first4init3=K.B

|first5init4=F.K

|first6init5=D.F

In a telephone survey of 10,173 Australian men, 22% of uncircumcised [[intact]] 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.<ref name="richters2006"/>

In a study of 255 [[circumcised ]] men and 118 uncircumcised [[intact]] men, Kim and & Pang (2006) reported no statistically significant difference in [[ejaculation ]] or ejaculation latency time between [[circumcised ]] and uncircumcised [[intact]] participants.<ref name="kimpang2006kimpang2007"/>

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.<ref name="masood2005"/>

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.<ref name="cortes2009"/>

In a study by Korean researchers of 255 men [[circumcised ]] after the age of 20 and 18 who were [[Intact| not circumcised]], Kim and & Pang (2007) reported that masturbatory pleasure decreased in 48% of the respondents and increased in 8%. [[Masturbation|Masturbatory]] difficulty increased in 63% but was easier in 37%. They concluded that there was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure after [[Adolescent and adult circumcision| circumcision]].<ref name="kimpang2006kimpang2007"/>

Laumann ''et al.'' (1997) reported that [[circumcised ]] men in their survey displayed a greater rates of experience of various sexual practices, including oral sex, anal sex, and [[masturbation]].<ref name="Laumann1997">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=E.O. |first2=C.M.EO

|first3init2=E.W.CM

|journal=[[Journal of the American Medical Association|JAMA]]

|date=1997-04-02 |accessdate=2021-08-08}}</ref> 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."<ref>Study Is Adding to Doubts About Circumcision

Fink ''et al.'' (2002) did not find a change in sexual activity with adult circumcision (p=0.22).<ref name="fink2002"/>

Several studies have investigated the effect of [[circumcision ]] on sexual drive. Studies that did not find a statistically significant difference include Kim and & Pang,<ref name="kimpang2006kimpang2007"/> Collins ''et al.'',<ref name="Collins2002"/> and Senkul ''et al.'',<ref name="senkul2004"/> and Cortés-González ''et al.''.<ref name="cortes2009"/>

Kim & Pang (2007) 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."<ref name="kimpang2006kimpang2007"/>

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.<ref name=masood2005/>

Shen ''et al.'' reported that [[Adolescent and adult circumcision | adult circumcision]] appeared to result in improved satisfaction in 34 cases (of 95 adults being [[circumcised]]), the association was statistically significant.<ref name="shen2004"/>

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.<ref name="senkul2004"/>

Collins ''et al.'' reported on a study of 15 [[adult circumcision ]] patients. No statistically significant difference in BMSFI scores was observed.<ref name="Collins2002"/>

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.<ref name="fink2002"/>

Cortés-González ''Uberoi et al.'' found no statistically significant differences in terms of overall sexual satisfaction (p=02022) surveyed reports from [[circumcised]] men on social media.15)The authors reported:<blockquote>The qualitative review of social media posts clearly demonstrates that some men are experiencing a complex constellation of negative psychological, pain during intercourse (p=0.23)physical, or enjoyment of intercourse (p=0.32)and sexual associations that lead to significant emotional distress directed both internally and externally.<ref name="cortes2009uberoi2022">{{REFjournal |last=Uberoi |first= |init=M |author-link= |last2=Abdulcadir |first2= |init2=J |author2-link= |last3=Ohi |first3= |init3=DA |author3-link= |last4=Santiago |first4= |init4=JE |author4-link= |last5= |first5= |init5= |author5-link= |last6= |first6= |init6= |author6-link= |last7= |first7= |init7= |author7-link= |last8= |first8= |init8= |author8-link= |last9= |first9= |init9= |author9-link= |etal=yes |title=Potentially under-recognized late-stage physical and psychosexual complications of non-therapeutic neonatal penile circumcision: a qualitative and quantitative analysis of self-reports from an online community forum |trans-title= |language= |journal=Int J Impot Res |location= |date=2022-10-23 |volume= |issue= |article= |page= |pages= |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-022-00619-8 |archived= |quote= |pubmedID=36274189 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1038/s41443-022-00619-8 |accessdate=2023-02-19}}</ref></blockquote>

 Wildman & Wildman (1976) surveyed 55 young women in Georgia, US, reporting that 47 (89%) of respondents preferred the [[circumcised]] [[penis]] (the remainder preferred the [[intact]] penis).<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Wildman |init=RW |last2=Wildman |init2=RW 2nd |last3=Brown |init3=A |last4=Trice |init4=C |title=Note on males' and females' preferences for opposite-sex body parts, bust sizes, and bust-revealing clothing |journal=Psychological Reports |volume=38 |issue=2 |pages=485-486 |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1265180/ |quote= |pubmedID=1265180 |pubmedCID= |DOI= |date=1976 |accessdate=}}</ref> (There were very few [[intact]] males in Georgia in 1976 because of the prevalence of non-therapeutic infant [[circumcision]] so it is quite likely that few of the subjects tested had any experience with an [[intact]] male.) 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.<ref>[http://www.circs.org/library/williamson/index.html Williamson ML, Williamson PS. Women's Preferences for Penile Circumcision in Sexual Partners.] J Sex Educ Ther 1988; 14: 8</ref> There were very few [[intact]] males in Iowa in 1988 because of the prevalence of non-therapeutic infant circumcision so it is quite likely that few of the subjects tested had any experience with an intact male.)  O'Hara and & O'Hara (1999) argue that [[foreskin ]] is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal [[Vagina| vagina 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.<ref name= "OHara1999">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=K. |first2=J.

|accessdate=2020-04-27}}</ref> A study by psychologists  Boyle & Bensley & Boyle (2003) reported that vaginal dryness can be the lack of a problem when [[foreskin]] in the male partner is circumcisedproduces symptoms similar to those of [[Vagina#Female_Sexual_Arousal_Disorder| female arousal disorder]].<refname="bensley2003">{{REFjournal

|last2init2=GJ |author2-link=Gregory J. Boyle

|journal=New Zealand medical journalMedical Journal

|url=http://www.nzmacirp.org.nz/journallibrary/116-1181sex_function/595bensley1/

|date=2003-09-12 |accessdate=2020-04-27}}</ref> Boyle & Bensley (2001) reported that the lack of a foreskin in the male partner produces symptoms similar to those of female arousal disorder.{{Verify source|date=2008-10}} The authors hypothesized that the [[gliding action ]] possibly involved intercourse with an uncircumcised [[intact]] partner might help prevent the loss of vaginal lubrication.{{Verify source|date<ref name=2008-10}} "bensley2003" /> They stated that the respondents were self-selected, and that larger sample sizes are needed.<ref name="boyle2002bensley2003" />

Cortés-González ''et al.'' studied 19 female partners of men scheduled for circumcision. They A study by psychologists Bensley & Boyle (2003) reported that vaginal dryness can be 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, problem when the male partner is [[orcircumcised]] vaginal orgasm".<ref>{{REFjournal |lastname=Cortés-González |first=J.R. |last2=Arratia-Maqueo |first2=J.A. |last3=Gómez-Guerra |first3=L.S. |title=[Does circumcision has an effect on female's perception of sexual satisfaction?] |journal=Rev. Invest. Clin. |volume=60 |issue=3 |pages=227-230 |url= |quote= |pubmedID=18807735 |pubmedCID= |DOI= |date=2008 |accessdate= | language=Spanish; Castilian}}<"bensley2003" /ref>

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.<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Kigozi |first=G. |last2=Lukabwe |first2=I. |last3=Kagaayi |first3=J. |etal=yes |title=Sexual satisfaction Effect of women partners of circumcised men in a randomized trial of male circumcision in Rakai, Uganda |journal=BJU Int |volume=104 |issue=11 |pages=1698-1701 |url= |quote= |pubmedID=19522862 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08683.x |dateon heterosexual relations=2009-06 |accessdate=}}</ref>

Williamson ''et al.'' (1988) studied randomly selected young mothers in IowaAs previously reported, where most men are circumcised, and found that 76% would prefer a circumcised penis the [[foreskin]] reduces the force required for achieving sexual arousal through viewing it.<ref>[http://www.circs.org/library/williamson/index.html Williamson ML, Williamson PS. Womenpenetration of the female partner's Preferences for Penile Circumcision in Sexual Partners.[[vagina]] J Sex Educ Ther 1988; 14: 8</ref> Wildman and Wildman (1976) surveyed 55 young women in Georgia, USby as much as ninety percent, reporting that 47 (89%) of respondents preferred the circumcised penis (the remainder preferred the uncircumcised penis).<refname="taves2002">{{REFjournal |last=WildmanTaves |firstinit=R.W.D |last2author-link=Wildman |first2title=R.W.The intromission function of the foreskin |last3=Brown |first3=A. |last4journal=TriceMed Hypotheses |first4=C. |title=Note on males' and females' preferences for opposite-sex body parts, bust sizes, and bust-revealing clothing |journaldate=Psychological Reports2002 |volume=3859

|pages=485-486180 |url=http://circswww.orgsciencedirect.com/libraryscience/wildmanarticle/index.htmlpii/S0306987702002505

|pubmedID=126518012208206

|DOI= |date=197610.1016/s0306-9877(02)00250-5 |accessdate=2020-01-04}}</ref> Bailey ''et al''. report that there is a preference by women for circumcised men, mentioning that so the lack of the circumcised penis enters a woman [[foreskin]] makes penetration more easily and is less likely to cause injury to the vagina.<ref>''AIDS Care''. 2002 Feb;14(1):27-40difficult. The acceptability of male circumcision to reduce HIV infections in Nyanza Province, Kenya. Bailey RC, Muga R, Poulussen R, Abicht H. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11798403&dopt=Abstract[gliding action]]</ref>{{Verify source|date=2008-10}}<!--== Summary of research findings (Wikipedia table) == {| class="wikitable"! scope="col" | Study! scope="col" | Design! scope="col" | Peer reviewed! scope="col" | Sample size! scope="col" | Finding! scope="col" | Significant¹|-| colspan="7" style="bgcolor: #f2f2f2; font-weight: bold;" | Sexual drive|-! scope="row" | Collins (2002)<ref name="Collins2002"/>| Prospective; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 15 || No difference found || No; p > 0.68|-! scope="row" | Senkul (2004)<ref name="senkul2004"/>| Prospective; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 42 || No difference found || No; p = 0.32|-! scope="row" | Kim the foreskin reduces friction and Pang (2006)abrasion, while conserving vaginal lubrication,<ref name="kimpang2006"/>| Prospective; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 373 || No difference found || Not stated|warren-! scope="row" | Senol (2008)<ref name="senol2008bigelow1994">{{REFjournal |last=SenolWarren |first=M.G.John |last2init=SenJ |first2author-link=B.John Warren |last3last2=KarademirBigelow |first3first2=K.Jim |last4init2=SenJ |first4author2-link=H.Jim Bigelow |last5title=SaraçoğluThe case against circumcision |first5journal=M.Brit J Sex Med |titledate=The effect of male circumcision on pudendal evoked potentials and sexual satisfaction |journal=Acta Neurol Belg1994-09 |volume=108 |issue=3 |pages=90-93 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/warren2/

|pubmedID=19115671

|date=2008-09 |accessdate=}}</ref>| Prospective; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 43 || No difference found || No; p = 0.11|2020-| colspan="7" style="bgcolor: #f2f2f2; font-weight: bold;" | Erectile function|-! scope="row" | Fink (2002)<ref name="fink2002"/>| Cross-sectional; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 40 || Worse after circumcision || Yes; p = 0.01|-04! scope="row" | Collins (2002)<ref name="Collins2002"/>| Prospective; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 15 || No difference found || No; p > 0.96|-! scope="row" | Senkul (2004)}}<ref name="senkul2004"/>| Prospective; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 42 || No difference found || No; p = 0.89|-! scope="row" | Masood (2005)<ref name= "masood2005"/>| Not stated; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 88 || No difference found || No; p = 0.40|-! scope="row" | Shen (2004)<ref name="shen2004"/>| Not stated; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 95 || Worse after circumcision || Yes; p = 0.001|-! scope="row" | Laumann (1997)<ref name="Laumann1997"/>| National probability study| Yes || 1410 || Better so the lack of the foreskin in the circumcised males || Yes; p < 0partner renders the female experience less satisfactory.10|-! scope="row" | Richters In a first of its kind, O'Hara & O'Hara (20061999)<ref name= "richters2006"/>| Telephone carried out a retrospective survey| Yes || 10,173 || Better in of 138 women with experience of both [[intact]] and [[circumcised males || Yes; p=0]] partners.022|-! scope="row" | Kim and Pang (2006)<ref name="kimpang2006"/>| Prospective; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 373 || No difference found || Not stated|-! scope="row" | Senol (2008)<ref name="senol2008"/>| Prospective; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 43 || No difference found || No; p = 0The women overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus was different for the two groups of men.23|-| colspan="7" style="bgcolor: #f2f2f2; font-weight: bold;" | Ejaculation|-! scope="row" | Collins (2002)<ref name="Collins2002"/>| Prospective; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 15 || No difference found || No; p > 0.48|-! scope="row" | Senkul (2004)<ref name="senkul2004"/>| Prospective; adult circumcision patients| Yes| 42 || No difference found in BMSFI (Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory)<br>Greater time to ejaculate after circumcision| No; p = 0.85<br>Yes; p = 0.02|-! scope="row" | Shen (2004)<ref name="shen2004"/>| Not stated; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 95 || Greater time to ejaculate after circumcision || Yes; p=0.04|-! scope="row" | Laumann (1997)<ref name="Laumann1997"/>| National probability study| Yes || 1410 || Circumcised Of the women, 73% reported that [[circumcised]] men less likely tend to ejaculate prematurely || Yes; p < 0.10|-! scope="row" | Waldinger (2005)<ref name="Waldinger2005"/>| Multinationalthrust harder and deeper, stopwatch assessment| Yes || 500 || No difference found || No|-! scope="row" | Richters (2006)<ref name= "richters2006"/>| Telephone survey| Yes || 10using elongated strokes,173 || Circumcised while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more likely gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to ejaculate prematurely || No; p = 0.11|-! scope="row" | Senol (2008)<ref name="senol2008"/>| Prospective; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 43 || No difference found be in BMSFI<br>Greater time contact with the mons pubis and [[clitoris]] more, according to ejaculate after circumcision|| No; p = 071% of the respondents.48<br>Yes; p = 0Women with intact partners had a higher rate of orgasms than women with [[circumcised]] partners.001|-| colspan="7" style="bgcolor: #f2f2f2; font-weightO'Hara & O'Hara concluded: bold;" | Penile sensation|-! scope="row" | Fink (2002)<ref name="fink2002"/blockquote>| Cross-sectionalClearly, adult circumcision patients| Yes || 40 || Worse after circumcision || No; p = 0the anatomically complete [[penis]] offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus.08|-! scope="row" | Masood (2005)<ref name= "masood2005"/>| Not stated; adult circumcision patients| Yes || 88 || Better after circumcision in 38%While this study has some obvious methodological flaws, worse all the differences cannot be attributed to them. It is important that these findings be confirmed by a prospective study of a randomly selected population of women with experience with both types of men. It would be useful to examine the role of the [[foreskin]] in 18% || Yes; p = 0other sexual activities.01|-! scope="row" | Denniston (2004)Because these findings are of interest, cited by Denniston (2004)the negative effect of [[circumcision]] on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing '[[informed consent]]' before circumcision.<ref name= "Dennniston2004ohara1998">{{REFjournal |last=DennistonO'Hara |firstinit=G.C.K |author-link=George C. Denniston |last2=HillO'Hara |first2init2=G.J |author2-link=George Hill |etal=no |title=Circumcision in adults: The effect of male circumcision on the sexual functionenjoyment of the female partner |journal=UrologyBJU Int |location= |date=1999 |volume=6483 Suppl 1 |issue=6 |pagepages=126779-84 |url=httphttps://wwwonlinelibrary.cirpwiley.orgcom/librarydoi/sex_functionepdf/denniston310.1046/http://wwwj.1464-410x.1999.cirp0830s1079.org/library/sex_function/denniston3/x

|pubmedID=1559622110349418

|DOI=10.10161046/j.urology1464-410x.20041999.030830s1079.059 |date=2006x |accessdate=2019-10-22

| Not stated; survey of males circumcised in adulthood| No || 38 || Better after circumcision in 34%, worse in 58% || Not stated|-! scope="row" | Masters (1966)<ref name="masters1966"/blockquote>| Neurologic testing; subjects matched for age| No || 70<br>Solinis & Yiannaki (35 c, 35 uc2007)² || No difference found || Not stated|-! scope="row" | Bleustein (2003)<ref name="bleustein2003concluded; "[t]here was a decrease in couple’s sexual life after [[circumcision]] indicating that [[adult circumcision]] adversely affects sexual function in many men or/>| Quantitative somatosensory testing| No || 79<br>(36 cand their partners, 43 uc)² || No difference found when controlled for other variables || No; p = 0possibly because of complications of surgery and loss of nerve endings.08|-! scope="row" | Bleustein (2005)<ref name= "bleustein2005"/>| Quantitative somatosensory testing | Yes || 125<br>(63 c, 62 uc)² || No difference found when controlled for other variables || No|solinis-! scope="row" | Richters (2006)<ref name= "richters2006"/>| Telephone survey| Yes || 10,163 || Better in circumcised males || No; p = 0.192|-! scope="row" | Yang (2008)<ref name="yang2008yiannaki2005">{{REFjournal |last=YangSolinis |first=D.M. |author-link= |last2=LinYiannaki |first2=H. |last3author2-link=Zhang |first3etal=B.no |last4title=GuoDoes circumcision improve couple's sex life? |first4trans-title=W. |titlelanguage=[Circumcision affects glans penis vibration perception threshold] |journal=Zhonghua Nan Ke XueJournal of Men's Health and Gender |volumelocation=14 |issuedate=42007-09 |pagesvolume=328-3304 |publisher issue= Nanjing Jun Qu Nanjing Zong Yi Yuan zhu ban, Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue Za Zhi Bian Ji Bu bian ji chu ban3 |location pages= China361 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/solinis2007/

|pubmedID=18481425

|dateaccessdate=20082020-04 |accessdate=200801-04-16

== Notes ==# If stated, author's analysis is usedFrisch et al. Otherwise, significance is considered to be p <= 0.05.# c = circumcised; uc = uncircumcised(2013) surveyed a very large group of men and women in [[Denmark]].They concluded:<!-- commented out due to not being used in the article:blockquote>* Denniston GC, Hill G (2004) [http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/denniston3/ "Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in adults: effect on Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual function]. ''Urology''difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, '''64'''(6);1267dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment."<ref>{{FrischM LindholmM GroenbaekM 2011}}</ref>--</blockquote>

* [[CircumcisionGliding action]]* [[Masturbation]]* [[Penis]]* [[Premature ejaculation]]

|quote=When the penis enters the vagina, the foreskin is pulled back. And on its way out again, the foreskin goes back to cover the penis head. This way the foreskin stimulates both the man and the woman.