Male Circumcision does not affect Sexual Satisfaction
According to a new study, men who are circumcised in adulthood are able to enjoy the same level of sexual satisfaction compared to men who are not.
Researchers at the Bloomberg School of Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore carried out a randomized trial of almost 4,500 Ugandan men and found that as many as 98 percent of them said their levels of sexual satisfaction remained just as enjoyable.
Co-author of the study Ronald Gray says the trial was done because previous studies showed that circumcision, which is now recommended as an efficient way to reduce HIV transmission, came up with problematic and contradictory results.
Gray mentioned they were often highly selective because there were medical indications for surgery and in most studies sample sizes were small and follow-up was short.
Some studies suggest circumcision can cut male HIV infection by up to 50% because specific cells in the foreskin may be potential targets for HIV infection, while the skin under the foreskin may become less sensitive and less likely to bleed, thus reducing the risk of infection following circumcision.
The research involved 4,456 sexually experienced Ugandan men ages 15 to 49, who did not have HIV; 2,210 were randomly chosen to receive circumcision while 2,246 had circumcision delayed for 24 months.
It was found that almost all the circumcised men reported no problems and no pain during intercourse.
The researchers say circumcision does not reduce sexual satisfaction and so there should be no reservations about using this method as a way to combat HIV.
Meanwhile, experts warn that circumcision should not replace condoms in the fight against HIV, as condoms remain the best way of preventing HIV through sexual intercourse.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:15 am
this is great. it means those ADULTS who DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES that this research is uncontroversial (which it isn’t) can book in and get themselves cut.
it does NOT mean that circumcising CHILDREN is justifiable or ethical. not that justice and ethics are likely to come into that decision.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:58 am
This latest study seems to have been reported everywhere, but there was a study published in the March 2007 issue of BJU International on “The Effect Of Male Circumcision On Sexuality”:
“About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.
This study suggests that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in a significant number of men, and the authors suggest that it may be due to loss of nerve endings in the removed skin. In addition, there was an approximately 9% incidence of severe penile scarring or uncomfortable erections from curvature or tethering after circumcision.”
Now why didn’t this receive the same coverage the latest study got?
This whole push to promote circumcision against AIDS is terribly misguided. Circumcision can only help someone who has unsafe sex with an HIV+ partner, and there is evidence that HIV+ men who are circumcised are more dangerous to women than HIV+ men who are intact.
The focus should be on ABC (abstinence, being faithful, condoms), not surgery, and any deviation from that will cost African lives.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
This study found both circumcised and intact men had such very low levels of sexual dysfunction and dissatisfaction that it would be very hard for any difference to be measurable. Other studies have found much more problems. The difference in this one could be cultural - perhaps Ugandan men are very unwilling to admit that there is anything the matter with their sex lives. Or perhaps experimenters who are determined to promote circumcision to prevent HIV, and subjects who wanted to be circumcised (sooner or later - the intact men were cut at the end of the experiment) and were paid to take part, are not the best people to find an objective result in this matter.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am
The whole purpose of the Ugandan circumcision programme is to promote circumcision nationally as (supposedly) something else to lessen the likelyhood of getting AIDS…. They certainly don’t want the whole campaign hijacked by suggestions that after going through circumcision sex is not so good - because it was done in the first place so that the men could have more sex with less risk. Also, after having taken the irreversible step a man will be slow to say that he is “worse off” when he can not any more become “better on”.
So the whole thing is skewed towards an “everything is better” conclusion.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Why do they do these studies on Africans, who already have the highest rate of circumcision in the world? Why not divide a group of Japanese or German men into two groups, circumcise half, and see if they have any problems. The paradox is that Africa, besides having the highest rate of circumcision also has the highest incidence of AIDS. One would think that their statistics would already show that circumcision provides protection, e.g. more uncircumcised are infected with HIV, even though statistics don’t show that in the US.