Latest Analysis: Circumcision Boosts Men’s Sexual Function

Circumcision is controversial, sexually and psychologically.

It involves surgical removal of the foreskin, the skin that covers the head (glans) of the penis. The foreskin contains touch-sensitive nerves. By removing them, circumcision opponents insist that it must reduce the penis’ sexual sensitivity and impair men’s pleasure. On Reddit and other Internet forums, opponents have denounced circumcision as barbarous, unfair to male infants, and physically and psychologically harmful.

Supporters counter that the vast majority of erotically sensitive nerve endings are located in the glans, not the foreskin, and that the procedure does not compromise men’s sexual function or pleasure. Recently, Turkish researchers analyzed 15 studies of circumcision and found that far from impairing men sexually, it enhances men’s sexual function.

The Study

The investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 15 previously published studies. Meta-analysis is a standard statistical technique that allows the results of small studies to be combined as if they’d all been one large trial. Study size is important. The larger the study population, the more likely the results are to reflect reality. The 15 studies involved 14,737 men, a huge number that lends credibility to the findings. The meta-analysis showed that, compared with men with intact foreskins, those who were circumcised reported greater sexual satisfaction (p < 0.001), improved erection function (p = 0.002), less pain during intercourse (p = 0.03), and fewer orgasm difficulties (p = 0.01) (Karaahmet and Lalaeh, 2025).

The researchers evaluated 15 studies, but many more have been conducted. How did they select those 15? They used the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines for grading research rigor and chose only the most credible studies, which is important. Many studies of circumcision’s sexual impact have been biased either for or against the procedure.

Studies Showing Sexual Impairment: Questionable

• Portuguese researchers surveyed a group of adult men who got circumcised for medical reasons. Post-surgically, they all reported less pain on intercourse, but also experienced more erectile dysfunction (ED). However, many who reported sex problems were also diabetic, and diabetes often causes ED. Using statistical techniques to eliminate the impact of diabetes, the sexual difference between circumcised and intact men disappeared (Dias, 2014).
• Michigan researchers used the Internet to solicit 300 men for an online survey—64 intact and 236 circumcised (192 as infants). The latter were 4.5 times more likely to report using erection drugs, suggesting that circumcision increases the risk of ED. However, the participants were self-selected. Circumcision opponents look for opportunities to bash the procedure, for example, by participating in surveys like this one. The WHO guidelines would flag this trial as based on a biased sample (Bollinger and Van Howe, 2011).
• Belgian researchers conducted a similar online survey that drew responses from 1,059 intact and 310 circumcised men. The latter reported less sexual pleasure. Again, the participants were self-selected and judged their own sexual function subjectively (Bronselaer, 2013).

These reports don’t inspire much confidence.

African Studies Showing No Impairment: Also Questionable

Circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS (below). Several studies have involved before-and-after surveys of African men circumcised as adults to reduce AIDS risk:

• Kenyan researchers surveyed the sexuality of 2,784 uncircumcised sexually active men, and then 1,391 got circumcised. The investigators resurveyed all 2,784 every six months for two years. Among those who got circumcised, 72 percent said their erotic sensitivity had increased (Krieger, 2008).
• Researchers in Uganda conducted a similar trial involving 4,456 intact men, 2,210 of whom got circumcised. After two years, more than 98 percent of both groups said they felt “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their sex lives (Kigozi, 2008).

But these studies are also problematic. When they were conducted, AIDS was epidemic in Africa, and many participants feared for their lives. Researchers reassured them that circumcision had no sexual downsides. Critics charged that circumcised subjects felt so relieved to have their AIDS risk reduced that they parroted back what the researchers had told them—that circumcision has no sexual impact.

The African studies look biased.

Using WHO guidelines, the authors of the new report excluded many studies, both pro and con, such as those just mentioned, and included only the most methodologically rigorous studies, which showed that circumcision causes no discernible sexual impairment.

Not Health, Faith

Worldwide, one-third of men are circumcised. Judaism and Islam require it, so in Israel and across the Muslim world, the practice is virtually universal. Circumcision is also popular in the U.S. and Asia, but less so in Europe, Latin America, and non-Muslim Africa.

Jews and Muslims have circumcised boys for centuries. During the 19th century, the practice spread to Christians who believed—mistakenly—that it prevented masturbation. Circumcision is not medically necessary, but it offers health benefits in several areas:

• AIDS prevention. The foreskin can trap pathogens. World Health Organization studies have shown that circumcising African men reduced their AIDS risk by 60 percent.
• Phimosis. This condition involves unusually tight foreskins that don’t retract during erection. It can make erections painful. The treatment is circumcision.
• Urinary tract infection. Men’s UTI risk is lower than women’s, but compared with intact men, circumcised men face less risk.
• Penile cancer. It’s rare, but intact men face increased risk.
• Women's health. Women partners of circumcised men have lower rates of cervical cancer, herpes, trichomonas, chlamydia, bacterial vaginosis, and human papillomavirus infection (HPV, genital warts).

These findings have prompted some Jews and Muslims to claim their faiths were medically prescient and required circumcision for health reasons. But theologians of both religions insist that the practice has always been an act of faith, that its medical benefits, while welcome, are coincidental.

For the vast majority of men, the controversy over circumcision and sexual function is moot. They’re either circumcised or not, and if so, the vast majority have lived that way since infancy and have no way to compare their sexual sensitivity before and after the procedure.

If you’re intact and want to believe you have superior erotic sensitivity, you’re free to feel smug. But the weight of the evidence shows that circumcision does not impair sexual function, and that circumcised men have no reason to fear they’re missing out on erotic pleasure and satisfaction.

References