Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Effects of childhood circumcision age on adult male sexual functions

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 19, pages 424–431 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

The effects of childhood circumcision on male sexual function have been debated. However, there are no studies, to our knowledge, that assess the possible effects of childhood circumcision age on male sexual function. In an attempt to answer this question, we performed a prospective study to determine the possible relationship between circumcision age and male sexual function, using a validated questionnaire, the Golombok–Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction. We found no relationship between childhood circumcision age and overall sexual function; however some specific domains of sexual function (i.e. avoidance and communication) seemed to be affected by the age at circumcision procedure in this cohort of sexually active males. In addition, prevalence of sexual dysfunction was higher, with premature ejaculation being the most common dysfunction in the survey. We concluded that childhood circumcision age might affect some domains of male sexual function in adulthood, but not the overall function.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yegane RA, Kheirollahi AR, Salehi NA, Bashashati M, Khoshdel JA, Ahmadi M . Late complications of circumcision in Iran. Pediatr Surg Int 2006; 22: 442–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Collins S, Upshaw J, Rutchik S, Ohannessian C, Ortenberg J, Albertsen P . Effects of circumcision on male sexual function: debunking a myth? J Urol 2002; 167: 2111–2112.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Masood S, Patel HR, Himpson RC, Palmer JH, Mufti GR, Sheriff MK . Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men correctly? Urol Int 2005; 75: 62–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. O’Hara K, O’Hara J . The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU Int 1999; 83: 79–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hammond T . A preliminary poll of men circumcised in infancy or childhood. BJU Int 1999; 83: 85–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fink KS, Carson CC, DeVellis RF . Adult circumcision outcomes study: effect on erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and satisfaction. J Urol 2002; 167: 2113–2116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cold CJ, Taylor JR . The prepuce. BJU Int 1999; 83: 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Masters WH, Johnson VE . Human Sexual Response. Little, Brown & Co: Boston, MA, 1966, p 189.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Senkul T, Iseri C, Sen B, Karademir K, Saracoglu F, Erden D . Circumcision in adults: effects on sexual function. Urology 2004; 63: 155–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bleustein CB, Fogarty JD, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A . Effects of circumcision on male penile sensitivity. Urology 2005; 65: 773–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Waldinger MD, Quinn P, Dilleen M, Mundayat R, Schweitzer DH, Boolell M . A multinational population survey of intravaginal ejaculation latency time. J Sex Med 2005; 2: 492–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW . Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. JAMA 1997; 277: 1052–1057.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Immerman RS, Mackey WC . A biocultural analysis of circumcision. Soc Biol 1997; 44: 265–275.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Immerman RS, Mackey WC . A proposed relationship between circumcision and neural organization. Genet Psychol 1998; 159: 367–378.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Halata Z, Munger BL . The neuroanatomical basis for the protopathic sensibility of the human glans penis. Brain Res 1986; 371: 205–230.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Denniston GC, Hill G . Lifelong premature ejaculation: from authority-based to evidence-based medicine. BJU Int 2004; 93: 1360.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ . The prepuce specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996; 77: 291–295.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Goldman R . The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU Int 1999; 83: 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Basar MM, Basar H . Psychological trauma of circumcision in the phallic period could be avoided by using topical steroids. Int J Urol 2003; 10: 651–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Adler R, Ottoway MS, Gould S . Circumcision: we have heard from the experts; now let's hear from the parents. Pediatrics 2001; 107: e20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rust J, Golombok S . The Golombok Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction (GRISS). Br J Clin Psychol 1985; 24: 63–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rust J, Golombok S . The GRISS: a psychometric instrument for the assessment of sexual dysfunction. Arch Sex Behav 1986; 15: 157–165.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rust J, Golombok S . The Golombok Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction. Manual. NFER-Nelson: Windsor, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Collier JL . The use of the GRIMS and the GRISS in the assessment and outcome of sexual problems: are questionnaires of more value than a clinical interview? Sex Marit Ther 1989; 4: 11–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tugrul C, Oztan N, Kabakci E . The standardization study of Golombok-Rust inventory of sexual satisfaction. Turk J Psychiatry 1993; 4: 83–88.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gulsun M, Aydın H, Gulcat Z . A study on marital relationship and male sexual dysfunction. Türkiyede Psikiyatri 2005; 3: 98–102.

    Google Scholar 

  27. SPSS Inc. Statistical Package for Social Science for Windows Version 10.0 Author: Chicago, 2003.

  28. Moses S, Bailey RC, Ronald AR . Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks. Sex Transm Infect 1998; 74: 368–373.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Learman LA . Neonatal circumcision: a dispassionate analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1999; 42: 849–859.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Alanis MC, Lucidi RS . Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2004; 59: 379–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sahin F, Beyazova U, Akturk A . Attitudes practices regarding circumcision in Turkey. Child Care Health Dev 2003; 29: 275–280.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Corona G, Petrone L, Mannucci E, Rica V, Balercia G, Giommi R et al. The impotent couple: low desire. Int J Androl 2005; 28: 46–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rosen RC . Sexual function assessment in the male: physiological and self-report measures. Int J Impot Res 1998; 10 (Suppl): 59–63.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A . An international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997; 49: 822–830.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Clayton AH, McGarvey EL, Clavet GJ . The changes in sexual functioning questionnaire (CSFQ): development, reliability, and validity. Psychopharmacol Bull 1997; 33: 731–745.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Reynolds III CF, Frank E, Thase ME, Houck PR, Jennings JR, Howell JR et al. Assessment of sexual function in depressed, impotent, healthy men: factor analysis of a brief sexual function questionnaire for men. Psychiatry Res 1988; 24: 231–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Glick HA, McCarron TJ, Althof SE, Corty EW, Willke RJ . Construction of scales for the center for marital and sexual health (CMASH) sexual functioning questionnaire. J Sex Marital Ther 1997; 23: 10–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Laumann EO, Gagnon JH, Michael RT, Michaels S . The Social Organization of Sexuality. Sexual Practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1994, p 626.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Frank E, Anderson C, Rubinstein D . Frequency of sexual dysfunction in ‘normal’ couples. N Engl J Med 1978; 299: 111–115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Schein M, Zyzanski SJ, Levine S, Medalie JH, Dickman RL, Alemagno SA . The frequency of sexual problems among family practice patients. Fam Pract Res J 1988; 7: 122–134.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rosen RC . Measurement of male and female sexual dysfunction. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2001; 3: 182–187.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Van Lankveld JJDM, van Koeveringe GA . Predictive validity of the golombok rust inventory of sexual satisfaction (GRISS) for the presence of sexual dysfunctions within a Dutch urological population. Int J Impot Res 2003; 15: 110–116.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Bachmann GA, Leiblum SR, Grill J . Brief sexual inquiry in gynecologic practice. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 73: 425–427.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Baldwin K, Ginsberg P, Harkaway RC . Und. Int J Impot Res 2003; 15: 87–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Siegfried N, Muller M, Volmink J, Deeks J, Egger M, Low N et al. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; 3, CD003362.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Zuhal Baltaci, PhD, for the assistance in recruiting women to participate in this study and Serap Gungor, PhD, for her invaluable advice and assistance in preparing the questionnaire. We would also thank Dr Bedreddin Seçkin and Dr Kaan Aydos for their precious reviews and helpful corrections in the text. We are especially grateful to the participants of the study who so generously gave their time and support to complete this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey

    E Aydur & L Taiimaz

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey

    S Gungor, S T Ceyhan & I Baser

Authors
  1. E Aydur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S Gungor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S T Ceyhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L Taiimaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. I Baser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E Aydur.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aydur, E., Gungor, S., Ceyhan, S. et al. Effects of childhood circumcision age on adult male sexual functions. Int J Impot Res 19, 424–431 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901545

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901545

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links