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.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Psychological, psychosocial, and psychosexual aspects of penile circumcision

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 35, pages 242–248 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

This article has been updated

Abstract

Policy statements on penile circumcision have focused primarily on disease, dysfunction, or sensation, with relatively little consideration of psychological and psychosocial implications of the procedure. There has also been minimal consideration of potential qualitative changes in the subjective experience of sexual activity following changes in penile anatomy (foreskin removal) or associated sexual biomechanics. We present a critical overview of literature on the psychological, psychosocial, and psychosexual implications of penile circumcision. We give consideration to differences among circumcisions performed in infancy, childhood, or adulthood. We also discuss potential psychosocial effects on parents electing, or failing to elect, circumcision for their children. We propose a framework for policy considerations and future research, recognizing that cultural context is particularly salient for the narratives individuals construct around penile circumcision, including both affected individuals and medical professionals who perform the surgeries. We argue that additional attention should be paid to the potential for long-term effects of the procedure that may not be properly considered when the patient is an infant or child.

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

Change history

  • 27 April 2022

    Dr. Tye’s affiliation was wrong and was corrected to: Dean, College of Health Professions, Pace University, 163 William St., 5th Floor, New York, NY 10038, USA.

References

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics: Task Force on Circumcision. Male circumcision. Pediatrics. 2012;130:e756–85.

  2. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Krieger JN, Mehta SD, Bailey RC, Agot K, Ndinya‐Achola JO, Parker C, et al. Adult male circumcision: effects on sexual function and sexual satisfaction in Kisumu, Kenya. J Sex Med. 2008;5:2610–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00979.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Frisch M. Author’s response to: Does sexual function survey in Denmark offer any support for male circumcision having an adverse effect? Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:312–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Williams MD, Lascelles BDX. Early neonatal pain-a review of clinical and experimental implications on painful conditions later in life. Front Pediatr. 2020;8:30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet. 1997;349:599–603.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Miani A, Di Bernardo GA, Højgaard AD, Earp BD, Zak PJ, Landau AM, et al. Neonatal male circumcision is associated with altered adult socio-affective processing. Heliyon. 2020;6:e05566.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ullmann E, Licinio J, Barthel A, Petrowski K, Oratovski B, Stalder T, et al. Circumcision does not alter long-term glucocorticoids accumulation or psychological effects associated with trauma- and stressor-related disorders. Transl Psychiatry. 2017;7:e1063.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Boyle GJ. Proving a negative? Methodological, statistical, and psychometric flaws in Ullmann et al. (2017) PTSD study. J Clin Transl Res. 2018;3:375–81.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Rossi S, Buonocore G, Bellieni CV. Management of pain in newborn circumcision: a systematic review. Eur J Pediatr. 2021;180:13–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Keels E, Sethna N, Watterberg L, Cummings JJ, Benitz WE, Eichenwald EC, et al. Prevention and management of procedural pain in the neonate: an update. Pediatrics. 2016;137:e20154271. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-4271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gollaher D. Circumcision: a history of the world’s most controversial surgery. New York: Basic Books; 2001.

  13. World Health Organization/UNAIDS. Male circumcision: global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf.

  14. Morris BJ, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Wamai RG, Tobian AA, Gray RH, et al. A “snip” in time: what is the best age to circumcise? BMC Pediatrics. 2012;12:20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yavuz M, Demir T, Dogangün B. The effect of circumcision on the mental health of children: a review. Turk Psikiyatr Derg. 2012;23:63–70. https://turkpsikiyatri.com/Data/UnpublishedArticles/65483y.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Van Tongeren DR, DeWall CN, Chen Z, Sibley CG, Bulbulia J. Religious residue: cross-cultural evidence that religious psychology and behavior persist following deidentification. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2021;120:484–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Exline JJ, Van Tongeren DR, Bradley DF, Wilt JA, Stauner N, Pargament KI, et al. Pulling away from religion: religious/spiritual struggles and religious disengagement among college students. Psychol Relig Spiritual. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000375.

  19. Bañuelos Marco B, García Heil JL. Circumcision in childhood and male sexual function: a blessing or a curse? Int J Impot Res. 2021;33:139–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bossio JA, Pukall CF. Attitude toward one’s circumcision status is more important than actual circumcision status for men’s body image and sexual functioning. Arch Sex Behav. 2018;47:771–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hammond T, Carmack A. Long-term adverse outcomes from neonatal circumcision reported in a survey of 1,008 men: an overview of health and human rights implications. Int J Hum Rights. 2017;21:189–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Watson L, Golden T. Male circumcision grief: effective and ineffective therapeutic approaches. New Male Stud. 2017;6:109–25.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sharif Mohamed F, Wild V, Earp BD, Johnson-Agbakwu C, Abdulcadir J. Clitoral reconstruction after female genital mutilation/cutting: a review of surgical techniques and ethical debate. J Sex Med. 2020;17:531–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Earp BD, Sardi LM, Jellison WA. False beliefs predict increased circumcision satisfaction in a sample of US American men. Cult Health Sexuality. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2017.1400104.

  25. Ahmadu, FS. Ain’t I a woman too? challenging myths of sexual dysfunction in circumcised women. In: Hernlund Y, Shell-Duncan B, editors. Transcultural Bodies. New Brunswick: Rutgers University; 2007. p. 278–310.

  26. Davis DS. Male and female genital alteration: a collision course with the law?. Health Matrix. 2001;11:487–570.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Public Policy Advisory Network on Female Genital Surgeries in Africa. Seven things to know about female genital surgeries in Africa. Hastings Cent Rep. 2012;42:19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. O’Neill S, Pallitto C. The consequences of female genital mutilation on psycho-social well-being: a systematic review of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Res. 2021;31:1738–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323211001862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. WHO. Eliminating female genital mutilation: an interagency statement. World Health Organization; 2008. http://www.unfpa.org/publications/eliminating-femalegenital-mutilation-interagency-statement. Accessed October 2017.

  30. Özer M, Timmermans FW. ‘An insight into circumcised men seeking foreskin reconstruction: a prospective cohort study’. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0223-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tiemstra JD. Factors affecting the circumcision decision. J Am Board Fam Pr. 1999;12:16–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Binner SL, Mastrobattista JM, Day M, Swaim LS, Monga M. Effect of parental education on decision-making about neonatal circumcision. South Med J 2002;95:457–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision Policy Statement. Pediatrics 1999;103:686–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Guevara CG, Achua JK, Blachman-Braun R, Cabrera-Valencia I, Ransford GA, Gosalbez R, et al. Neonatal circumcision: what are the factors affecting parental decision? Cureus. 2021;13:e19415. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19415.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Adler R, Ottaway MS, Gould S. Circumcision: we have heard from the experts; now let’s hear from the parents. Pediatrics. 2001;107:e20. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.107.2.e20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sardi LM, Livingston K. Parental decision making in male circumcision. MCN: Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2015;40:110–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Meoded Danon L. The parental struggle with the israeli genital socialization process. Qualitative Health Res. 2021;31:898–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ghidini F, Sekulovic S, Castagnetti M. Parental Decisional Regret after Primary Distal Hypospadias Repair: Family and Surgery Variables, and Repair Outcomes. J Urol. 2016;195:720–4.

  40. Bethell GS, Chhabra S, Shalaby MS, Corbett H, Kenny SE, Godse A, et al. Parental decisional satisfaction after hypospadias repair in the United Kingdom. J Pediatr Urol. 2020;16:164.e1–164.e7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gilmore DD. Manhood in the making: cultural concepts of masculinity. Revised ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press; 1991.

  42. Grund JM, Bryant TS, Toledo C, Jackson I, Curran K, Zhou S, et al. Association of male circumcision with women’s knowledge of its biomedical effects and with their sexual satisfaction and function: a systematic review. AIDS Behav. 2019;23:1104–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tian Y, Liu W, Wang J-Z, Wazir R, Yue X, Wang K-J. Effects of circumcision on male sexual functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl. 2013;15:662–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Zulu R, Jones D, Chitalu N, Cook R, Weiss S. Sexual satisfaction, performance, and partner response following voluntary medical male circumcision in Zambia: The Spear and Shield Project. Glob Health Sci Pr. 2015;3:606–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Nordstrom MPC, Westercamp N, Jaoko W, Okeyo T, Bailey RC. Medical male circumcision is associated with improvements in pain during intercourse and sexual satisfaction in Kenya. J Sex Med. 2017;14:601–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Frisch M. Author’s Response to: Does sexual function survey in Denmark offer any support for male circumcision having an adverse effect? Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:312–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Morris BJ, Moreton S, Krieger JN. Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: a systematic review. J Evid-Based Med. 2019;12:263–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Werker PM, Terng AS, Kon M. The prepuce free flap: dissection feasibility study and clinical application of a super-thin new flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102:1075–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kigozi G, Wawer M, Ssettuba A, Kagaayi J, Nalugoda F, Watya S, et al. Foreskin surface area and HIV acquisition in Rakai, Uganda (size matters). AIDS 2009;23:2209–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ball PJ. A survey of subjective foreskin sensation in 600 intact men. In Bodily integrity and the politics of circumcision. Dordrecht: Springer; 2006. pp. 177–88.

  51. Harrison DM. Rethinking circumcision and sexuality in the United States. Sexualities. 2002;5:300–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kim D, Pang MG. The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. BJU Int. 2007;99:619–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Earp BD. Infant circumcision and adult penile sensitivity: implications for sexual experience. Trends Urol Men’s Health. 2016;7.4:17–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Harrison DM. Rethinking circumcision and sexuality in the United States. Sexualities. 2002;5.3:300–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Jannini EA, Whipple B, Kingsberg SA, Buisson O, Foldès P, Vardi Y. Who’s afraid of the G-spot?. J Sex Med. 2010;7:25–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kaschak E, Tiefer L. A new view of women’s sexual problems. New York: Routledge; 2013.

  57. Darby R. Risks, benefits, complications and harms: neglected factors in the current debate on non-therapeutic circumcision. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2015;25:1–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Earp BD, Steinfeld R. Genital autonomy and sexual well-being. Curr Sex Health Rep. 2018;10:7–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Earp BD, Sardi LM, Jellison WA. False beliefs predict increased circumcision satisfaction in a sample of US American men. Cult Health Sexuality. 2018;20:945–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Johnsdotter S. Discourses on sexual pleasure after genital modifications: the fallacy of genital determinism (a response to J. Steven Svoboda). Glob Discourse. 2013;3:256–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Triandis HC. Individualism and collectivism. New York: Routledge; 2018.

  62. Doğan G. The effect of religious beliefs on the publication productivity of countries in circumcision: a comprehensive bibliometric view. J Relig Health. 2020;59:1126–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Leeman RF, Fischler C, Rozin P. Medical doctors’ attitudes and beliefs about diet and health are more like those of their lay countrymen (France, Germany, Italy, UK and USA) than those of doctors in other countries. Appetite. 2011;56:558–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Muller AJ. To cut or not to cut? Personal factors influence primary care physicians’ position on elective newborn circumcision. J Mens Health. 2010;7:227–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hodgson D. USA and UK: differences on neonatal circumcision. Trends Urol Mens Health. 2020;11:27–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Earp BD, Shaw DM. Cultural bias in American medicine: the case of infant male circumcision. J Pediatr Ethics. 2017;1:8–26.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Boyle GJ, Goldman R, Svoboda JS, Fernandez E. Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae. J Health Psychol. 2002;7:329–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910530200700310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Lee RB. Filipino experience of ritual male circumcision: Knowledge and insights for anti‐circumcision advocacy. Cult Health Sexuality. 2006;8:225–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dean, College of Health Professions, Pace University, 163 William St., 5th Floor, New York, NY, 10038, USA

    Marcus C. Tye

  2. Professor of Sociology and Women’s & Gender Studies, Quinnipiac University, 275 Mt. Carmel Ave, Hamden, CT, 06518, USA

    Lauren M. Sardi

Authors
  1. Marcus C. Tye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lauren M. Sardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MT formulated the outline of the paper and wrote the initial draft, LS significantly revised and edited the paper per recommendations and comments of reviewers.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcus C. Tye.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tye, M.C., Sardi, L.M. Psychological, psychosocial, and psychosexual aspects of penile circumcision. Int J Impot Res 35, 242–248 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00553-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00553-9

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links