Fact check: Is there scientific evidence supporting the claim that circumcision reduces masturbation?

1. Summary of the results

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the claim that circumcision reduces masturbation. Multiple systematic reviews and studies demonstrate that there is no scientific support for this assertion ^{[1] [2]}.

The research reveals several key findings:

• No adverse effects on sexual function: High-quality studies consistently show that circumcision does not negatively impact sexual function, sensation, or pleasure ^[2]
• Potential improvements in some areas: One study found that 64% of circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and 54.5% reported improved ease of reaching orgasm at 24 months post-procedure ^[1]
• Contradictory evidence on masturbation: One study by Kim and Pang found that 48% of men reported decreased masturbatory pleasure and 63% reported increased masturbatory difficulty after circumcision ^{[3] [4]}, but this single study contradicts the broader scientific consensus from systematic reviews ^[4]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial historical context that explains the origin of this misconception. Circumcision was historically promoted in the late 19th century as a method to prevent masturbation, but modern scientific research does not substantiate this claim ^[1]. This historical context is essential for understanding why this belief persists despite lacking scientific support.

Additionally, the research indicates that psychological factors may be more significant than physical changes. Studies emphasize that men's attitude towards circumcision is more important than the actual procedure in determining sexual satisfaction and body image ^[5]. This psychological component is often overlooked in discussions about circumcision's effects.

The question also fails to acknowledge that the glans and underside of the shaft, not the foreskin, are primarily responsible for sexual sensation according to physiological and histological studies ^[2].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The question itself contains an implicit assumption that there might be scientific evidence supporting the masturbation reduction claim, when in fact the scientific consensus firmly rejects this notion. This framing could perpetuate a 19th-century medical myth that has been thoroughly debunked by modern research ^[1].

Organizations or individuals who continue to promote circumcision based on outdated claims about masturbation reduction may benefit from maintaining these misconceptions, particularly:

• Medical practitioners who perform circumcisions for non-medical reasons
• Religious or cultural groups seeking scientific justification for traditional practices
• Anti-masturbation advocacy groups looking for medical support for their positions

The persistence of this claim despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary represents a clear example of how historical medical misconceptions can survive long after being scientifically disproven.