Sexual satisfaction of women partners of circumcised men in a randomized trial of male circumcision in Rakai, Uganda
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effect of adult medical male circumcision on female sexual satisfaction.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
We investigated self‐reported sexual satisfaction among 455 women partners of men circumcised in a randomized trial of male circumcision for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus in Rakai, Uganda. Women aged 15–49 years were interviewed about their sexual satisfaction before and after their partners were circumcised. We analysed female‐reported changes in sexual satisfaction using chi‐square or Fisher’s exact tests.
RESULTS
Only 2.9% (13/455) of women reported less sexual satisfaction after their partners were circumcised; 57.3% (255/455) reported no change in sexual satisfaction and 39.8% (177/455) reported an improvement in sexual satisfaction after their partner’s circumcision. There were no statistically significant differences in sexual satisfaction before and after partner’s circumcision by age, religion and education status.
CONCLUSION
The overwhelming majority of women (97.1%) report either no change or improved sexual satisfaction after their male partner was circumcised. These findings suggest that male circumcision has no deleterious effect on female sexual satisfaction.
INTRODUCTION
Three randomized controlled trials conducted in Uganda, Kenya and South Africa showed that male circumcision reduces HIV acquisition among HIV‐negative men by 50–60%[1-3] and the WHO now recommends the procedure as a component of HIV‐prevention programmes [4]. Studies in Uganda and Kenya show no deleterious effects of circumcision on male sexual satisfaction or function [5, 6]. However, there is limited information on sexual satisfaction among female partners of circumcised men [7, 8], and there has been speculation that removal of the foreskin might reduce female sexual satisfaction because the gliding action of the foreskin is thought to facilitate vaginal penetration [7, 8]. Sociologists and gender specialists have urged that circumcision ‘roll‐out’ programmes consider social factors that might affect women, including acceptability of male circumcision and female sexual satisfaction [9]. A Spanish study of 19 women showed no effect of male circumcision on overall female sexual satisfaction [10].
We investigated female‐reported sexual satisfaction before and after circumcision of their male partners who were enrolled in a randomized trial of male circumcision for HIV prevention in Rakai, Uganda.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
Two randomized controlled trials conducted in Rakai were described previously [3]. Briefly, the trials enrolled consenting HIV‐negative and ‐positive uncircumcised men and their consenting spouses aged 15–49 years. Men provided informed consent for randomization to immediate circumcision (the intervention arm), or circumcision delayed for 24 months (the control arm). All surgeries were performed by well‐trained medical officers using the sleeve procedure, and were conducted in fully equipped outpatient operating rooms (theatres) located in a central facility [3].
In all, 616 women who were partners of circumcised men were consented and interviewed by same‐sex interviewers in a follow‐up study, using structured questionnaires; 455 women who had had sexual intercourse with their male partners before and after they were circumcised were included in this analysis. Sociodemographic information and self‐reported sexual satisfaction before and after the partner was circumcised were collected. Sexual satisfaction was categorized into ‘less satisfied’ if the woman reported that she was less sexually satisfied after her partner’s circumcision, ‘no change in satisfaction’ if the woman reported no difference in sexual satisfaction, and ‘more satisfied’ if the women reported that she was more sexually satisfied. The partners circumcision status was confirmed by interview and genital examination during trial follow‐up visits. Women who reported less or more sexual satisfaction after surgery were also asked why they were less or more sexually satisfied.
All participants provided written informed consent and were provided with education on safe‐sex practices (i.e. sexual abstinence, faithfulness with an uninfected partner and consistent condom use with a partner who is HIV‐positive or whose HIV status is unknown), were offered free condoms, free voluntary HIV counselling and testing, free treatment for sexually transmitted disease, and were referred for free HIV care in the Rakai PEPFAR funded ART programme if they were found to be HIV‐positive.
Women who reported any problem with sexual satisfaction or function had access to a programme medical officer for management, including counselling and referral when necessary.
This trial was reviewed and approved by the Uganda Virus Research Institute Science and Ethics Committee in Uganda and the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology that oversees research in Uganda. The study was also approved by the Western Institutional Review Board in the USA and was monitored by a Data Safety and Monitoring Board for Trial registration number NCT00124878.
We analysed female‐reported change in sexual satisfaction before and after their male partner was circumcised. Tests of statistical inference were based on chi‐square or the Fisher’s exact tests for proportions.
RESULTS
In all, 455 of the 616 (73.9%) enrolled women had had sexual intercourse before and after their partner was circumcised, and were included in this analysis. As shown in Table 1, these women were significantly older than the 171 women who did not have sexual relations before and after their partner’s surgery (P = 0.03), but the two groups were comparable in other sociodemographic characteristics.
| Characteristics | Sex before and after surgery, n (%) | P, chi‐square | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||
| All | 455 (100) | 171 (100) | |
| Age, years | |||
| 15–24 | 159 (36) | 74 (43) | 0.03 |
| 25–29 | 153 (34) | 48 (28) | |
| >30 | 133 (30) | 49 (29) | |
| Religion | |||
| Catholic | 324 (73) | 137 (80) | 0.45 |
| Protestant | 79 (18) | 25 (15) | |
| None/Muslim/Saved/other | 42 (9) | 9 (5) | |
| Education | |||
| None/primary | 336 (76) | 133 (81) | 0.34 |
| Secondary/tertiary | 109 (24) | 38 (19) | |
Table 2 shows reported change in sexual satisfaction by social and demographic characteristics. Only 2.9% (13/455) of women reported less sexual satisfaction after their partners were circumcised. In all, 255/455 (57%) of women reported no change in sexual satisfaction, while 39.8% (177/455) reported an improvement in sexual satisfaction after their partners’ circumcision. There were no statistically significant differences in female‐reported change in sexual satisfaction before and after their partner’s circumcision by age (P = 0.14), religion (P = 0.09) and education status (P = 0.25).
| Characteristic | Relative level of sexual satisfaction (after vs before), n (%) | P | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less | Same | More | Total | ||
| All | 13 (2.9) | 255 (57.3) | 177 (39.8) | 455 (100) | |
| Age, years | |||||
| 15–24 | 4 (2.5) | 80 (50.3) | 75 (47.2) | 159 (100) | 0.14 |
| 25–29 | 4 (2.6) | 90 (58.8) | 59 (38.6) | 153 (100) | |
| >30 | 5 (3.8) | 85 (63.9) | 43 (32.3) | 133 (100) | |
| Religion | |||||
| Catholic | 11 (3.4) | 178 (54.9) | 135 (41.2) | 324 (100) | 0.09 |
| Protestant | 1 (1.3) | 56 (70.9) | 22 (27.9) | 79 (100) | |
| Muslim/none/saved/other | 1 (2.4) | 21 (50.0) | 20 (47.6) | 42 (100) | |
| Education | |||||
| None/primary | 12 (3.6) | 195 (58.0) | 129 (38.4) | 336 (100) | 0.25 |
| Secondary/tertiary | 1 (2.9) | 60 (55.1) | 48 (44.0) | 109 (100) | |
Table 3 shows problems reported by 13 women who reported reduced sexual satisfaction. Women could report more than one reason for their dissatisfaction. The most common problems included reduced female sexual desire (six), lower male sexual desire (six), male partner had difficulty achieving (three) or maintaining an erection (five). None of the male partners of women who reported reduced sexual satisfaction had any moderate or severe surgically‐related adverse events after circumcision.
| Reason for change in sexual satisfaction | n or n (%) |
|---|---|
| Reduced (13) | |
| Level of sexual desire was reduced | 6 |
| Male partners’ desire for sex was reduced | 6 |
| Male partner had difficulty maintaining an erection | 5 |
| Male partner had difficulty getting erections | 3 |
| Male partner’s took longer to achieve orgasm | 2 |
| Male partner had difficulty with penetration | 2 |
| Male partner had difficulty with ejaculation | 2 |
| Male partner wanted sex too often | 1 |
| Male partner has pain on intercourse | 1 |
| Woman had pain on intercourse | 1 |
| Woman could not achieve orgasm or achieved orgasms less often | 1 |
| Prolonged intervals between female orgasms | 0 |
| Improved (177) | |
| Better hygiene | 51 (28.8) |
| Male partner takes longer to achieve orgasm | 45 (25.4) |
| Partner wanted sex more often | 44 (24.9) |
| Partner had less/no difficulty maintaining erection | 26 (14.7) |
| Female achieved orgasm more often | 20 (11.3) |
| Partner had less/no difficulty getting erections | 18 (10.2) |
| Partner had less/no sexually transmitted infection | 18 (10.2) |
| Partner had less/no problem of insertion | 16 (9.0) |
| Partner had less/no pain on intercourse | 7 (4.0) |
| Partner had less/no difficulty in ejaculation | 5 (2.8) |
| Partner had less/no genitourinary disease | 5 (2.8) |
- Women could report more than one reason for reduced or improved satisfaction.
Table 3 also shows reasons cited for increased female sexual satisfaction by 177 women. The commonest reasons mentioned included better penile hygiene in 28.8% (51/177), more frequent orgasms for the male partner in 25.4% (44/177), male partner wanted sex more frequently, 24.9% (44/177), the male partner had less difficulty maintaining an erection, 14.7% (26/177), and the woman achieved orgasm more frequently, 11.3% (20/177).
DISCUSSION
This is the first study with a substantial sample size to assess the effect of adult male circumcision on female sexual satisfaction. Over 97% of women reported no change or an improvement in sexual satisfaction, compared to only 3% of women who reported less sexual satisfaction after their partner’s circumcision. A study conducted by Coates et al.[10] concluded that circumcision had no effect on female partner’s perception of sexual satisfaction. However, this study included only 19 women and was conducted in a hospital setting, where men were highly selected for circumcision due to pre‐existing medical indications for surgery.
Our findings provide information of importance in designing education messages for circumcision programmes that promote male circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy. In South Africa, men who believed that women would enjoy sex more with circumcised men were over five times more willing to have the procedure [11]. In the present study, 39.8% of women reported an improvement in sexual satisfaction after circumcision of their partners, and this information can be used to encourage women to accept male circumcision for their partners or children. Our finding that male circumcision is much more likely to improve female sexual satisfaction suggests that it might have social benefits in addition to established health benefits, and addresses previous speculative concerns about the possible adverse effects of male circumcision on female sexual satisfaction.
In conclusion, >97% of women reported no change or an improvement in sexual satisfaction after their partners were circumcised. This finding should be integrated into programme messages to address fears that male circumcision might lead to reduced sexual satisfaction in women partners of circumcised men.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None declared. Source of funding: Gates Foundation.
Notes :
- Women could report more than one reason for reduced or improved satisfaction.
Number of times cited: 30
- Sanyukta Mathur, Margo Mullinax and John S. Santelli, Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Adolescents, International Handbook on Adolescent Health and Development, 10.1007/978-3-319-40743-2_10, (183-205), (2016).
- Pamela S. Lilleston, Arik V. Marcell, Neema Nakyanjo, Lori Leonard and Maria J. Wawer, Multilevel influences on acceptance of medical male circumcision in Rakai District, Uganda, AIDS Care, 29, 8, (1049), (2017).
- Brian J. Morris, John N. Krieger, Jeffrey D. Klausner and Beth E. Rivin, The Ethical Course Is To Recommend Infant Male Circumcision — Arguments Disparaging American Academy of Pediatrics Affirmative Policy Do Not Withstand Scrutiny, The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 45, 4, (647), (2017).
- Maximo O. Brito, Shaveta Khosla, Sheewin Pananookooln, Paul J. Fleming, Leonel Lerebours, Yeycy Donastorg and Robert C. Bailey, Sexual Pleasure and Function, Coital Trauma, and Sex Behaviors After Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision Among Men in the Dominican Republic, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14, 4, (526), (2017).
- Brian J. Morris, Richard G. Wamai, John N. Krieger, Joya Banerjee and Jeffrey D. Klausner, Male circumcision to prevent syphilis in 1855 and HIV in 1986 is supported by the accumulated scientific evidence to 2015: Response to Darby, Global Public Health, 12, 10, (1315), (2017).
- Brian J Morris and Catherine A Hankins, Effect of male circumcision on risk of sexually transmitted infections and cervical cancer in women, The Lancet Global Health, 5, 11, (e1054), (2017).
- Barbara Maraux, Pascale Lissouba, Reathe Rain-Taljaard, Dirk Taljaard, Julie Bouscaillou, David Lewis, Adrian Puren, Bertran Auvert and Charlene S. Dezzutti, Women’s knowledge and perception of male circumcision before and after its roll-out in the South African township of Orange Farm from community-based cross-sectional surveys, PLOS ONE, 12, 3, (e0173595), (2017).
- Douglas S. Diekema, Beth E. Rivin, John N. Krieger, Brian J. Morris, Anna C. Mastroianni and Jeffrey D. Klausner, Critical Evaluation of Adler’s Challenge to the CDC’s Male Circumcision Recommendations, The International Journal of Children's Rights, 24, 2, (265), (2016).
- B. Friedman, J. Khoury, N. Petersiel, T. Yahalomi, M. Paul and A. Neuberger, Pros and cons of circumcision: an evidence-based overview, Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 22, 9, (768), (2016).
- Brian J Morris, John N Krieger and Jeffrey D Klausner, Critical evaluation of unscientific arguments disparaging affirmative infant male circumcision policy, World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics, 5, 3, (251), (2016).
- Virginia Homfray, Clare Tanton, Kirstin R. Mitchell, Robert F. Miller, Nigel Field, Wendy Macdowall, Kaye Wellings, Pam Sonnenberg, Anne M. Johnson and Catherine H. Mercer, Examining the association between male circumcision and sexual function, AIDS, 29, 11, (1411), (2015).
- Charles Maibvise and Thandisizwe R Mavundla, Reasons for the low uptake of adult male circumcision for the prevention of HIV transmission in Swaziland, African Journal of AIDS Research, 13, 3, (281), (2014).
- Jennifer A. Bossio, Caroline F. Pukall and Stephen Steele, A Review of the Current State of the Male Circumcision Literature, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11, 12, (2847-2864), (2014).
- Gavin George, Michael Strauss, Petronella Chirawu, Bruce Rhodes, Janet Frohlich, Carl Montague and Kaymarlin Govender, Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) among adolescent boys in KwaZulu–Natal, South Africa, African Journal of AIDS Research, 13, 2, (179), (2014).
- Ruth T. Mielke, Counseling Parents Who Are Considering Newborn Male Circumcision, Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, 58, 6, (671-682), (2013).
- Erica H. Layer, Sarah W. Beckham, Lilian Mgeni, Catherine Shembilu, Romani B. Momburi, Caitlin E. Kennedy and D William Cameron, “After my husband’s circumcision, I know that I am safe from diseases”: Women’s Attitudes and Risk Perceptions Towards Male Circumcision in Iringa, Tanzania, PLoS ONE, 8, 8, (e74391), (2013).
- Robert Ssekubugu, Elli Leontsini, Maria J. Wawer, David Serwadda, Godfrey Kigozi, Caitlin E. Kennedy, Fred Nalugoda, Richard Sekamwa, Jennifer Wagman and Ronald H. Gray, Contextual Barriers and Motivators to Adult Male Medical Circumcision in Rakai, Uganda, Qualitative Health Research, 23, 6, (795), (2013).
- Aaron A.R. Tobian and Thomas C. Quinn, Male Circumcision, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 10.1016/B978-0-12-391059-2.00006-1, (147-164), (2013).
- Brett L. Worly, The Decision to Perform Routine Newborn Male Circumcision, Postgraduate Obstetrics & Gynecology, 32, 1, (1), (2012).
- Brian J Morris, Jake H Waskett, Joya Banerjee, Richard G Wamai, Aaron AR Tobian, Ronald H Gray, Stefan A Bailis, Robert C Bailey, Jeffrey D Klausner, Robin J Willcourt, Daniel T Halperin, Thomas E Wiswell and Adrian Mindel, A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?, BMC Pediatrics, 12, 1, (2012).
- Brian J. Morris, Alex D. Wodak, Adrian Mindel, Leslie Schrieber, Karen A. Duggan, Anthony Dilley, Robin J. Willcourt, Michael Lowy, David A. Cooper, Eugenie R. Lumbers, C. Terry Russell and Stephen R. Leeder, Infant male circumcision: An evidence-based policy statement, Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, 02, 01, (79), (2012).
- Edith AM Tarimo, Joel M Francis, Deodatus Kakoko, Patricia Munseri, Muhammad Bakari and Eric Sandstrom, The perceptions on male circumcision as a preventive measure against HIV infection and considerations in scaling up of the services: a qualitative study among police officers in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, BMC Public Health, 12, 1, (2012).
- Brian J Morris, Jake H Waskett and Ronald H Gray, Does sexual function survey in Denmark offer any support for male circumcision having an adverse effect?, International Journal of Epidemiology, 41, 1, (310), (2012).
- M. Frisch, M. Lindholm and M. Gronbaek, Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark, International Journal of Epidemiology, 40, 5, (1367), (2011).
- Matthew Westercamp, Kawango E. Agot, Jeckoniah Ndinya-Achola and Robert C. Bailey, Circumcision preference among women and uncircumcised men prior to scale-up of male circumcision for HIV prevention in Kisumu, Kenya, AIDS Care, (1), (2011).
- David J Templeton, Male circumcision to reduce sexual transmission of HIV, Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS, 5, 4, (344), (2010).
- Tim Hargreave, Male circumcision: towards a World Health Organisation normative practice in resource limited settings, Asian Journal of Andrology, 12, 5, (628), (2010).
- Helen A Weiss, Kim E Dickson, Kawango Agot and Catherine A Hankins, Male circumcision for HIV prevention: current research and programmatic issues, AIDS, 24, Suppl 4, (S61), (2010).
- Stephen Shei-Dei Yang, Cheng-Hsing Hsieh and Shang-Jen Chang, Effects of Circumcision on urinary Tract Infection and Sexually Transmitted Disease, Tzu Chi Medical Journal, 21, 3, (185), (2009).
- Jonathan M. Grund, Tyler S. Bryant, Carlos Toledo, Inimfon Jackson, Kelly Curran, Sheng Zhou, Jorge Martin del Campo, Ling Yang, Apollo Kivumbi, Peizi Li, Naomi Bock, Joanna Taliano and Stephanie M. Davis, Association of Male Circumcision with Women’s Knowledge of its Biomedical Effects and With Their Sexual Satisfaction and Function: A Systematic Review, AIDS and Behavior, 10.1007/s10461-018-2313-0, (2018).




