You either have it or you don't: The impact of male circumcision status on sexual partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was an exploration of the impact of men's circumcision status on their sexual partners, focusing on sexual functioning, sexual satisfaction, general preferences for circumcision status, and beliefs about circumcision status. A total of 196 individuals (168 women, 28 men) currently in a sexual relationship with a man were recruited for an online survey. Sexual functioning for female or male participants (assessed by the FSFI or IIEF-MSM, respectively) was not impacted by circumcision status, but women with intact partners reported higher levels of sexual satisfaction, while no differences were observed in the male sample. Women's responses indicated that circumcision status minimally impacted satisfaction with partner's genitals, while men with intact partners indicated significantly higher levels of satisfaction than those with circumcised partners. Overall, women and men rated high levels of satisfaction with their partner's circumcision status and did not wish for it to change. Women indicated a slight preference for circumcised penises for vaginal intercourse and fellatio, and held more positive beliefs about circumcised penises, while men indicated a strong preference toward intact penises for all sexual activities assessed and held more positive beliefs about intact penises. The current study demonstrates distinct gender differences in attitudes toward circumcision status but minimal impact of circumcision status on sexual functioning. Future research should further explore sexual correlates of circumcision status, with a focus on directionality of said correlates and the impact on couples, as well as replicating the findings with a larger sample, specifically with respect to the male sample.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".