Study published in the BJUI (British Journal of Urology International), Volume 101, Issue 1, Pages 65-70 (January 2008). The study determinded that for men in Uganda, there were no differences between intact men and men circumcised after 24 months.

The study "investigated self-reported sexual satisfaction and function among men enrolled in a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention conducted in Rakai, Uganda." The study concluded that ">98% of men reported sexual satisfaction and normal sexual function after circumcision in this rural population and we conclude that adult male circumcision does not have clinically significant deleterious effects on sexual pleasure or function at 2-years' follow-up in a rural Ugandan population."

There was a small but statistically significant increase in reported sexual satisfaction among the control [intact] men, but no significant change over time was reported by the intervention arm men (Table 2). This resulted in small but statistically significant differences in satisfaction between the study arms at follow-up We have no explanation for these divergent trends in sexual satisfaction, which could have occurred by chance. Also, given the very large sample sizes in this trial, even small absolute differences of no clinical relevance may achieve statistical significance.

The last statement is puzzling because the reason to have a large population is to reduce the significance of small absolute differences.

The authors pointed out that the study had limitations.

There are limitations to the present study. Questions regarding sexual desire or satisfaction are, of necessity, subjective and refer to the individual's self-perception. The questionnaire focused on difficulties with sexual function and did not ascertain more subjective aspects of sexual satisfaction such as changes in time to ejaculation, subjective intensity of orgasm or the partner's satisfaction with intercourse [19]. Also, circumcision status could not be completely concealed from the interviewers so there is a theoretical possibility that interviewer bias might affect participant response.