Circumcision induced Erectile Dysfunction

[Reklaw]

Hello everyone I’m new to the forum, and I’m really glad I found this place, nice to meet you all.
I’m 31 from England and I’ve had Erectile Dysfunction ever since I was circumcised in 2019. From a surgical perspective, the circumcision went exactly as expected without any complications, it’s a perfectly normal looking circumcision, so there’s nothing unusual about it in that regard.
The problem is is that it caused me ED and premature ejacultion. I have had a complete loss of sensation and I haven’t had a single spontaneous erection since the surgery (I used to have 5-10 per day). I feel a deep loss of attraction too, a month ago I had a naked 10/10 Polish girl infront of me and I didn’t even feel aroused. There is a symbiotic relationship between the highly sensitive foreskin and the brain, previously when I used to feel my foreskin moving about in my pants my brain would light up with a feeling of Eurphoria which would give me a rock hard erection, now I don’t have any sensitive skin so I don’t have the same response in the brain.

Since I’ve had this problem I’ve tried a couple of things in order to try and improve my situation.
-Firstly I had Low Intensity Shockwave therapy, which improved things slightly but the gains subsided 3 weeks after treatment.
-Easily the best thing I’ve done is foreskin restoration using a Cat stretcher. This has almost eliminated my premature ejaculation. It has also vastly improved my ability to maintain an erection.
The biggest problem I have is being able to trigger an erection which is very difficult because I’ve lost all sensation and I don’t really feeling aroused. I still haven’t had a a Spontaneous erection despite the success I’ve had with foreskin restoration.
My plan for the future is to have Stem Cell therapy, I’m pretty much willing to try anything to solve this problem. In reality the only thing that could fully solve my problem is a Foregen Lab grown foreskin, which is probably years/decades off. In the meantime I plan on finding a solution that at least improves things.
Thanks for your time.

[Hunchback]

Just out of curiosity, why did you get that circumcision done?

Other than that, i am not an expert, but it sounds like the ED is mostly on a mental level in your case. I know that there are nerves in the foreskin, but a very large portion of the world is circumcised and they don't have ED caused by that... a cut penis can work as well as an uncut one, physically.
I have no idea what you can really do about it, if it's really a mental blockage or something like that, you'll maybe need some time to get used to the new situation, try some sex, let time pass and eventually it might all "fix itself"?

[Reklaw]

Just out of curiosity, why did you get that circumcision done?

Other than that, i am not an expert, but it sounds like the ED is mostly on a mental level in your case. I know that there are nerves in the foreskin, but a very large portion of the world is circumcised and they don't have ED caused by that... a cut penis can work as well as an uncut one, physically.
I have no idea what you can really do about it, if it's really a mental blockage or something like that, you'll maybe need some time to get used to the new situation, try some sex, let time pass and eventually it might all "fix itself"?

Thanks for your input, in regards to circumcision, people who are circumcised are 4.5 times more likely to experience ED, also people who are circumcised have fewer spontaneous erections than people who are uncircumcised, it’s actually possible that a majority of people who are circumcised have a mild form of ED but they don’t even know it because they were cut of birth, and don’t have any experience about what things were like before and after.

[Hunchback]

Fair point

[68CatFan]

Just did a quick look on the internet and the first article that came up seems to corroborate your claim however I'm calling bullshit on the articles reasoning. It claims that since the majority of American men are circumcised and we are the largest users of ED medications then that automatically means circumcision must lead to increased chance of ED. This is called a slippery slope fallacy. Assuming one action leads to another without hard data to back it up.

A line from the article.
"As men grow older, the thickened skin of the glans becomes less and less sensitive, which can cause men to have issues with erections."

Yet not one medical sight I've visited over the years lists a cause of ED as diminished glans sensitivity. Usually it's insufficient blood flow, a venous leak, injury, surgery and so on.

[Hunchback]

I also doubt that circumcision can cause full-blown ED, such as Reklaw is describing he's experiencing. At least not because of a physical reason, unless the surgery went bad...

Still, he's experiencing what he's experiencing, as a result of his surgery. The question is, why?
Reklaw, are you followed by a doctor, post-op etc? What do they think?

[Reklaw]

I also doubt that circumcision can cause full-blown ED, such as Reklaw is describing he's experiencing. At least not because of a physical reason, unless the surgery went bad...

Still, he's experiencing what he's experiencing, as a result of his surgery. The question is, why?
Reklaw, are you followed by a doctor, post-op etc? What do they think?

The fact is most doctors don’t believe that circumcision can cause ED, but it has caused me ED, and many other people too, I’m in a foreskin restoration forum full of people in the same situation as me.

[Reklaw]

Just did a quick look on the internet and the first article that came up seems to corroborate your claim however I'm calling bullshit on the articles reasoning. It claims that since the majority of American men are circumcised and we are the largest users of ED medications then that automatically means circumcision must lead to increased chance of ED. This is called a slippery slope fallacy. Assuming one action leads to another without hard data to back it up.

A line from the article.
"As men grow older, the thickened skin of the glans becomes less and less sensitive, which can cause men to have issues with erections."

Yet not one medical sight I've visited over the years lists a cause of ED as diminished glans sensitivity. Usually it's insufficient blood flow, a venous leak, injury, surgery and so on.

One common misconception from people who were circumcised at birth is that they think the loss of sensation from circumcision comes from the glans being exposed, this isn’t true, most of the loss of sensation comes from losing the foreskin, which is far more sensitive than the shaft skin.

[Reklaw]

Just did a quick look on the internet and the first article that came up seems to corroborate your claim however I'm calling bullshit on the articles reasoning. It claims that since the majority of American men are circumcised and we are the largest users of ED medications then that automatically means circumcision must lead to increased chance of ED. This is called a slippery slope fallacy. Assuming one action leads to another without hard data to back it up.

A line from the article.
"As men grow older, the thickened skin of the glans becomes less and less sensitive, which can cause men to have issues with erections."

Yet not one medical sight I've visited over the years lists a cause of ED as diminished glans sensitivity. Usually it's insufficient blood flow, a venous leak, injury, surgery and so on.

David Ralph, one of the world’s leading Urologists told me that 50% of patents who come to him with ED are circumcised, even though the circumcision rate of the UK is only 5%, they’re vastly over represented in ED cases.

[Simbarn]

David Ralph, one of the world’s leading Urologists told me that 50% of patents who come to him with ED are circumcised, even though the circumcision rate of the UK is only 5%, they’re vastly over represented in ED cases.

I have only recently been discussing this topic with one of the members here privately, so I will copy some of the text I wrote in a reply to him about circumcision, but will omit anything that was pertinent and private to him of course.

The sensory activation of the NO pathway in the penis is IMO vitally important to erectile function. Somatic neurons in the foreskin and the areas where it attaches to, the frenulum and the corona transmit signals to the reflexogenic pathway (and the parasympathetic pathways) to the erectile centre in the sacrum and back again directly to the penis. It is these sensations from touch that directly instigate an erection from a reflex perspective. They are a vital part of erectile function. Psychogenic erectile function occurs from a different pathway, the parasympathetic nervous system, signals from the brain (erotic thoughts, visual stimulation, smell and sound etc.). It is the combination of both pathways that deliver strong day time erections, that can be maintained. If one pathway is not working properly erections can be either difficult to obtain or difficult to maintain. These two pathways are also inextricably connected. The sensory feedback from the penis is essential to erectile function. As soon as an erection begins to occur sensations are sent to the CNS from the erogenous nerves further reinforcing the erectile process, these sensations begin as soon as the glans enlarges and the foreskin begins to retract even without touch to the penis.
The neurophysiology of the penis is very important and I think often overlooked when it comes to erectile function. One of the reasons why PDE5i do not work for some men is that they affect the NO pathway many steps down the NO pathways chemical process within the cell, if NO is not being stimulated in the first place sufficiently, they will have a very modest affect. One of the main driving forces of the NO pathway is sensory activation. Sensory activation in the penis itself.

There are very broad effects of circumcision when it is performed on adults (I mention adults as this is the only comparison that can be made with regard to someone knowing the difference; having had both). Some men report vague improvements, some report great loss of sensitivity and erectile difficulties. As each individual is different and every procedure is different in regard to how much of this tissue is removed and how well it is done, there will be inconsistencies. Complications do occur and sexual function can be compromised.
This must be in some ways, even more pronounced when it comes to doing this on a very small penis on a baby. Sometimes the doctor performing the procedure may remove more sensitive tissue from this incredibly important part of the penis. Then what is left, over time becomes even more desensitised due to it being exposed, not to mention the scar tissue that develops and the loss of erogenous sensory neurons. Nerves can be inadvertently damaged as some of the doctors performing this procedure are not skilled enough when working on such a small organ.
I am strongly opposed to circumcision. I have done a great deal of reading on the topic and there is ample evidence now to show the damage it can do to the penis. The USA seems to still have a very odd preoccupation with continuing the practice, but there is a growing amount of medical professionals against it there now. It find it very telling that one of the reasons it started back in the 1800’s in the US was to curb masturbation in young men! It was also considered as a cure for venereal disease, sterility, epilepsy, bed-wetting, night terrors, sexual unrest and homosexuality. This idiocy of a cultural tradition has continued on into the 20th and 21st century’s! All of the current health reasons to have it done on an unconsenting child have been highly criticised now.
No one hears about all the complications that can and do occur in infants from this unnecessary cosmetic procedure. It is completely illegal to remove a similar piece of tissue from a female baby, which would have a very similar effect that circumcision has on the male. Very few people understand or know this.
I find it very concerning that there are still many medical professionals in the united states that recommend this procedure to parents of a healthy young child with no issues with their male genitalia.

The difference I feel between the outcome of adult circumcision and infant circumcision, is that the damaged tissues and nerves have a greater propensity to regenerate in the infant, many of the severed nerves most likely do their best to repair in these very young cells, which are in a state of growth and development. In the adult, these processes are much more likely to be stunted or finalised and in some cases far less likely to repair at all. Nerve damage could be more inclined to travel all the way to the spine. The fact that there is a possibility for this to occur at all in some adults and infants should be enough to stop the procedure especially in the infant, where he has no choice in deciding for himself if he wants to take that risk for a cosmetic reason. We cannot and do not remove or change any other body part of an infant for a cosmetic reason unless they are malformed, why are we still doing this to a perfectly healthy male baby penis?

I can hear many of you saying; but there are so many men in the USA that have been circumcised and have no erectile problems. Yes this is possibly true. My own partner is circumcised and he has no issues with ED (but he does have sensation issues now). However, as I mentioned earlier how each individuals penis reacts to the procedure is different, how much tissue is removed and something else I discovered recently, how the nerves react to the procedure afterwards can vary greatly! Nerve damage can travel further down all the way to the spine causing more problems. The intense pain the baby feels at the time, is also said to have ramifications in the central nervous system. The perineal nerve can be damaged or truncated in a botched circumcision, this has been mentioned as a possible direct cause of ED later on in life. It runs underneath the penis right up to the glans and also spans up to the dorsal nerve, where the sensory signals are transmitted away from the penis to the CNS. There is a region just underneath the glans where the foreskin joins the glans, where sensation in the intact male is very intense. This area for me before my hormone issues, was without doubt the most highly sexually sensitive of anywhere on my penis, it is interesting this is where the perineal nerve joins the glans. The foreskin is saturated with thousands of erogenous nerves for sexual pleasure, these are all removed during circumcision. The shaft of the penis does not contain these nerves and the glans only contains a much smaller amount of erogenous nerves and they are of a different type. They are concentrated in the foreskin and just where it attaches in the frenulum and the underside of the corona of the glans.

Here are two links (I will not bombard you with more) with regard to doctors who are against circumcision. Two pages are relevant. I found it very interesting that they point out many of the studies that say there is no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised males with regard to sexual function are flawed. I have read one such study and it serious critique. I also found the section on complications that arise from circumcision and the complete lack of reporting that occurs alarming. 70 TO 80% of males are circumcised in the US as compared to 5-6% in the UK. This is actually big business in the US, generating large amounts of money not only for the doctors who perform these procedures but also for the hospitals. It is the most popular elective surgery performed on children. Need I say more in regard to this.
Dan Bollinger estimates in his study that over 100 babies die from complications due to circumcision each year in the US.

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision ... al-impact/
https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision ... lications/

The amount of tissue that is removed during circumcision is actually substantial, it is not the “little snip” that some may have you believe. It appears to be little when removed from a baby, but it grows to a considerable amount of skin comprising up to 30-40% of the skin on the penis (some men have a considerably smaller percentage like I do!) of highly sensitive tissue in the adult with thousands of nerve endings. I really do think it is extremely naive to believe that this does not affect sexual function in the male to some degree. As I mentioned earlier, some men feel the negative effects from this far more than others. Some men do suffer erectile issues from the loss of this part of the penis. Our penises have developed over millions of years of evolution, how arrogant it is of some of the medical community today to think that this part of our sexual organ is redundant. In Australia, the medical community for the most part strongly advises against it and has done this for a number of decades now as is the case in the UK and most of Europe. They state without reservation that the foreskin protects the penis.
My hope is that circumcision becomes illegal to perform on an unconsenting male child in my country unless for a very specific medical reason where there is no other solution, and this is actually quite rare.
The legal ramifications of circumcising an unconsenting child are actually very interesting, someone has actually written a book on it!

I will finish by saying I think it is the father of the child that often perpetuates this grossly unnecessary procedure. Wanting his sons to be the same as him. My two older brothers were circumcised, as in the 1950’s in Australia this was still very similar to the USA today. When I came along in the early 60’s it was still the same, but my mother after having witnessed the post trauma that both my brothers went through and the advice from a very modern thinking paediatrician, put her foot down and said this one is not going to be cut, even though my father insisted!
I think there was only one other boy in my class at school that had a foreskin and he was from Italy! My father still persisted with this as I can remember him asking when I was around 10 years of age if I wanted to have it removed so I could be the same as everyone else! I firmly said no! The choice was mine and I made it, even given the pressure from a parent and what was apparently the norm with my peers. I had the sense at that age to know it was part of me and I wanted to keep it. I am eternally grateful to my mother for allowing me to have that choice.