Among men circumcised as infants or children, by contrast, a desire to justify or accept their circumcised state—or to reject or rebel against it—may introduce additional complexities in interpreting their self-reports. In any case, we must be alert to problems around potential selection bias, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and other distorting factors, all of which are difficult to avoid when designing and interpreting studies on such subjective matters as sexual pleasure, sexual satisfaction, and sexual sensitivity [4]. Also scientists, researchers, and other stakeholders (e.g., policymakers) may have their own prior beliefs and biases when it comes to this issue, shaping how empirical results are generated, understood, communicated, or incorporated into policy.Such difficulties in establishing a clear cause-and-effect between (a) circumcision and (b) key psychological or psychosexual outcomes does not, of course, mean that we should simply discount the real distress and preoccupation about PC reported by affected men, including those circumcised in infancy or childhood [5]. Irrespective of the lack of strong causal evidence in this area, it is surely not unreasonable to feel upset that one’s “private” sexual anatomy has been altered without one’s own consent, as is increasingly being argued and acknowledged