Yes it does. It is a proven medical fact that a circumcised man is around 60% less likely to spread HIV than an uncircumcised one. That's why they're trying to encourage circumcision in places like Africa. It's also generally cleaner to be circumcised, because the foreskin traps dirt and germs, and there is also the risk of damage and infection to the foreskin. Men with foreskins are also more likely to spread STDs to women (for the same reasons as HIV) particularly things like HPV and bacterial infections. Conversely, if you track down any men who were circumcised as adults I doubt the vast majority of them would notice any decrease in sensitivity (personally I think that's mostly myth spread by those who are against it, since most men are circumcised as children and thus how would anyone have any idea?) and those I know who are circumcised seem to enjoy sex just as much as those who aren't, and being Jewish I know plenty of circumcised men. I wouldn't judge any man who is uncircumcised, as like I said it is mostly something done at birth and I wouldn't really expect most men to chose it in later life considering the sensitive nature of that area, but it is genuinely cleaner and safer to have it done, and therefore it's not just a cosmetic thing.

Also, if you look up medical studies (try googling rather than just jabbering) a study done on men circumcised as adults showed that while 38% reported harm, 50% reported benefits, some reported increased sensitivity during sex, and in a separate study it stated that circumcision reduces the likelihood of penile cancer. All points for, I'd say.

*sigh*

nat, if you **** a guy with aids (or unclear medical history) without using protection, just because he's circumcised, you're a moron. and if you use protection, those 25% (where did you pull your percentage out of?) don't matter at all.

I fully agree with you #43. I wouldn't wanna be desensitized either lmao. I like mine just how it is. There's fully nothing wrong with it.