The answer, luvem-all, is...

...it depends. And here's why:

Adult male circumcision has been found to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV in men by around 55-60% in three randomized trial studies in Uganda, South Africa and Kenya, where HIV/AIDS is endemic. Heterosexual vaginal intercourse is the predominant mode of HIV transmission in these countries.

Circumcision did not provide complete protection against HIV, but researchers concluded that circumcision reduced the risk of HIV acquisition in the study groups. While there were high rates of HIV acquisition in both arms of these studies – the circumcised and the uncircumcised – rates were lower in the former group.

The results of the studies do suggest that widespread circumcision in Africa could reduce HIV transmission by hundreds of thousands. And while consideration is being given to making such programs culturally sensitive, the proposed mass implementation of circumcision raises complex moral problems relating to cultural practice, gender equity, informed consent, and the just allocation of limited resources.

There are some strong arguments against circumcision campaigns, including:

If more men decide not to use condoms because they have been circumcised, HIV transmission may increase.

Male circumcision has no effect on women's HIV risk.

Circumcision may reduce women's ability to negotiate condom use.

Circumcision is a complex cultural practice, with identity and religious connotations in many cultures.

Some people consider circumcision to be a form of genital mutilation.

Circumcision is often performed outside clinical environments. There could be an increase in deaths due to complications from the circumcision procedure.

Now I believe that parents in the US should NOT consider the results of these studies as a reason to have their child circumcised. Looking at heterosexual transmission in the United States, the protective factor for the male partner is very low (and again, male circumcision has no direct effect on female partners' risk). An American male heterosexual, non-injecting drug user's risk of HIV infection is extremely low. These low rates of transmission and risk do not justify widespread circumcision in the general population in the United States.

Circumcision for men who have sex with men is slightly more controversial. HIV risk is highest for the receptive partner during male-to-male anal intercourse, and research shows that most men who have sex with men will be both a receptive and insertive partner. For the realtively small number of men who are only insertive partners and who engage in unprotected anal intercourse with casual partners, circumcision may have a protective effect.

Circumcision does not prevent HIV - it reduces the risk of female-to-male transmission only. Further, male circumcision has been shown to have no effect on transmission through receptive anal sex, which is the most common SEXUAL risk activity for HIV transmission in the US. Circumcision has no significant impact for heterosexual or homosexual transmission of HIV in the United States.

Finally, condoms are still the most effective means of preventing sexual transmission of HIV and other STDs,

The Love Goddess

LG,

There is some controversy regarding circumcised vs uncircumcised penises. The debate in some camps appears to be almost religious.  My question to you...are there any substantiated health benefits to having a circumcised penis?  

Thanks

Dear digem-all,

Unless you have been diagnosed BY A COMPETENT UROLOGIST with a condition that requires adult circumcision, there is absolutely no reason for you to do so. As previously stated, this is not a medical board and no one here can give individual advice. If you are concerned, please see a urologist.

Finally, I should point out that the vast majority of European men are uncircumcised and the rates of STDs/HIV are just as low or lower than in the United States. I am only using Europe in terms of comparative SES and living standard, but the vast majority in non-muslim Asian countries have high rates of uncircumcised men as well.

It is natural to have a foreskin, or else it wouldn't be there,
The Love Goddess

Aside from those studies you mentioned regarding HIV, what about other issues such as UTI and others.  I thought as long as one took care to clean thoroughly, risk of infections like these are minimal.  Are uncircumcised men really more prone to issues like these?   Would I be increasing the likelyhood of exposing my partner to UTI and others, either through vaginal or oral contact?  And in my case, being a middle-aged man, is there a real reason to undergo a circumcism?  I'm just trying to sort through the information barrage.

Granted, but what is the need to look at transmission rates when what really matters is the transmission to the person who gets it?

There are pro's and con's to everything.  

1)  Some women just prefer the appearance of one over the other.

2)  Some guys think they have better sensation with one over the other.

3)  I KNOW, for a fact, that one is easier to keep clean than the other and not keeping it clean CAN be detrimental to your health. (My physical, blood relation, brother had the tip of his removed because he didn't clean under the foreskin properly, developed an infection, didn't get it looked at soon enough because of shame and when he finally went, it was too late to do anything but partial amputation.  I can assure you, his sexual experiences cannot be as good as someone who has not been amputated!)

What it really boils down to is this:  What do YOU want.  Do YOU want the clean look, do YOU want the natural look?

If your already an adult and un-cut, why go through this process now? I prefer un-cut myself but as long as it is kept clean, you will not hear a complaint out of me! Back to the original question, the only benefit I see out of it is you would have increased sensitivity and easier to clean.

I am against circumcision especially when its done to babies - they can't say no. To keep it clean not a big deal unless you live in a dessert....

Even the thought of it gives me a goosebumps