qwertyuio said:
I think it's that cut guys have reduced sensitivity due to a lifetime of it rubbing against their pants when they walk. And I'm surprised it's 50/50 right now, I'm uncut and I thought I was in a drastic minority.
I'm uncut.
It's not really that rare. Since the mid-70s doctors no longer push for circumcision. It's generally done now as a matter of religious preference (relatively common), in case there is something wrong (rare), in case of repeated infection (less rare), or because of cultural momentum (common).
The 'cultural momentum' thing is the biggest factor. Most of the science says that with good hygiene the disease factor is a non-issue. Wash it once a day, and go for a pee and wash it after sex... Be gentle but comprehensive. But you should be doing that anyway, so using circumcision to avoid good hygiene is a bit 'icky'.
As far as the HIV factor goes--
1. If that is your primary consideration for avoiding HIV you have bigger problems.
2. The jury on that is still out. Once again, there is a cultural bias toward cut == clean, more recent studies say that the gain may be fairly marginal.
Basically, a lot of cut == clean hype turns out to offer only marginal advantages under more comprehensive study. Far less than, oh say, safer sex and good hygiene. But once cultural momentum sets in, it's hard to get these things to go away.
And yeah, I've had women say they'd never suck an uncut dick, after they've sucked my dick. Amazing what a hard on will do-- Makes for an awkward conversation though.
I wouldn't get my kids cut. I like my sensitivity. And frankly, given the central role a penis plays in a man's life and in the propagation of the species, saying that it's purely vestigial seems 'iffy' (Then again we're not really trundling across the savanna trying to keep the flies off.).
But to each there own.
