Yes. A big part of the reason is that when our National Health System started after World War Two, circumcision of infants wasn't included. If it had been free, more infant boys would have been mutilated.

Any man who can't retract their foreskin needs to be pointed at their doctor... and anyone who can't wash needs to be pointed at the shower or the door.

it seems to be more a cultural reason behind circumcision I find those from African/Asian or Muslim/Jewish backgrounds are usually circumcised but generally most white men or black caribbean men are uncircumcised unless it was for medical reasons.

This honestly confuses me... I've never understood why usa men have no skin. I find the skin useful as it goes up and down better m.. Idk. But circumsized proves difficult for me. I'd say 30% in the uk are cut. I don't do owo so i can't comment but yes my boyfriend gets sick cheese but just ask them to shower saying you ask everyone to do so.

Circumcising baby boys is a highly profitable business in the US so it's widely promoted as being the "clean and healthy" option. The fact that it makes the cock lose some of it's sensation tends to be glossed over.

We are straying off-topic, but as a hopefully final word on this aspect, "Male circumcision in Britain: findings from a national probability sample survey" is based on the 2000 British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal 2000), then the best available look at the UK population.

They found about 16% of men aged 16?44 years reported being circumcised. The older they were, the less likely it was. With the exception of black Caribbeans, men from all ethnic minority backgrounds or who were born outside the UK were significantly more likely to report being circumcised. Unsurprisingly, religion was also a factor (highest for Jewish men, lowest for Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists). Fascinatingly, circumcised men were more likely to report having had homosexual partner(s).

"We did not find any significant differences in the proportion of circumcised and uncircumcised British men reporting ever being diagnosed with any STI, bacterial STIs, or viral STIs. We also found no significant associations between circumcision and being diagnosed with any one of the seven specific STIs."

This finding is repeated in the Sigma Research surveys of gay and bisexual men too.

If you want to avoid STIs, you don't avoid foreskins, you use condoms.

And before anyone mentions HIV, and how "having the foreskin removed lowers the risk of catching HIV by 60%", you need to know that it's not enough on its own, not relevant to the bulk of infections acquired in the UK (still during sex between men), and of marginal benefit to women*.

But even so, a 60% reduction in risk sounds a lot - it's about what people are hoping for from a vaccine against HIV, should one be developed - and it comes from three randomised control trials in Africa (you circumcise some men, but not others, and see what happens to them over time).

However, it's a relative reduction. The absolute reduction was about 1.8% - over the course of the trials, the risk was about 4.8% (uncut) and 3.0% (cut). The level of complications from serious blood loss and infections, to impotence and loss of the penis was about 1.5%, barely lower than the reduction, and these were circumcisions performed in the best conditions they could arrange.

Just as bad is the fact that the trials were all cut short (sorry! 'terminated early') and this will mask any delaying effect. Imagine that all circumcision did was delay catching HIV by a year, on average. Stopping a three year trial after two years would show a substantial reduction in relative risk -  you'd miss all the cut men who caught HIV in the third year!

And it gets worse: in order to maximise what benefit there is, you need to do this in infancy, but there are serious consent issues - you're performing an unnecessary operation with possibly some major complications on someone who can't give consent themselves in the hope that, fifteen or so years later, there might be some benefit. If they turn out to be gay or bisexual, it will be of no benefit. If a medical advance happens in another prevention technology, there may be no benefit.

And if they turn up as a client, you're still going to say 'use a condom'!

*  _{If fewer men have HIV, fewer women will have HIV+ partners, but if the one you're shagging is, circumcision doesn't help you.}