There are many countries where circumcision is not done. The majority of men (world wide) are not cut. If a guy is circumcised as a baby then he'll never know what, if anything is lost. I've been with circumcised men and uncircumcised men, they're both good for me.

If I had boy babies today, I would not have them circumcised. I would have left it up to my sons, if they wanted it done then they could decide to have it done when they're adults. Thirty years ago when I had my sons it was "the thing to do" and if you questioned it, the doctors would give you horror stories and basically a bunch of BS lines. Back then they only gave you cons of not having it done, they didn't educate you enough to make your own decision. Being young at the time, being told by doctors and everyone else it should be done and not having the resources that are out there today to really do some research on it I just did what everyone said was the thing to do.

Some countries circumcise females too.

you have to keep in mind, that circumcision has been going on for hundreds of years. I am sure that it came about in many different ways. I mean, at some point we started cutting the umbilical cord because it was easier to care for the baby that way than hauling around the rotting placenta and cord until it detached. at some point people started amputating fingers and toes, and even larger limbs because of infections and things of that sort.

During that time bathing was also not a common thing. keep in mind, even back in renaissance times people only bathed a couple times a YEAR. hell, what was the name of the queen that everyone considered to be SO clean because she bathed once a month?

During that time, i am sure that there was a lot more problems with infections of the foreskin and penis and someone probably decided to amputate the foreskin just like a finger because of infection. From there, the idea probably just spread. nowadays? the need isnt there. people have easy access to bathing and cleaning themselves.

now, how it came about for religious reasons? i have no clue. I am sure if enough research was put into it we could figure it out, but i am really not interested enough int he subject to go do it! lol.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/

I don't know the reason, but there are answers posted here...I have been with men who were and men who aren't...I don't find any sexual difference, but the first thought that always goes through my head when a guy isn't circumcised is, oh an earthworm...I don't know why I have that thought.. I don't know why I have most of the thoughts I have..

I don't have an educated opinion on this subject...other than knowing other women who have been with uncut men. Most of them had no complaints at all but I did know of a woman who got alot of infections, always following sex with her uncut husband. The end result was that she stopped sleeping with him and they are no longer married. I have to assume he wasn't a very clean guy. The same could definately have happened with a cut guy who wasn't very hygeinic. The previous posters on this topic gave good thoughts on the matter. I don't know anything more than what was said here but it is definately thought to help males avoid infections and such. Sexual performance, according to popular opinion, isn't affected one way or the other.