I mentioned this in passing to my (uncircumcised) husband and the look of horror on his face was enough to tell me what he thought!
He's in the Army and thinks that the US military is largely responsible for the prevalence of circumcison in the US - they circumcised loads of servicemen during the wars because they thought it would help prevent STDs and 'trench-willy'. When the men came back they decided that there was no way they would want their sons to have to go through it as adults, so the trend for infant circumcision took off. On the other hand, I expect that the NHS just couldn't afford to do it, so that never happened in the UK!
I think there are strong medical reasons for some babies to have it done (eg if there's an immediate problem, family history of cancer etc), but otherwise it does just largely seem down to personal choice. Personally I've never really been bothered about the looks of the thing - I can't imagine having a preference one way or another, I'm more bothered about the man it's attached to!
![ROFL :rofl: :rofl:](/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/rofl.gif)
I think there are strong medical reasons for some babies to have it done (eg if there's an immediate problem, family history of cancer etc), but otherwise it does just largely seem down to personal choice. Personally I've never really been bothered about the looks of the thing - I can't imagine having a preference one way or another, I'm more bothered about the man it's attached to!