Not from what I have read. In countries where hygeine is good - the foreskin is clean and no germs are lurking in there! Feel free to correct if i am wrong - but I am pretty sure that in western countries the practice is cultural or religious EDIT Please be aware that the answer I have provided above is based on old evidence and is not correct information. See the link provided in a comment below my answer for more accurate information.

Good lord no...

The government of South Africa reported less than two months ago that male circumcision cuts infectibility of AIDS by about a third and urged that it be considered one of the best available preventatives of HIV infection.

On December 14, 2006, the front page of the New York Times reported that the US Government sponsored National Institutes of Health concluded two studies in Kenya and Uganda, stopping the experiment halfway through because the evidence was SO conclusive that circumcision cuts the rate of HIV infection IN HALF that it was unethical to continue the study. They advised the uncircumcised men to get circumcised. (Heck, almost EVERY uncircumcised man should get circumcised. It's especially important in primitive societies, though, because apparently infectibility increases with cuts & scratches that come along with a rough life. What's in parentheses was not from the Times.)

Unfortunately I'm circumsized which makes me think constantly that it has effected my way of thinking and overall psychology. I think that I would have more confidence and I wouldnt be such a pansy when it comes to asking girls out and what not. I'm telling you people all this mainly because I want to get express my disbelief in this surgery procedure and I think it fucks with kids at an early age and effects their overall confidence on doing stuff.

Apparently there is a group of cells in the inside membrane of the foreskin which are particularly vulnerable to viral infection due to the ease with which viruses can get in. Removing this section of skin reduces the risk significantly, so yes it seems males circumcision does protect against std's.

It can but if you notice where it is successful in slowing down the spread of STDs is in areas where hygene in general may not be available on a routine basis. In arrid regions where there is little water and and where nutrition is poor anyway, risk is higher so circumcision is urged. There are many pros and cons about this but as time goes on fewer and fewer nations and cultures routinely circumcise. Why do that when soap and water will do just as well? Our ears get dirty too and are subject to infections but I don't hear of anyone routinely slicing off ears to prevent ear infections.

No circ doesn't protect against STD's , the study in question was comparing different cultures. The cultured that was circumcised was Moslem. So by the same scientific analysis you can deduct that just being Moslem protects you from STD's. And you would be equally wrong a second time. Comparing the US to Denmark proves the opposite to be true. The US has a high circ rate, Denmark has a high rate of intact men. And the US has a much higher rate of HIV. The people that did that study did not evaluate the information intelligently , and so they did not get an intelligent answer... If you really looked at the populations they were studying , you would see that there were behavioral differences that were more likely to affect the STD rate, and not the circumcision... Having a clean water supply, good hygiene, and safer sex practices will protect more consistently. Dr Edell mentions this study and other circumcision fallacies in this 15min radio debate. (The Great Debate) And he is easy to understand... http://tlctugger.com/Audio/index.htm

Circumcision is mutilation and does not protect against STD's. The South African government also urged people to use herbs to protect against HIV and are not to be taken seriously when it comes to advice on STD's.

1)When analyzing medical literature about circumcision, one should ask: 1. Does the author come from a circumcising culture? 2. Is the author circumcised? 3. Does the author have a circumcised son? 4. Does the author profit from doing circumcisions? 5. What is the author’s true motive in writing this document? 2)Three RCTs have now been published with enormous ballyhoo. One was led by a French team and two have been led by North American researchers. All lead authors previously had published in favor of male circumcision to prevent HIV infection, so researcher bias is overwhelmingly evident. 3)The claim that male circumcision prevents HIV infection is based on the hypothesis that Langerhans cells in the foreskin are vulnerable to HIV infection [36]. Newly published research finds that Langerhans cells produce a substance called Langerin that blocks the uptake of HIV [36]. The hypothesis, therefore, now has been overturned and the validity of the findings of the RCTs is placed in doubt [36]. 4)Despite the hyperbolic claims of the circumcision advocates, the high rate of prostitution, not lack of circumcision, is the cause of the African epidemic. When RCTs are adjusted for the sex-worker population, circumcision ceases to be a significant source of proctection http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/Hill_2007.pdf