Because the benefits are close to 0%... not 0%, but we're talking one out of hundreds of thousands of people who don't take care of themselves via proper hygene.

And in return, in general what you end up with is less sexual sensititivty, which honestly is probably more important to most men then reducing penis infection from  a .001% chance to .00001% chance.

Wow very great point  NOT...

Are you  or is anyone here one of the people with aids in africa? No. As long as you are no poor waterless african person with hygiene problem and lack of knowledge how to properly wash yourself circumcision has no positive effect for you .

Its nonsense that a person without foreskin has less of a chance to spread it  thats just bullshit.   Aids can be spread with sperm.   No matter if there is foreskin or not.  The only way I can imagine how this could be true is if a lion bite off your balls and you cant produce sperm anymore. Who knows how their average day looks like (jk)

And about the being infected thing...
Your link says   "the skin under the foreskin becomes less sensitive and is less likely to bleed, reducing the risk of infection."  When was the last time anybody you knew had a bleeding penis?
Thats not a first world problem at all because we know how to "maintain" a clean penis. And just because the odds to get aids might go from 1.5:1 go to 2:1 doesnt make it a useful method at all.  Its especially useless for the first world countries  because  educated people here use a condom when they have sex with strangers etc.

Btw the "study" has a fatal error  which is: A circumcised penis is less sensitive thats correct BUT it is more exposed to external stuff.  It is dramatically more exposed to external  bacteria, insects, dirt, heat etc.   This damages the penis and creates small injuries that can nullify the theoretical advantage of a circumcised penis.   The only real positive effect circumcision has is:

Its easier to wash the damn thing. Even a 1 handed person can do it.

This is the origin of  "smaller chance of being infected".   Because africans with  lack of water  have hygiene problems. This is the only reason why they suggest circumcision in Africa.  Alot of them also simply dont know that you should pull back the foreskin to wash it.

 And BTW. Its abvious that noone here was talking about the poorest people in a third world country that lack knowledge and water.  But for our society in the developed world...  my before mentioned arguments still are valid.

Seriously your reply is hilarious. 

P.S.  foreskin makes sex smoother and more gentle for females. No foreskin increases the chance of a sore vagina which also increases the chance for females to be infected with aids. Especially when the females suffer water defiency which is highly likely in poorer countries with lack of water. So even IF no foreskin would help males become less infected it would make females become easier infected.  

Not worth it.

Did the study show any change in infection rates for females? I dont think so.

This year actually. My mate was doing some random chick he found in some night club and his penis started to bleed. He went to the doctor and found out he also caught some STD. Oh and he is circumcised . So where does it say cut penises are immuned to shit again? LOL

Doesn't circumcision require antibiotics too? I read days ago that early exposure to antibiotics increases the risk of obesity later in life :/

Ever wonder why those chopped porn stars have sex for an hour at a time? It is not because they are good at holding it back, it is because they have no choice. The average normal person has sex for 3 minutes, but people with mutilated genitalia take 60-80 minutes because they are not able to feel normal sexual sensation. This is proven in pornographic videos. It is a complete myth that this is a good thing, it is a sad thing that it takes the mutilated community THAT long for something as simple as an orgasm.

Of course, on the flipside, if parents shouldn't be allowed the choice to chop their babies' genitals, then they most certainly should NOT be allowed to sign their death warrants at the abortion clinic. You can't really justify one without the other without some very crazy hypocritcal viewpoint which defies biological fact.