Even if there was relevance in these studies, and it was agreed that circumcision was the best option, circumcision of sexually active males could be considered then, not the ritualised child-abuse that goes on when neonatal boys are circumcised without anaesthetic as happens today. That is notwithstanding the circumcions that are conducted in the name of various religions.

If it was found that cutting off your pinkie was a means to prevent HIV infection, or circumcision of girls was another way of spreading the virus, how much support would there be – none! Unfortunately, we are all victims of the scam that has been going on for centuries. If the foreskin did not provide a use for the male body, evolution would have removed it thousands of years ago, so obviously it is there for a reason!

Just my few cents worth…

Now, what bothers me is that the article doesn’t explain why they think that there is an advantage to being circumcised. I can guess that it’s because the skin thickens slightly in order to protect the “head” from friction but I’d like to know if this is the actual reason.

yet their infection rate is incredibly low.

why?

they are, generally, obsessed with cleanliness AND they condomise like crazy.

it’s not about circumcision per se, it’s about maintenance and using protection.

i really wish more people would wake up to that.

Apart from the sudden HIV linkage to foreskins (whatever next??), for years ignorant parents have advocated circumcision for “hygienic” reasons. It’s tantamount to saying that for hygienic reasons, if you don’t keep your ears clean, remove them as well..

Now the HIV foreskin thing has suddenly surfaced and the danger is that many more ignoramuses hiding behind so called statistics will make the call to circumcise their sons, without their permission, in an attempt to address a sexually transmitted disease. What is the issue really? A parental (or medical) attempt to force males to address sexual hygiene, (as if sexual practices could be enforced at birth anyway!) or simple fear?

I agree with Vaughan – circumcised Americans weren’t immune!

Captain. According to the San Francisco Chronicle: “Laboratory studies have found that the foreskin is rich in white blood cells, which are favored targets of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. So the theory is that men who are uncircumcised are much more likely to contract the virus during sex…”

I wonder, however, if the Catholic Church, with its vehement anti-condom position, isn’t somehow behind this movement for mass circumcision…