Circumcision can only possibly help men who have unsafe sex with HIV+ partners, so why this bizarre obsession with genital surgery when we know that ABC works better than circumcision ever could? (ABC=Abstinence, Being Faithful, Condoms). The two continents with the highest rates of AIDS are the same two continents with the highest rates of male circumcision. Something is very wrong here. These people aren't interesting in fighting HIV, but in promoting circumcision, and their actions will cost lives.

We wouldn't investigate cutting off women's labia to protect against HIV, so why are researchers cutting off men's foreskins? There is strong evidence that female circumcision does in fact protect against HIV, but no-one's promoting that, and quite rightly.

Circumcised men are less likely to use condoms, and more likely to transmit HIV if they already have it, so this whole thing will cost lives, not save them. If circ worked so well against HIV, then why does the USA have a higher rate of HIV than any of the 27 European Union countries (where they don't circ)?

When the matter of male circumcision for HIV is raised anywhere on the net the first responses will be from a gay dominated group of anti-circumcision activists. Already they have posted a response here. WHO and UNAIDS in a joint statement found: "The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings. The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%. The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention." And as a result of the conclusions the WHO and UNAIDS recommended as follows: "Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention. And. Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men." So who are we to believe? The WHO and UNAIDS or some gay dominated group with psychosexual agenda?

Joshua Amos has claimed, without producing one scrap of evidence, that there is a "gay dominated group of anti-circumcision activists." What humbug! There is evidence that some people who push circumcision are sexually involved in the procedure . There is considerable evidence of forced circumcisions in Africa and elsewhere . Unlike Joshua Amos's fantasy about homosexuals, forced circumcision is a real problem that needs to be dealt with. And this applies whether a person is for circumcision or against it.

When the matter of male circumcision for HIV is raised anywhere on the net the first responses will be from a gay dominated group of anti-circumcision activists. Already they have posted a response here. WHO and UNAIDS in a joint statement found: "The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings. The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%. The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention." And as a result of the conclusions the WHO and UNAIDS recommended as follows: "Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention. And. Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men." So who are we to believe? The WHO and UNAIDS or some gay dominated group with psychosexual agenda?

As far as circumcision for AIDS prevention goes, the US has a very high rate of AIDS transmission and a very high rate of circumcision. The vast majority of HIV+ individuals in the US are circumcized. Obviously, circumcision in the US has not reduced or prevented the spread of HIV.

HIV is caused by a virus, not by a foreskin. A foreskin is not a birth defect.

Circumcision of females is mutilation. Circumcision of males is also mutilation.

Circumcision destroys most penile sensitivity and can cause sexual problems throughout life, increasing as penile sensitivity decreases through keratinization of the glans, and callousing because the glans was intended by nature to be covered by foreskin.

If genital mutilation didn't work in the US for the spread of HIV, why would it work in Africa?

Men in the Ugandan trial who were NOT circumcised got less HIV than men in the Kenyan trial who WERE circumcised. Clearly you were doing something right in Uganda already - probably the "Zero Grazing" campaign, which targets the biggest risks of HIV transmission, multiple partners (and uncovered sex). If money and energy is diverted away from that to circumcision, your HIV rate will go UP.