In the US, where circumcision has been in the majority for years, with 80% or so rate, HIV transmission is much higher than Europe, where most of the men are uncircumcized--not mutilated. Well, we can see how statistics are not exactly accurate regarding this issue.

The spread of HIV cannot and will not be stopped by mutilating male genitals. None of the pro-circ forces address the issues of drastically decreased sensitivity, psychological issues due to being mutilated or the fact that there simply isn't any good reason for this brutal and barbaric practice. Too many times too much skin is removed and erections are painful, distorted, and in infants the insult to the tissues can stunt the growth of the penis.

Some of the Victorians circumcized males because they felt it prevented masturbation; it doesn't.

Some decades back, the pro-mutilation people said it would prevent penile cancer; the rates of that cancer are extremely low in Europe, where men are generally left intact.

New studies have just been released that show the uncircumcized males generally have an STD rate actually very slightly LOWER than that of circumcized males.

Therefore; the pro-circ promoters must have some other agenda--since all of their reasons are invalid.

I feel it's a human right to have a whole body--circumcision of males and females is mutilation and an abomination. "If God had wanted me to have a foreskin, I would have been born with one."

Unfortunately when an article on male circumcision is published the anti-circumcision activists who prowl the Internet pounce. Sadly for these zealots the jury is in on the matter and their cause is rapidly becoming a lost one. Read the foint statement from WHO and UNAIDS.New Data on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Policy and Programme Implications http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusion 1: The research evidence is compelling 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.

Recommendations : 1.1 Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention. 1.2 Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.

Since circumcision gives no direct protection to women (and may not give any indirect protection either), what will be done to empower women to say "No" to men who want to have unprotected sex with them because "I'm safe now, I'm circumcised"? What can be done to empower them?

Will all men being circumcised be tested for HIV first? Or will they be circumcised regardless to avoid embarrassment? There's no value in circumcising them (and a great deal of effort and cost, and greater danger to the operators) if they're already infected. In fact the value would be negative. It would be ironical and tragic if people come to think "uncircumcised = HIV carrier" when the reverse was the case.