Do not beleive it,it is another wrong track,the extension of this arguememt is,because most Israeli males are circumcised,explains the low hiv/aids prevalence there,What a lot of rubbish,morals is what it is about,abstain until you are married,then stick with one partner for the rest of your life=no hiv/aids.Take responsibility for yourself and family etc.Brush this comment aside and it WILL cost you BIG time,in terms of lives lost and capital lost.Surely you can control you sexual urges?,you are NOT animals as schools surely teach your chidren in biology/evolution.Most people think,ABSTAIN I could never do that,there must be a better,(more convenient way),THEIR IS NOT.Besides this do you not think a male will say to a partner,"Don't worry I'm circumcised,when he is not.",and so the viscious cycle continues,BREAK IT NOW.

As Marge Berer said at the Mexico conference, circumcision should be publicly described as “like a cheap condom that breaks 40% of the time”.

It is the only HIV prevention intervention that does not offer some protection to both partners, and may actually put a man’s sexual partner at greater risk of infection.

Berer gave the hypothetical (but all too likely) example of a man who had refused an HIV test at the time of circumcision, and was unknowingly HIV-positive. He thinks that circumcision will now protect him from HIV and so stops using condoms. “If he continues depositing semen in his partner’s body every time they have sex, his partner is in a worse position than he or she was before," she said.

And that's assuming that circumcision offers any protection at all, which is still debatable. The three trials showed up very small numbers of infected men compared to the number who dropped out, their HIV status unknown. They differed in many ways from real-world mass-circumcison campaigns.

Circumcision is being powerfully promoted by a few people far beyond any actual benefit.