Why oh why do people keep talking about circumcision in the fight against AIDS? There are six African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.

The one study into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost African lives, not save them.

What does "aggressive" mean? Are men who choose to keep all of their genitals (regardless of their sexual practices) to be bullied? Browbeaten? Victimised? This does not look good. And babies can not "volunteer" to be circumcised, either.

It is true that the rate of HIV is much higher in non-circumcised Kenyan men than circumcised - unlike the countries ML mentions - but the reason is fairly clear. Poor women in villages around the Lake trade sex for fish with their (uncircumcised) Luo fisherman "boyfriends". It is nothing to do with their foreskins and everything to do with their fish! Improving the economic conditions of the women would do much more to prevent the spread of HIV than spending valuable resources on a useless operation.