From a note I sent for the author:

You quite rightly refer to the various instances of this practice as "female genital mutilation" but then later in the article your perpetuate the myth by writing "female circumcision".

I know you understand that it is certainly NOT circumcision, but unfortunately dilute the message by using the softer, inaccurate term later in your article.

I'm not picking on you - I have the same concern with other authors as well - but the problem will not be generally understood until we stop using that soft term for something which is much, much worse and destroys female lives in many, many ways if it doesn't kill them from infection shortly after the mutilation.

I'm not really in favor of routine male circumcision either, but in areas where hygiene may be a problem and it shows a viable health benefit, it's worthy of consideration.

But in anticipation of the flame wars that are sure to follow, I'd like you fellows to consider the equivalent as having your member whacked off below the tip. And that's the less drastic equivalent.

How exactly does circumcision affect the transfer of HIV? I would like to see what they think the connection is.

Actually, male circumcision has been used to decrease sexual pleasure. In the US circumcision was imposed in an attempt to prevent masturbation before WWII.

To combine adult circumcision with condom usuage. When getting out their message they could just say the most effective ways to prevent infection and stop the spread of HIV is adult male circumcision in conjunction with condom usage, along with telling women to insist on condoms for their own protection.

Plus I am amazed at the study, really, circumcision reduces transmission? Perhaps it's because if a man isn't circumcized the woman's excretions can remain between the foreskin and the urethra giving time for it to enter his body, while without the foreskin once he ejaculates and washes off there isn't any residual woman juice hanging around?

I think if an adult male chooses to circumsize himself there is nothing wrong with that, only the practice of forcing it on babies is really wrong, but I also have a problem with piercing baby girls ears. But then if this study is true, that the chance of becoming infected can be reduced by half just because of removing the foreskin, might it be ethical to do it at birth to hopefully save his life and maybe the lives of his future sex partners on a continent that can't improve itself partly because so many are so sick and so many children are orphaned?

I have seen no evidence that women give HIV to men. The men who were willing to get circumsized probably had very different behavior than the men who didn't. Men give HIV to other men and to women. Women are always on the receiving end. If we could prevent buggery, of both men and women, we would essentially eliminate HIV. Anal sex with women is not heterosexual. The governments and citizens of African nations are always in denial, and they are quite capable of cooking up whatever research results they want. Homosexuality (and "bisexuality") is rampant in the African nations, but denial is the order of the day. "On the down low" in the US is providing the same transmission vectors as in Africa. Lots of denial here, too.

Slicing people's genitals up is not the way to do it, however it might buy into the fantasies of exactly the same people who abhor the same practice for half the population.

it isn't designed to stamp out a man's sexual pleasure or identity

In religious terms, it usually establishes an identity, which I guess can also be construed as subsuming personal identity to the tribal, if one wants to be all academic about it.

And as someone mentioned already, the popularity of circumcision among American Christians-- who have no religious obligation to do it, of course-- can be directly traced to efforts to prevent masturbation by decreasing sensation.

Regarding the subheadline, I don't think these studies will have much impact on people in high-risk areas, but they certainly make circumcised Americans feel superior. Personally, I wouldn't do it to a kid unless I expected him to become a truck driver in Botswana or something; a middle-class American should be perfectly capable of understanding the significance of condom use and acting accordingly.

Please do not forget that condoms are much better than circumcision for lowering the risk of HIV. Note that cutting is not as effective as condoms.

Why stop at foreskins? 100% removal of the penis is 100% risk reduction !

But seriously, leave the decision until the kid reaches puberty; then let him choose, or, dont you have parenting skills to teach your kid sensible, safe sex behaviour?

Lastly, in English speaking countries, transmission is usually NOT from female to male, as this African study was focused on. Bottom Line: Be careful what conclusions you draw for English speaking countries.

Annonymous who "doesn't believe a word of it" makes it clear how prevalent misinformation and ignorance about HIV are. While the probability of transmission from women to men in vaginal intercourse is less than from men to women (roughly 1 in 1000 chance for women, 1 in 2000 chance for men of getting HIV from one instance of unprotected sex), both men and women are at risk of getting HIV if they have unprotected sex.

Given the U.S.'s foreign policy on promoting abstinence-only education abroad (thus prohibiting the discussion of condoms even in the context of STDs rather than pregnancy prevention), encouraging circumcision (in a culturally sensitive way) might be a good idea. Of course it shouldn't replace efforts to having meaningful sex education provided both in the U.S. and globally, but given that most countries' hands are tied by their dependence on U.S. aid, offering circumcision might at least help a bit.

And another point of clarification - "female circumcision" or "gential mutilation" or whatever you want to call it comes in many forms. Some are extremely invasive, brutal procedures that involve complete cliterectomies and infibulation, leaving women with lasting sexual and reproductive problems. Other forms, however, are less severe than male circumcision - invoving only a symbolic prick of the female genitalia with a needle that may not even draw a drop of blood. So it's hard to compare male and female circumcision given the wide range of rituals practiced.

All in all, I think there is no harm in informing men that circumcision helps in the prevention of HIV but is not by any means complete protection against the virus, and letting them decide for themselves. And of course, getting the U.S. government to end the ridiculous crusade against sex in our classrooms and classrooms abroad so that young people can be given the tools they need to make informed decisions about sex and the risks they take.