Different sub-types of HIV have been implicated vis a vis differing transmission vectors, ease of transmission, and in some cases, the progression of disease. Some sub-types more prevalent in Africa appear to be more amenable to transmission via heterosexual intercourse.

http://www.avert.org/hivtypes.htm

http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv6.htm

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/02_06_06.html

As far as being sans foreskin, would my brain actually explode during orgasm were I so fortunate as to have retained mine?

Cutting off parts of people's penises reduces the chance that said penises will pick up the AIDS virus. As other people have pointed out, let's go that one further, and just cut the troublesome organ off altogether! Breasts are have a tendency to get breast cancer... better have all of them off too, while we're at it.

The 50% solution to AIDS reduction may be circumcision, but the 90+% solution would be condom use. And if you think it's tough to get African truck drivers to use condoms, how easy do you think it's going to be to get them to agree to having the ends of their penises removed?

Um, I think medical and public health researchers are ethically obligated to stop studies if they reach conclusions like this. While at one point it was all fun and games to infect racial minorities with diseases in order to study them, these days I think we've evolved to be a bit more moral in our clinical work. I'm not sure why this offends you . . . would you have liked to be one of the uncircumcised men in the study who was told "Well, we found that circumcision greatly reduces the chance of contracting HIV, but we aren't going to let you get one, so just keep going out there and having risky sex, thanks for participating in our study." Come on!

Radical Mastechtomy does not prevent breast cancer, it is a treatment for very progressed breast cancer.

Simply removing the breast tissue does not prevent breast cancer. If there were the case women with very small breasts and men would not get breast cancer. Likewise radical mastechtomy would be cure for breast cancer, which it is not as even after the procedure woman may have their cancer return.

Also, just be clear, to equate the removal of a small relativly unused bit of skin to the radical removal of a physical feature shows a man unduly obsessed with his own genetalia.

A more accurate analog would be "breast reduction surgury prevents breast cancer", which again is not really an appropriate analogy, as breast cancer, like all cancers haver various avenues of treatment,where as HIV has no known cases of remission.

Thought so.

Men do not matter as much as women. So much for the vaunted EQUALITY feminists are always braying about.

Please post a few links - because a google search disagress with your strong assertion. Even the most Anti of anti-circumcision sites are inconclusive on that score -

this is from the Circumcision Resource Cenetr - regarding adult circumcisions:

Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function, decreased penile sensitivity, no change in sexual activity, and improved satisfaction. Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.

Now maybe these men don't know their own dicks or what constitutes satisfaction, but they probably know this stuff better than you.

Other studies show that circumscised men masturbate more frequently, and engage in oral and anal sex more frequently (hetrosexual). the anti-circumcision folks claim that's due to a lack of sensitivity thus a need for varied sex. i'd say that most women don't want that nasty looking uncircumsized dick in their mouths or ass, but we'd all be guessing there...

Well, I've been around a lot longer than your sex partners. I was at my prime in the 60's, which is ancient history I guess. My sex partners were mainly graduate students at a major university. That was pre-AIDS of course. Many of the women I dated had enough sexual experience to have had both types. They seemed to like me as much as they had liked my uncircumsized brethren. But maybe they were just being nice.

I hate to say this, since it deeply offends the politically correct. However, the reservoir of sexually transmitted disease, including and especially HIV, has always been the gay community. Their incredible promiscuity and deep desire for anal sex is the source of the present epidemic. If the HIV infected practitioners of anal sex could be quarantined we would stop the epidemic in its tracks. All this phoney emphasis on heterosexual transmission is a red herring. Women get HIV from bisexual men, both in Africa and the US. The epidemic of HIV in African-American women comes from the large population of A-A men "on the down low." HIV could have totally stopped 20 years ago if we had used standard public health measures, which the gay community was able to block. Unbelievable, since they were most of the people dieing from it.

I was pleased to see the letter exposing the phoniness of the research on circumcision. Comparing two distinct populations, whose mores and behavior are not similar. Also, unbelievable.

and a bad day for anti-circumcision fanatics who care more about their own foreskin insecurities.

It's obvious why a small but very active group of anti-circ zealots spend so many hours on the internet peddling misleading or false information about a tiny piece of skin. They don't give a damn about significantly reducing HIV rates in Africa. What they care most about is this: As long a significant portion of people are circumcised, those who still have foreskins will be (unfairly) stigmatized as dirty and unhealthy. The bitterness and hurt a small minority of these men (and some of their wives and mothers) feel is obvious. Behind the happily married 60-year-old grandfather who spends hours a day on the internet as part of the anti-circ echo chamber, is the 18-year-old boy (from long ago) who was afraid of being rejected by a girl for having a foreskin. Just let it go already.