Researchers were so floored by the preliminary results -- respectively, the circumcized Ugandan and Kenyan men were 53 and 48 percent less likely to become infected -- that they felt a moral obligation to put a halt to the study.

Again I say, "WHAT?"

So if a research project on a deadly disease starts showing results, you cancel it? WTF kind of nonsense is that?

And oh Broadsheet, please. Are you seriously suggesting that any and every possibility of helping alleviate AIDS shouldn't be proposed? Just whose side are you on, anyway? EVERY possible avenue should be explored, whether the result is up to your oh-so-holy PC standards or not. So what if circumcision is not so popular these days? If it helps save people's lives, what argument could there possibly be against it? Last time I checked, most guys would probably prefer being alive without a foreskin to being dead with one.

I swear, you people are more ridiculous every day...

As far as circumcision decreasing male pleasure, I wonder if these studies asked circumcised and uncircumcised males to rate their pleasure, or if they asked men who had circumcisions late in life to rate their pleasure before and after.

Likewise I wonder what cultural factors might have influenced these studies.

Speaking as a circumcised man, I can only say the sex seems fine to me.

Perhaps my uncircumcised brothers are reaching some level of orgasm or potency that I can only dream of, but having my penis circumcised has not diminished in any way my quest for sex nor my enjoyment (as far as I am aware) of the act itself.

All this being said, there was a far more important recent finding on AIDS in the developing world that I did not see commented on in Salon.

It seems that Malaria infections have an exacerbating effect on the HIV and may in fact be the primary culprit in the astronomical spread of HIV across the developed world.

Now not to wax conservative here, but a primary cause for malaria still being a devastating disease in the developed world is our urge to preserve wetlands (where mosquitoes breed) and our refusal to allow DDT to be used to wipe out infected malaria mosquito populations.

In many ways it seems that western colonial interference still to this day causes death and destruction throughout the developing world, even when it is only with good intentions that we act.

You are incorrect in your assumption that male circumcision does not affect male sex "performance". Study after study has shown that circumcision significantly decreases the pleasure of sex for males. Get your info straight before making such uninformed statements.

And none of that takes into affect the pure brutality of removing an organ for no real reason. Hey, let's make it a tradition to remove one female breast!

What consistently terrible reasoning! Some people are so angry they can't see straight, I suppose.

First of all, if circumcision does affect penile sensitivity, it still doesn't change anything about orgasms, as far as I can tell (as a female whose had sex involving both kinds of penises). So give a man a choice of a longer life with the same orgasms, or a shorter life with the supposed increased sensitivity of an uncut organ. It's still his choice, but I know what I would do.

Also, we are talking about Africa, here, not the grand ol' US of A, where condoms are available on every street corner. Some of these men may not have the option of using a condom in every sex act, although the education about condoms should certainly continue. Also the HIV rate in Africa is far higher than ours, and the anti-AIDS cocktail of meds that has saved so many of our infected is not readily available there. HIV is still a matter of life or death, for many African men, women and children.

And for the one weirdo homophobe out there, how do you suggest that we eliminate anal sex? Should we pack all of the sodomites into gas chambers? You just keep on avoiding gay sex yourself (however much you may fantasize about it) and keep your nose out of other people's business, how about it?

I'm really not trying to feed the trolls, I'm just saying.... Try thinking from the cerebral cortex instead of the amygdala for a change.

At least in my relatively limited experience (hey, my dating pool is mostly American men born in the 60s & 70s, so there's not much variety on this front), the uncut guys are a lot more, um, rewarding in a purely mechanical sense. No soreness for me, probably thanks to less violent thrusting (more area with nerve endings directly contradicts his assertion, IMO), and a bit more variety in positions/movement made me a foreskin fan once I got used to the different look and feel. And I've never dated anyone, regardless of foreskin status, with hygiene issues, so that argument doesn't faze me.

Of course you deal with what a partner has if you're attracted to him otherwise, but if I could pick and choose body parts, I'd stick with the original model.

This observation is somewhat off:

<<Male circumcision typically does not destroy sexual function -- it isn't designed to stamp out a man's sexual pleasure or identity.>>

It may not destroy sexual function but it absolutely does decrease the sensitivity of the penis, since the foreskin was "designed" to cover and protect the glans. The exposed head becomes de-sensitized, how could it not? Ask men who were circumcised as adults. And in the 19th century, circumcision was a treatment for masturbation, meant to decrease interest by decreasing sensitivity.

"I can't help but wonder how many people who argue in favor of male circumcision are actually uncircumcised men.

So far, I haven't yet seen a single man with a foreskin arguing in favor of circumcision. In fact, all of the proponents of circumcision seem to be either women, or circumcised men."

Well, duh. People are in favor of what they already have? Shocking! I can't help but wonder why people structure their opinions as facts.

"It is arguable that many of those men may be making the pro-circumcision argument in order to allay their own fears that they may have forever lost something which they would have valued, had they been allowed to keep it."

It's only arguable in the sense that it's your specious argument that you're trying to project onto others.