Cicumcision reduces chance of men catching AIDS (and all other infections) because it turns the glans penis from a mucus membrane into dry epidermal skin.

Immediately after the surgery, especially in third world conditions, the men are more likely to have open wounds or infections following the surgery.

Since women get AIDS from infected semen or blood, not simply from contact with the glans penis, obviously male circumcision will not immediately affect chances of transmission to them from an infected partner.

Female circumcision, of course, will not help. It will make women more vulnerable to genital infections.

However from an epidemiological point of view, the fewer men who have HIV/AIDS, the fewer women will get it, unless the women are getting it from each other.

Surely all this is perfectly obvious. What is there to discuss?

This is unexpected, why? For some reason circumcision protects men from becoming infected. It would then logically follow that if circimcision prevents a man from becoming infected with HIV, his downstream partner(s) would also be protected.

I cannot imagine why anyone would believe that circumcision would prevent transmission of HIV from an infected man to his receptive partner(s) (circumcision doesn't prevent or reduce fluid exchange). Add an wound from the circumcision and OF COURSE infection would be more likely.

Someone help me here. Am I missing something?

Given what we know about HIV transmission--that it occurs primarily through mucous-membrane contact with blood and semen--it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that women would become infected at higher rates when they come in contact with their HIV-positive partners' blood as well as their semen.

I'm not even sure why this is remarkable.

That's not circumcision, that's extreme bme.

Isn't the whole conversation irrelevant? Regardless of how helpful/harmful circumcision is in the fight against HIV (and it doesn't even come close to abstinence or condom usage), should we really be cutting parts off of minors without their permission (they way the vast majority of circumcisions take place)?

It's just a basic human rights issue.

We can't cut up boys for women's satisfaction anymore. Time to dig deeper and find new excuses to continue propping up boy mutilation. How about it, women?

I prefer my prongs unsnipped (and my boyfriend would agree).

Anyway, I agree it's completely irrelevant since we should leave the peens alone. Circumcision on anyone without an opinion in the matter (which is almost the case in every instance) is wrong.

Let's put the other shoe on. Would we even be HAVING this conversation if it were FEMALE circumcision that had a slight impact on rates of HIV transmission? HELL NO. Circumcision is a barbaric treatment and the benefits here claimed do not do away with the need for practicing safe sex. If he's gonna have to practice safe sex anyway, why take a knife to your son's genitals? It just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The risk to the women involved, the false sense of security this program gives, makes things MORE dangerous and are other good reasons for not doing this.

For over 100 years male circumcision has been a procedure in search of a medical justification. As research continued, the justifications have shifted over and over. The search for a good reason continues. This is just the latest and it will be replaced once enough people realize how totally obsurd it is.

As usual, the parade of fanatical anti-circumcisers comes out in droves, no doubt spurred on by some web site accusing Salon.com of being almost criminal for even mentioning it.

Tho' we won't be heard above the usual tripe by folk who automatically declare this is an anti-male by "Broadsheet Feminists(TM)", etc.

Circumcision is supposed to prevent or lower the chance of HIV infection in uninfected males. As others have said, circumsizing already-infected males is not relevant to that hypothesis.

From my own experience it was I not my Husband who disagreed with the "Boy Mutilation." And from a smalll consensus of the parents of boys I know the mothers were the ones to take issue with it. It was the fathers who wanted it done for the sake of fitting in.

A more interesting question would be why do men care so much about weather or not all other males around them are cut or uncut? Does that even exist? Is it an urban legend to promote more circumcision? Is it a way to put more money in the hands of Dr.s?

That is all...

Oh yeah gams on glass, just because people are passionate about something doesn't make them maniacs.

is a great idea - on a consensual basis, for grown men. The study does not seem to address the effect of being circumcised from birth - and I am against cutting of the genitals of ALL minors as a precautionary measure to make up for men who can't keep it in their pants when they grow up. So count me among those for whom non-consensual genital cutting is always wrong.

Once more into the breach...

Whether or not male circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS, as a male who was circumcised without his consent, I am adamantly opposed to having this procedure done to any man who does not fully consent to it. I've read enough to be convinced that I was denied a certain amount of sexual pleasure from having my foreskin removed, and I am not happy about it.

Circumcision without consent is nothing less than mutilation; if done to a child, it is child abuse.

What the hell is your problem? According to you (and your various clones), EVERY single problem in the world is the fault of women. WTF?? And you have this knee-jerk childish reaction every single time ANYTHING about men is brought up in Broadsheet to turn it into a diatribe against women...and you assume that ALL women are "man hating, lesbian, feminists." Again, WTF??

First and foremost, every single feminist I have know actually LIKES men. Indeed, we've tended to look at feminism as freeing men in addition to women from restrictive cultural "norms." We also are frequently the mothers of boys/sons...you know...those small male people who grow up to become MEN! And we want the best for our sons. Just like we want the best for our daughters.

Now, to address this current topic...sorta...regarding circumcision vis a vis AIDS...the operation itself will have a nominal effect upon male to female HIV infection (for a variety of reasons that I'm sure you are more than capable of looking up all by yourself). Indeed, I suspect that it wouldn't have much real effect upon most HIV infection rates. Safer (or no) sex really is the only way to address that.

Now, to get to your rather peurile obsession with circumcision being "for women's pleasure" nonsense...HONESTLY! What the HELL are you thinking?? That little snipsnip has NOTHING to do with our "pleasure." Neither are we a monolithic entity forcing this unpleasant and totally unnecessary procedure upon our helpless children. There are growing numbers of us who are totally against this procedure for the same reasons that we are against female circumcision....it is barbarous.

BS...you need help. You need some kind of therapy so you can get over your excessively childish persecution complex. Women are NOT out to "get" you or any other man or indeed the male of the species. We simply want fair and equitable legal rights/treatment for our gender, for we believe that will not only help women, but men as well.

So, in conclusion...BS...get the F*CK over yourself! Have a drink and get laid, would you?