Oh, Good Grief

Talk about missing the point.

Dude. There is always a chance of contracting HIV during vaginal intercourse, foreskin or no foreskin. When current education projects have been unable to convince men to use condoms or to combat the myth that HIV can be cured by having sex with a virgin, does it really seem likely that "get part of your penis cut off and you'll be 60% less likely to be infected" is gonna work well?

The article linked doesn't actually go into the mechanism that lead to the claim that circumcision reduces risk of male infection (notice that no one gives a damn about the unchanged risk to women). For that you have to link to one of the previous articles, that talks of "vulnerable cells" under the foreskin. Still not a really good explaination of mechanism. This makes me really suspicious because much of the research extolling the virtues of male circumcision has shown that similar results can be attained by washing beneath the foreskin. I'd hate to see this turn into another case of arbitrarily cutting off bits of sexual organs because it's easier than teaching basic hygeine.