You understood incorrectly. Statistics have shown the contrary for 25 years. I knew that non-circumcised guys in North America were running double the incidence on HIV back in 1986/87. This didn't surprise anyone since it matched typical STD infection rates. There are plenty of sources where you can check out the study results on this topic. From a medical/health/disease perspective, this is old news that has been confirmed in many studies.

What has changed apparently is the politics at WHO that allows this to move forward. That is a huge political change.

(Btw, on some discussion forums, circumcision vs non-circumcision discussions are more heated than abortion or 'gay rights' debates).

If you consider having unprotected sex in zimbabwe youre simply stupid, circumcised or not.

That wasn't the point.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

well it should be.

I heard the same news on NPR as was in the article posted by Mrs. M. The cells on the innerside of the foreskin (prepuce) are especially receptive to HIV (and likely other STDs as well). I can buy that. If AIDs were running rampant among heterosexual couples in a particular area, I think circumcision would be wise.

But those are not the conditions in most of the industrialized world. Considering how complex the foreskin and its functions are, I just can’t find justification for circumcision under normal circumstances.

Moreover, it’s not just about the effects on the male:

Source

It’s been my experience that people who advocate circumcision tend to be circumcised (or related/married to someone who has been), while those who have not been tend to abhore the procedure. In the end, I suppose it’s all about what you’re familiar with.

__________________
There you are!

I'm familiar with both and honestly can't tell the difference between the two other than appearance. Maybe some women can, especially after having a child but since I've never had a vaginal birth, it doesn't really matter to me.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

That is precisely the situation in which WHO has made their recommendation.

It applies to a specific place with a specific problem to which it is understood that a general practice of circumcision would reduce the problem.

WHO has not recommended the practice for the industrialized world.

Interestingly, only one of the women who noticed a difference with me had had a vaginal birth. The other 2 hadn't.

Go figure.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Okay, that blows my theory! I assumed that because I'm so umm, well...for lack of a better word, tight, that that was the reason I couldn't tell the difference. Unfortunately, I've been told that I actually hurt men...

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Yeah, there's no correlation there, either. The one who had given birth was, um, like ringing a bell. The other two were of varying size.

(hard to keep it pg13)

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears