As Mary Smith from Denver said

"This is another example of how the UN and the WHO is not to be trusted and is only propigating an American Imperialist agenda."

Imperialism through circumcision I find it rather comic.

A. Cerbu, Toronto, Canada

Considering how extreme the measure of male genital mutilation is, one has to wonder what else is motivating the UN's move. What are the politics behind this new claim? Where is the hard, scientific evidence? This is just another example of the West imposing their taste on other cultures. Interesting how the proof of hard evidence is absent in this claim. This is another example of how the UN and the WHO is not to be trusted and is only propigating an American Imperialist agenda. With so much question as to the necessity and effectiveness of such an extreme measure, there is certainly more to this claim than simple concern over the spread of HIV. If that were truly the case then Africa would be littered with condom wrappers.

Mary Smith, Denver, Colorado

The findings of this newest report on AIDS prevention gathered by the "anecdotal"method(pure scinence?) will be used to reify sexual violence against unconsenting infants!The bankrupt religious traditions and their minions, not to speak of a medical profession steeped in an unapolgetic paternalism, has found the ultimate rationalization for their ethically benighted practice!!!
These patriarchal systems are the enemy of human freedom and automomy! Medical science is at this point unable to produce any meaningful medical intervention for the AIDS pandemic and desperation has set in.Human freedom means free choice! No one owns any other person! The Tribe ,the Nation,the Parent,the Public Good,
can all supply rationalizations for violence in the name of the Greater Good. No one should be compelled to undergo sexual mutalation.The permissions are manufactured by others to force conformity ,and conformity is all !!!!

Stephen K. Mack, San Diego, USA

Removing the breasts is a great preventative for the western epidemic of breast cancer. Probably best done, like circumcision, well before puberty.

Mango, El Cerrito, CA

I think there is probably a big difference in having been circumsized as a baby and as a man. The article doesn't address this difference. The question is whether a man is more likely to bleed. That's what this comes down to. With that extra loose skin there is of course more opportunity to bleed. So, if the circumsision of an adult does not leave any tractable skin at all, I can see this working but I don't think that's the case, and surgical centers in Africa are probably far from ideal. Recovery time of 6 weeks? Who's going to monitor that? WHo's going to compel any man to come in for a voluntary circumsision? This seems like a reach. How many condoms could be purchased for the price of circumcising every man in Africa? My guess is the cost of one procedure could probably finance several years worth of condoms.

Scott, North Hollywood, CA

As an AIDS educator with local, provinvial, national, and international experience, I simply cannot believe the previous posts..
We are talking about another tool in our arsenal to help slow down this virus.
As far as the statement, "Bathing with soap and water every single day has been shown to have at least as much effect as circumcision."
In relation to HIV infection, cleaning with soap and water every day would not help (or not as much as the 60% reduction in HIV transmission among men as circumcision will. Secondly, you are blaming HIV on homosexuals....jn Africa, no less. I would love to see which documents "over and over" again prove this connection.
Have you looked at the numbers???? For example, even if a microbicide is only 60% effective, given to half of women reached by healthcare in the poorest countries and it is used only 50% of the time, it will prevent 3.5 million infections in three years. It IS about prevention. How dare you take away this life-saving tool.

Brian, Toronto, Canada

If female genital mutilation prevented HIV transmission, would health officials be as eager to advocate that drastic measure?

Todd, Atlanta, USA

Circumcision may indeed be helpful in African cultures to lessen HIV infection, but it would be ridiculous (and dangerous) to then assume that it would have such impact in the West.

There are enormous cultural differences here. Bathing with soap and water every single day has been shown to have at least as much effect as circumcision. Also, homosexuality is much more taboo in Africa and it has been documented over and over that males in Africa that have homosexual sex try to prove their "manliness" by bedding as many women as possible, accounting for the much higher percentage of male to female transmission of the virus than in the West.

Circumcision is a painful, traumatic, and unneccessary ritual that carries many physical and psychological risks.

Todd, San Francisco, CA

Unbelievable, we now have proof that the U.N is an arm of American Imperialism. Americans infatuation with circumsion ( what is with these guys??) is bizarre. It is mutiliation , nothing less. Notice how the article also mentions abstinence programs - the classic giveaway of neocon policy. Try teaching absitnence to people living in abject poverty. They have bigger concerns to worry about.
How about making condoms available - free.

Tim, Sydney, Australia

Recent studies have shown that the very Lagerhans cells of the foreskin that scientists declared at risk from easy infection with HIV are now known to produce a substance that fights HIV infection! Now these same "scientists" are trying to find yet another reason to demonize foreskins and mutilate men - it's time this insane coercive practice was permanently abolished except in the very rare cases of direct medical necessity. AIDS will not be defeated or even slowed by inhibiting men's pleasure, mutilating their genitalia, and making sex even dryer and more unsafe for women...

Scott Green, Los Angeles, California

I never thought I'd see the day when the UN started promoting genital mutilation as a preventative for anything. The most recent research published in the BJU shows that there is a serious sexual consequence for men who have been circumcised in terms of loss of feeling, and, as they state, it is not fully protective. Can someone please explain that if the men have to wear a condom and practice safe sex AS WELL, what the whole point of losing 75% of the sensitivity of their penises is?

This isn't about trying to prevent HIV infection, it's about a bunch of American scientists trying to export their nasty cultural practices to people who deserve better. Condoms and education are the way to go, it has worked in Eastern Uganda and Thailand, why promote male genital mutilation, when there is a perfectly adequate alternative, which is more cost effective and 98% efficient (as opposed to 50% over one year).

I hope Africans do not fall for this latest example of American Imperialism.

Anne Hudson, Romford, UK

or just wear a condom, DUH!

Sven, Philadelphia, USA