Isn't strange then how the USA has the highest rates of STDS in the developed world? Circumcision is obviously bulls–t. Some people have an interest in keeping the useless procedure going. His body = His choice.

If males are to be circumcised, thereby removing part of the penis, would that make it right to cut away parts of the labia, clitoral hood and clitoris? You are taking away something that was there for a reason.

These studies keep being repeated and each time a different answer is found. Also, why are these studies being run in Uganda? How were the amount of partners tracked? Was there any significant difference between the amount of sex someone with an uncircumcised penis vs one that was circumcised? Hygiene of the various people? They mentioned that some of them were required to get circumcisions and others got it two years later, how did that change the amount of sex they were having? The partners they chose? Maybe it is more comfortable to have sex for longer periods of time with an uncircumcised penis, thus increasing the risk of infection through the urinary tract?

Not only that, but how does a study in Uganda relate to the United States? We are readily able to get access to various tests to find out if our partners are STD free, we also can get cheap condoms.

Just use a condom, that way you don't have to worry as much about STD's, much safer than cutting off a piece of skin. It is surgery, the less surgery the better. The whole practice of doing it to a new-born infant is despicable. If later on in life the male decides to get the procedure done, so be it.

the HIV stat looks very impressive until you put into perspective how rife it is in african countries where the majority of men are circumsized- so clearly not that effective!