Recent reports suggest that circumcision has some effect on the spread of HIV:
"The evidence is really now quite conclusive that male circumcision is effective at preventing HIV among men," said Kevin De Cock, the top HIV-AIDS official for the World Health Organization, speaking in a conference call from Paris.
Apparently the data suggests that males who have been circumcised have a lower likelihood of contracting the virus.
Okay, two things here.
What this particular article doesn't mention (it's from the Washington Post) is that women have a HIGHER likelihood of contracting HIV from an infected circumsised male than from an infected uncircumcised one.
Get all that? Men who are kosher down there have a harder time catching it, but an easier time passing it on, and intact men can catch it more easily but aren't quite as big a risk to pass it on.
Only telling one side of the story seems pretty irresponsible. I expect this from the Moonie Times (who I originally thought published this story), but the WaPo should do better.
And the other thing? The top HIV official at the WHO is named Kevin De Cock. Heh heh heh.