Comment 13 by Jos Gibbons

Ah - that's why there's no HIV and other STD's and cervical cancer in Western countries.

It's lower - that's what's medically relevant. Do you have data to prove circumcision does a better job than condoms? Neither will give 100 % invulnerability. In any case, the problem in the West that prevents levels being even lower is so many people not using condoms.

I don't remember saying that circumcision does a better job than condoms. I'm sure that condoms are better protection but aren't always used, while circumcision-level protection is always active. Out of curiosity, have you, Jos, assuming that you are male, ever gone bareback? Be honest, now.

I hope you're not saying that only a preventative measure that is 100% effective should be allowed. That would criminalize the use of condoms and birth control pills.

Given that circumcision is much more detrimental to sexual pleasure than condoms, it's the kind of thing that should be decided on as an adult.

Really? As a circumcised male, it's difficult to imagine the pleasures being greater, but I suppose it's possible. I seriously doubt that there's more sexual pleasure for an uncircumcised male wearing a condom than for a circumcised male without (not that that's recommended). That assertion doesn't pass the smell test.

And the idea that men should have the option of deciding as an adult on whether to be circumcised is the same as saying that nobody, almost, will get circumcised. No man in his right mind would undergo that procedure which is much more painful and dangerous than it is in infancy. I know that that's what you'd prefer, but it's pretty silly. In the West, either circumcize during infancy or not at all.

You never answered my question as to whether you object to infant circumcision in Africa, sir.