www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13...13prev.html

The gist of the article is that circumcised men need to allow for sufficient time to heal before having unprotected sex.

The lead researcher says, "Once a man was fully healed, whether he was circumcised or not did not seem to change the likelihood that he would infect a regular sex partner."

So, I ask, why circumcise at all?

Well, the article has an answer:
"Three studies in Africa in the last year have shown that circumcision cuts a man’s chances of catching the virus by 50 percent or more."

I have yet to read or hear anything in the regular news media that even questions the methods or conclusions of those "three studies in Africa." It seems that those conclusions are being accepted without question.

Frankly, I find it very sad.