Guardian examines Swaziland's HIV epidemic

There is NO evidence that circumcising babies has any effect on HIV transmission. Such evidence as there is that circumcising men has an effect is heavily contaminated by the context of adult circumcision - waiting in rooms with safe-sex literature, being exposed to counselling, etc.

If men resist being circumcised, it is for the very good reason that their foreskin is an important part of their sexual equipment that they're unwilling to give up.

But never mind such trivial issues as men's pleasure or medical ethics or efficacy - circumcise them as babies before they can resist or find out what they're going to miss.

In Swaziland, 21.8% of circumcised men have HIV, and 19.5% of non-circumised men. (And USAID found similar differences in 10 out of 18 countries for which it had figures.) A study in Uganda started to find that circumcising men INcreases the risk to women, who are already at greater risk (but it was cut short before that could be confirmed).

So how can circumcising males help against HIV?

Circumcision of infants is "more successful" because it can be done by force, and they cannot resist. Circumcision causes significant pain and trauma, behavioral and neurological changes in infants, potential parental stress from persistent crying (colic) of infants, disrupted bonding between parent and child, and risk of surgical complications. Other consequences of circumcision include loss of a natural, healthy, functioning body part, reduced sexual pleasure, potential psychological problems, and unknown negative effects that have not been studied.

Some circumcised men resent that they are circumcised. Sexual anxieties, reduced emotional expression, low self-esteem, avoidance of intimacy, and depression are also reported.

Many professionals have criticized the studies claiming that circumcision reduces HIV transmission. They have various flaws. The absolute rate of HIV transmission reduction is only 1.3%, not the claimed 60%. Authorities that cite the studies have other agendas including political and financial. Other methods to prevent HIV transmission (e.g., condoms and sterilizing medical instruments) are much more effective, much cheaper, and much less invasive.

Isn't "get them before they can fight back" the same technique the US employs, with the same amount of protection provided against HIV?  93% of Ethiopian men are circumcised, and yet HIV rages there.

Condoms are 97%-98% effective, when used regularly and correctly.  The world has demonstrated that they are quite effective against the HIV virus.  They are cheaper than a circumcision, and are much more effective.

So one wonders why the WHO campaign and the Swazi medical establishment push circumcision, and not condoms?
Condoms protect both partners.