Anonymous asked: I remember a post where you said that circumcision did not necessarily benefit one's health, but Stephen Lewis recently spoke out about studies (that are being used by the UN, NGO's, etc) that state irrefutably that circumcision reduces transmission of HIV by 60%. I wondered if you could do an updated post on new findings such as these?

This is a commonly made argument that needs some debunking. As I wrote in a piece for College Candy:

Some studies have shown a significant reduction in HIV transmission rates among circumcised men. So why isn’t the global medical community suggesting that men get snipped en masse?  For starters, these studies were done in extremely high-risk areas in Africa. Research in developed countries, such as Australia, has shown no difference in HIV transmission rates. Further, though the men in these studies were less likely to get HIV, their partners weren’t. Circumcision only improves the odds for the penetrative partners while those being penetrated (whether they were male or female) experienced the same rates of infection as partners of uncircumcised men. But more importantly, just because a guy has been circumcised doesn’t mean that you should forgo a condom. Ultimately, prevention of STIs depends on personal responsibility, not a decades’ old decision made by your partner’s parents.

Regardless of the effect on HIV transmission, I don’t think it’s at all justified to circumcise a boy who can’t offer consent. It’s as much a violation as making the HPV vaccine mandatory for girls. If a grown man (or even a teenage boy) decides that the benefits are worth it, then he can make that decision for himself, but unless your kid is getting sexually initiated at age 2, there’s really no justifiable reason to circumcise at birth.

Related posts on circumcision:

A circumcision-related comic y’all might enjoy
College Candy: Demystifying Foreskin

More burning questions? Ask Lena.