There is some slight evidence that RECENTLY circumcised men are infected slightly less often than uncircumcised men. I am not aware of a logitudinal study that looks at lifetime infection rates for man circumcised as infants.
As has been pointed out above, if you look at national infection rates they totally fail to corelate with national circumcision rates. The US has a significantly higher proportion of circumcised men than similarly developed countries in Europe and Asia, and yet has a very similar infection rate.
I think that the best that can be said currently is that in some cases having a foreskin may allow a route to infection that is less likely in men without foreskins, however it must also be stated that the size of this effect is orders of magnitude lower than can be achieved by programmes of education, barrier contraception, and routinely available free at point of use HIV testing.
What seems clear to me is that prophylactically circumcising adult men will lead to many people sticking partially healed wounds into infected partners, which will without doubt be a vector for significant INCREASES in STI transmission.
__________________
╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝
|