|Image credit: Flickr user Paul Lowry|
Well, yes. And no. The reason why circumcision is a popular public health initiative to prevent the spread of STDs in African nations is because there are barriers to the use of other, more efficient prophylactics. Condoms are often cited as being from 60-96% effective against the spread of HIV, but condoms are not as easy to obtain in Africa as they are in the USA, for example. In that context, circumcision is an effective way to slow the spread of HIV in African populations. It's certainly better than nothing, but the important thing to remember here is that public health initiatives are highly context-dependent. Should circumcision be promoted as a way of stopping the spread of HIV in the USA? I don't think so, because we have easy access to condoms and sexual education services, which are more efficient at reducing the risk of HIV infection than circumcision. After taking condom use into account, there are very diminishing returns on the benefits of being circumcised.
Additionally, there currently isn't an agreed upon mechanism by which circumcision would provide a physiological barrier to infection with HIV or other STDs. Cassandra does a good job of citing the possible mechanisms, but she also mentions that all of these mechanisms have had mixed results in the literature. I honestly think that there's a very large behavioral component to the risk reduction seen in these African studies. The men in these studies were all circumcised in adulthood, not as infants, and as I said in the comments at Cassandra's post: "The act of having the surgery might influence the sexual practices and behaviors of the men in the study. I imagine that if you have surgery done on your penis, it isn't a stretch to imagine that you'll start using it differently." I would really like to see a study that addresses the effects of the frequency of sex, duration of sex, number of partners, types of sex acts, etc. after having the surgery. I'd also like to see a study that compares HIV infection rates in men circumcised in adulthood with those circumcised in infancy.
In the interest of full disclosure, I need to state that I am morally opposed to circumcision. However, I think the question of morality is irrelevant to this conversation, since policy shouldn't really have anything to do with my morals. My morality isn't the same as your morality, and that's fine. I'm also morally opposed to abortions, but anyone who knows me knows I'm very pro-choice. I am pro-choice when it comes to circumcision too, but I am against it being promoted as a prophylactic in places where there are simply much better options. I think in the USA we have this strange aversion to foreskins as "yucky", which also comes across a little bit in the language Cassandra uses in her post (she refers to foreskins as "weird"). As a society, we engage in normative behavior where circumcised penises are the default and uncircumcised penises are somehow dirtier, "weird", or unpleasant. I find this very problematic.
As an aside, I should really know better than to engage the circumcision crazies on the internet. One day I will learn. I'm not referring to Cassandra here, but rather the type of people who seek out and comment on blog posts about circumcision. They tend to have a special kind of crazy. Perhaps I am one of those people..?