Elizabeth, there is not just anecdotal evidence that suggests men who are circumcised are more resistant to condom use. Robert Bailey leader of two of the African trials has also admitted that the intervention groups in the African studies showed more risky behaviours and less consistent condom use. This makes biological sense, after all, circumcision excises tissue containing most of the fine touch nerve endings on the penis. So adding a condom to that is like being double desensitised.

We also have research evidence that heterosexual men who have been cut may be more likely to have anal sex (see Laumann's research into male sexual behaviours) This is backed up by anecdotal evidence from those communities in which most men are excised. Again backs up the case for the sensory deficit shown by Sorrells et al.

It's also interesting to note that no one looks at excising the female labia and hood as a prevention against HIV although similar circumstantial evidence exists to that which excited the circumcision lobby to do the RCTs on male foreskin excision in Africa  - ie a large study has shown a correlation between cutting and HIV protection, many of the areas which cut these parts show a lower rate of HIV and they have lots of Langerhans cells. There are also studies which appear to show a link between poor genital hygiene and HPV (such as Human papillomavirus and risk factors for cervical cancer in Chennai, India: A case-control study by Franceschi et al ) and hygiene is now mentioned as a risk factor on cancer help sites, yet no North American ever says on seeing a little newborn baby girl 'eeugh natural is sooo disgusting and unhealthy, lets cut her dirty little baby bits.'

Excising this tissue from baby girls, even with anaesthetic would be deemed an unacceptable breach of her bodily integrity and any attempt to justify it medically (as Egyptian doctors have typically tried to do) an apology for a barbaric ritual best consigned to history. We apply this to the amputation of the labia minora (8% of Egyptian circs) and to the clitoral hood (apparently the main target of most Indonesian circs, and an unknown number of Egyptian and Afghani and African circs) as much as the clitoris even though i don't think there's been any study proving widespread psychological or sexual dysfunction from FGC (in fact those having a clitorectomy for vulval cancer here in the West are typically told most women can come afterwards). When the BMJ ran an article saying that 800 women in Britain were having their labia/hood circumcised voluntarily on the NHS there was outrage at the risk to sensory pathways and the fact that society (and pornography) may be encouraging body dysmorphia, but no mention to the risk to sensory pathways in excising genital parts from a man, nor the body dysmorphia involved in foreskin hatred.

Body parts belong to the person they are attached to and he or she has an automatic right to choose to keep all of them. The only case in which this right can be overridden is where there is an overwhelming risk of leaving them and the person is not able to consent - because they are in a coma for example.

I'm upset to find the web is full of women blogging in support of forced male circumcision. I ask them all to think a little about how they'd feel if the roles were reversed, and all America's disgust and body dysmorphia was applied to their innocent delicate bits.... and precious research dollars being spent on halting a decline in infant female circumcision and promoting it as a benefit rather than a violation....

 If women aren't prepared to lay down their prejudices and look at this issue from an ethical standpoint (let alone a scientific one).....then may Solomon's wisdom - and his knife - be applied to them.