To be fair to them, if someone cut a bit off my cock I'd probably have less sex than before
I'd probably be careful about it too, in case they came back and cut off any more

[edit] Though if I were to properly pick holes in that, let's start with the fact that all the circumcised men were volunteers, meaning that the study began by monitoring a self-selecting group of men who elected to undergo a surgical procedure in order to protect their sexual health. Frankly I'd be astonished if they didn't have lower HIV transmission rates than others.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 12 Mar 2013, 8:20, 2 replies)

Is it possible to have less sex than none?

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Tue 12 Mar 2013, 8:24, closed)

There are possibly flaws, yes.
Another obvious reason would be perhaps it's a subtle reminder to think about safe sex if you have a big scar on your knob.
But the reducions found are not small, and if they are not due to self selection bias, useful.
(A way to easily do an accurate study on this to eliminate self selection would be to get 100 voulunteers, and do half of them, but I have not read the original papers.)
(speedevil, Tue 12 Mar 2013, 13:52, closed)

In a South African township it might be useful with regard to reducing HIV transmission
To take adult make volunteers, leave them with a big scar around their wang and tell them to be careful about HIV - it probably even reduces transmission rates. To put your trust in that kind of survey as my former housemate did and believe that a circumcision means you can't be infected by HIV or HPV when having sex without protection with immigrants fresh off the boat - well, that way madness lies.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 12 Mar 2013, 14:33, closed)

^ 'vaguely racist fuckwit'

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Tue 12 Mar 2013, 20:56, closed)