Your reply completely fails to answer my points. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that INFANT circumcision has any effect on HIV. As above, the only studies have been on adult volunteers. There is NO evidence that infant circumcision is simpler or less painful. The foreskin may be "less vascular" but the frenular artery is still nearby and a baby can afford to lose only 35ml of blood (two tablespoons) before he is in danger. An adult can monitor his own pain relief and quickly report any complications, unlike a baby. There is greater risk of complications, such as poor aesthetic outcome, because the infant penis is so tiny, and any flaw is magnified in adulthood. The only "advantage" of infant circumcision is that babies can't resist being circumcised. That raises severe ethical issues that are starting to be addressed in the Western world, with the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) holding back from recommending an outright age-restriction only because of the strong feelings of religious groups and the risk of clandestine infant circumcisions. You mention Rwanda. Rwanda is one of the 10 out of 18 countries for which USAID has figures where more of the CIRCUMCISED men (2.5% in 2010) have HIV than the non-circumcised (2.2% in 2010).