My source regarding American Indians and HIV:

http://www.avert.org/usastatr

Yes, I know that Indians are a small minority. But if you divide it by the general population, we still don't get HIV as much as (generally circumcised) Caucasian men (.13% of Indian men versus .34% of white men). Before you get out your calculator, that's a factor of 2.6. We are no more virginal then white men; the average sexarche for American Indians is 13.6 for boys and 14.2 for girls. (Edwards, S., Among Native American Teenagers, Sex Without Contraceptives is Common, Fam Plann Prospect, 24,4,:189-91)

The rest of what I said can be found in just about any textbook.

[quote author=Gord link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=84#91 date=04/30/03 at 08:56:24]TOTT666:
You should have read more carefully. Â*The crux of the matter in what you responded to was THE ADDED HEALTH RISK TO WOMEN of regular sex with UNcut men. Â*Drooping labia or less than perfect breasts pose no such risk to men.

Further, you mention conflicting medical studies that contradict the results I have presented. Â*Like JONB, you fail to make specific reference to ANY such material. Â*I quoted at length from a journal article, and gave a complete citation so that others could go to a medical library and easily find it and check it out for themselves. Â*Vague, unsupported remarks are what JONB would call "anecdotal". Â*In all my reading, I have not encontered an actual medical study refuting the health benfits of circumcision, except for the APA Policy Statement mentioned much earlier, and which is explained by the aversion physicians have to creating liability, given the existence of the Â*risks that accompany ANY surgical procedure. Cicumcision is, of course, an elective procedure to boot.[/quote]