They say that more female circumcision will mean fewer women with HIV -- fewer women to spread HIV . Money & tradition. There is money to be made on these traditions.

The studies in Africa that found circumcision decreases female-to-male HIV transmission (from 3.2% to 1.79%) have some serious issues including the cut men having less time in the study for sex (they needed to heal) they got condom advice and they were eager to avoid HIV. It is really almost meaningless given several other studies could find no HIV circ correlation (US Navy study showed HIV the same for cut and natural, US urban studies etc.). The real world study shows mostly cut USA with much higher HIV than natural EU, and JP.

ALso, there is no research to support the theory that the cells of the foreskin are especially susceptible to infection. Also there is research that shows Female circumcision FGM also lowers HIV by about 60% IN AFRICA. Who would FGM a girl for this benefit. Oh but FGM results in some men saying the sex is batter (Mostly the hygiene myth again).

And BTW, it should be kept in mind that Women are MORE likely to contract HIV from circumcised men — that is what the data shows. It is amazing how they reported their findings.

Study data indicates that nearly 75% (6) of the women in the uncircumcised group, who became infected, were infected within six months. Only 2 (25%) of the remaining 62 women became infected over the subsequent 18 months.
11 of the 94 women in the circumcised group became infected in the first six months, 5 of whom may have contracted HIV through pre-healed intercourse. Nevertheless, 6 additional women from this group became infected over the next 18 months.
Excluding those in both groups who were infected in the first six months as aberrations, whether it be because of abnormal susceptibility or dangerous sex practices, the fact remains more than double the women in the circumcised group became infected over the next 18 months. When this is considered, in addition to the fact they also had the benefit of a 6 to 8 week abstinence window, which the uncircumcised group did not, there is every reason to believe that circumcision may greatly increases the chances of transmission in women.
The bottom line is more than twice the women (17) in the circumcised group became infected than in the uncircumcised group (8), despite most having engaged in a significant abstinence period of nearly 2 months, as well. To say that these numbers are insignificant statistically is dubious. It is highly unlikely that the public health experts who undertook the study would have reached the same conclusion if the numbers had been reversed.

There is no research to support the theory that the cells of the foreskin are especially susceptible to infection. Also there is research that shows Female circumcision FGM also lowers HIV by about 60% IN AFRICA. Who would FGM a girl for this benefit.

The studies in Africa that found circumcision decreases female-to-male HIV transmission (from 3.2% to 1.79%) have some serious issues including the cut men having less time in the study for sex (they needed to heal) they got condom advice and they were eager to avoid HIV. It is really almost meaningless given several other studies could find no HIV circ correlation (US Navy study showed HIV the same for cut and natural, US urban studies etc.). The real world study shows mostly cut USA with much higher HIV than natural EU, and JP.