by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Since Andrew's been very outspoken against circumcision, it might be nice for the Dish to highlight this NYT article showing another side to the procedure.  According to the article, male circumcision reduced female-to-male H.I.V. transmission by about 60% in several African countries. The argument for circumcision as a public health measure in HIV-plagued Africa is pretty compelling.

I can't speak for Andrew, of course, but his writings on the subject - what he calls "male genital mutilation" - center on this fundamental point: since newborns cannot choose to get circumcised or not, to impose the irreversible procedure is immoral. (He has been open to an HIV exception, but he's also aired compelling counter-evidence against the procedure's effectiveness in preventing the disease.) However, the NYT article only talks about grown men getting the procedure - voluntarily - so there really is no tension with Andrew's stated views. Nevertheless, the piece is worth a read, and I found the willingness of men to undergo the procedure both surprising and encouraging. But this motivating factor makes sense:

They had heard from recently circumcised friends that it makes for better sex. You last longer, they said. Your lovers think you’re cleaner and more exciting in bed.

Sounds like the start of an effective ad campaign.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.