Should women be circumcised for AIDS prevention?

Langerhans cells are what researchers claim is responsible for increase risk of AIDS transmission. Langerhans cells are present in the male foreskin and female clitoral hood %26amp; Labia. This is the reasoning some use to justify male circumcision. How do women feel about being circumcised for AIDS prevention and should it be made mandatory for infant girls?

Should women be circumcised for AIDS prevention?
I think that's fair enough, if they suggest it to men. In fact apparently a study in Africa showed "circumcised" women were less susceptible to some infections I think including HIV. Oh and they think it looks more attractive there too. Sound familiar?
Reply:No. It would be too damaging to women. The clitoral hood is necessary because of the sensitivity of the the clitoris.
Reply:I don't agree with any circumcision. It is more accurate to refer to it by the name genital mutilation.





The prevention of any sexually transmitted disease lies in condoms and monogamous relationships... not cutting away body parts.
Reply:Increase risk of AIDS is from too many partners and not enough protection along with many other forms of ways to become contaminated with the HIV virus.Langerhans' Cell Histiocytosis (LCH) is still a very rare disease and there isn't enough evidence or research to say that it is a cause of HIV and therefore it would be ridiculous to make circumcision mandatory when there is not enough facts to back this theory.
Reply:If it's a good enough reason to promote circumcision to men, then the same should hold true for me. Off with the clitoral hoods!





Personally, I think circumcision doesn't prevent a lick of anything, but there are people out there spending millions to fudge studies and get the WHO to endorse their stance.