Male circumcision reduces HIV risk

Apparently, circumcised males are 60% less likely to catch HIV from sexual encounters.

Why circumcision should offer some protection is not well understood, but researchers know that the part of the foreskin that is removed in the operation is rich in Langerhans cells that the virus strongly attaches to. "HIV has to gain access to the body and to do that it binds to particular cell types," Dr Puren said. "By removing the skin that contains those cells, you remove the tissue the virus would normally bind to."
It's hard not to wonder whether this protective effect of circumcision extends to other STD's, and if it does, has it any implications for interpreting the Bible, and indeed the Qur'an? I'm not asking this in a spirit of nothing buttery, but it will be an argument that I'm sure we will hear. Circumcision was a means of healthcare, that's why it was practiced, or why God instituted it. I would have to point out though that the theological significance of it is more in the fact that it got moved to childhood by the Hebrews and so cut it off [! orry] from use in fertility religious rites of surrounding cultures than in any proto healthcare reasons we may have come across. Anachronisms may not make good theology.
Makes you wonder, though, whether the lesser incidence in north African 'Muslim societies' is more down to this than more abstinent sexual behaviour ...

Guardian Unlimited | Science | Male circumcision reduces HIV risk by 60%, says study: On Del.icio.us: HIV, circumcision, protection, WHO, risk, sex, infection