Reproductive Health Matters, the safest way to prevent HIV infections is still to use a condom rather than relying on assumptions which are yet to be proven sufficiently (Bonner, 2001). Bonner is of the opinion that unless certain facts are not proven practically, it is unwise to adopt and follow such assumptions. The facts to be proven encompass umpteenth number of issues such as the reason and the way how circumcision is risk-free, the exact relationship between circumcision status and the remaining STIs (Sexually Transmitted Infections). Also, Bonner is still waiting for an answer backed by sufficient evidence that whether or not positive result found in high-risk populations will reap equal results in case of other general groups. However, according to Updegrove, various conclusions insist that uncircumcised males tend to suffer from higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases (Updegrove, 2001). The same has been coherently acknowledged by Ronald Gray and his team with similar mindset (Gray, Kigozi & Serwadda, et al, 2007). Other think-tanks, Bailey, Plummer and Moses, all consider circumcision as an anti-HIV measure (Bailey, Plummer & Moses, 2001). Newell and Barnighausen have gone on to confirm that male circumcision cuts down HIV risk even in the general population (Newell & Barnighausen, 2007). Nevertheless, it should be noted that all the above think-tanks do reveal a certain level of uncertainty in expressing their perspectives. Hence, the two completely distinct recommendations; whether or not to replace condoms with circumcision appear to be a highly perplexing issue.
Bonner highlights an investigation according to which circumcised men reveal higher occurrence of genital discharge (Bonner, 2001). He puts forward a French report which reveals that both circumcised as well as uncircumcised men exhibit almost same state of HPV incidence which plays a vital role in cervical cancer (Bonner, 2001). By referencing an American case, Bonner diligently