> The protection that proper use of latex condoms provides against HIV transmission is most evident from studies of couples in which one member is infected with HIV and the other is not, i.e., "discordant couples." In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistent condom use, none of the uninfected partners became infected. In contrast, among the 122 couples who used condoms inconsistently, 12 of the uninfected partners became infected.

i guess they are fairly small scale studies in comparison. but that being said the first study suggests that condoms are 100% effective for preventing HIV transmission when used correctly and consistently.

male circumscision, on the other hand... is... thought to reduce the risk by half. i'm not sure on the statistics for HIV transmission with respect to unprotected sex to know whether using condoms inconsistently is comperable to male circumscision or not...

seems that it doesn't matter whether the guy is circumscised or not... so long as he wears a condom...

http://www.thebody.com/content/art17057.html

part of the trouble here is that circumscision has a long history of being all tied up in religious rites and rituals.

there was an attempt to advocate abstinence (rather than promote condom usage)

and now there is an attempt to advocate male circumscision (rather than promote condom usage)

still... this is really interesting to me. thanks for finding the study rhapsody :-)