then all male species could be circumcised for the safety of mankind,.

has it been scientifically proven ?

Research is clarifying the relationship between male circumcision and HIV in differing social and cultural contexts, however critics point out that any correlation between circumcision and HIV is likely to come from cultural factors (which govern not only whether someone is circumcised, but also their sexual practices and beliefs). Even though male circumcision may lead to a reduction of infection risk in heterosexual men by up to 60%, UNAIDS believes that it is premature to recommend male circumcision as part of HIV prevention programs. Trials, in which some uncircumcised men were randomly assigned to be circumcised in presumably sterile conditions and others were not circumcised, conducted in Kenya and Uganda found that men who were uncircumcised were twice as likely to contract the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) compared with circumcised counterparts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hiv#transmi... False didn't you hear about that back in the 80's? wow where you been? Almost true - circumcised males have a much lower risk of catching AIDS because one of the main routes of infection is via the thin unprotected skin inside the foreskin which is removed by circumcision. It seems that the risk is reduced by a factor of about 6.

Studies of tribes in Africa in areas where AIDS is present have shown that tribes that practice circumcision have a much lower incidence of HIV/AIDS amongst their male populations. There are many instances where their female partners have AIDS but it is not transmitted to the male. However, circumcision is not a 100% safe means of protecting against AIDS, merely a means of reducing the risk and any circumcised male who thinks he is somehow totally immune is running a big risk if he doesn't protect himself by using a condom.