New anti-HIV gel: Wither men in the discussion?

I caught the PBS News Hour tonight at 10:00 EST here in the US. In the second half of the show, Dr. Anthony Fauci was interviewed from the AIDS 2010 summit in Austria. Two things he said leapt out at me: first he mentioned that along with circumcision of the male (fast forward to time mark 6:10 in the video), HIV spread risk to women could be substantially cut along with consistent use of the gel. Is there definitive evidence to show that circumcision in men cuts HIV transmission risk? I have yet to see it. And even if it did, if the sexes were reversed, would people be advocating for the same treatment of women? All our sex organs are essentially made from the same type of skin and in both cases, there are lots of places germs and viruses can wait for their turn to go elsewhere. In this case, by the same logic, one must argue for female circumcision if one argues for male. No one dares do that.

The second thing that leapt out at me was that there was absolutely no discussion of how men are at risk of catching HIV from women or other men. Men are being treated as if they are Typhoid Marys, themselves not infected by HIV, but immune to it, merely the vector of transmission. This is a not-so-subtle disregard of men's humanity. I also noticed, along with this gynocentric attitude toward approaching the problem of AIDS, that he ignores the idea entirely (as I am sure others are) that men would be willing to use the gel themselves in the same way that lubricants are used for sexual intercourse.

The entire tone of the interview excluded men utterly from consideration in so many ways it is hard to keep up. But at least in these two major ways, there are demonstrable objections to be made.

Dr. Fauchi can be contacted at Anthony.Fauci-at-nih.hhs.gov. As always, be concise but hit all the points, and of course, be polite. :)