I concede that recent evidence suggests that male circumcision reduces the incidence of HIV infection from woman to man.
It great that circumcision reduces the incidence of HIV transmission.
No such evidence exists for HIV transmission from man to woman. i.e. use of condoms are as important for the woman as ever, irrespective of whether the man in circumcised or not.
From the article in question, the main argument against condoms is that "consistent condom use is exceedingly difficult to maintain".
That is not a reason to stop promoting them.
You said "Condoms did not get a look in.". Thats not true.
The article suggested re-assessing the balance between Male Circumcision and condom use, not the complete disbandment of condom use.
