And will somebody explain why the Aids epidemic apparently started in the mainly-circumcised USA....
It was first
recorded in the US, not necessarily of first
origin in the US ... there is a difference.
Coming at this as someone who aesthetically appreciates cut: The recent research linking circ status to HIV is correlational in nature. As one learns in first year research methods in college, "correlation does not mean causation." That is to say, just because one thing appears with something else, it does not mean that they are linked. Firefighters are at the scene at most urban fires ... but that doesn't mean firefighters cause urban fires. Or, in the case of the circumcision study, foreskins and HIV appeared on the same person, but that doesn't mean foreskins caused HIV. There is probably some other factor that links the two, such as those who are circumcised may have a greater tie to the medical establishment [hence the surgery] and may, in general, have better health and hygiene practices. Or, it could be that those who are circumcised were cut for religious reasons and their faith prevented them from engaging in risky sex practices. It is hard to tell without further research. Finally, the study had a VERY small participant pool ... under 30 as I recall. Those of us in the research world call that a low-power study ... in other words, the study probably is too small to really give any definitive conclusion, and the conclusions it does make are likely skewed.
So, if you're an adult (or, I'd even say, a rational teenager who has talked it over with parents and doctor), and you want to get cut, go for it. But there is not benefit to RIC, except, perhaps, a benefit for the psyche of the parents falsely believing they are doing something good.