Lets talk about Circumcision and the sillyness of the Media

Bill Clinton is spearheading the promotion of male circumcision in an effort to reduce HIV transmission, especially in the undeveloped and developing world (Africa, India, etc). The Guardian reported:

"There is excitement about the potential for circumcision in preventing Aids. Last year researchers from South Africa and France announced that in a trial of 3,274 men from near Johannesburg randomly chosen either to be circumcised or not, those who underwent the procedure had a 60% lower risk of acquiring HIV afterwards than those who did not."
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,1851224,00.html

While I don't want to contend that circumcision doesn't reduce the spread of this disease, I think this test alone is far from conclusive. Where are the links between circumcision and HIV transmission? Other explanations - other than that circumcision really does biologically make HIV transmission less likely - may account for the reduced statistic,

These stem mainly from the possibility that the circumcised men in the trial simply had less sexual intercourse (thus did not have as higher risk of contracting the disease), either because:
a. they were in pain after the operation;
b. they were less attractive to possible sexual partners with a circumcised penis; or
c. they had less impetus to have sex because it no longer held such appeal (this harks back to the idea that after circumcision, there is a 60 percent reduction in sensory pleasure in the penis);

These conclusions I have drawn may be without merit - my underlying point is that the Guardian and most media outlet suffer from an inability to explain the detail behind their conclusions. Perhaps if more information about this research study was provided, my claims could be refuted and thus the conclusions reported - that the biological liklihood of HIV transmissions was reduced by up to 60 precent - could be substaintiated.

For example, if they provided info in regards to the length of the study this may refute my supposition that the men may have been less likely to have sex because they were still in pain from the operation (because this pain would subside over a period of months).

All I ask for is clarity. I'm aware that the media must sacrifice some degree of detail for convenience so that the article is easily readable in five minutes - but when articles suppose bold claims without substantiation, as this article from the Guardian has done, the scales have tipped too far.