Thursday, January 19, 2017

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

Colombian boy left in a vegetative state after a circumcision

It seems that recently, reports of circumcision botches are coming to light all over the world.

Just a few days ago, on January 17th, there was a report on a Colombian news show, 90 Minutos, about a child who was left in a vegetative state when he was circumcised 3 years ago.

The mother is trying to press charges on the doctor who has been since, nowhere to be found.

Not much detail is given about the boy's necessity to be circumcised, only that this was supposed to be an outpatient procedure, and that apparently, the doctor used too much anesthetic.

The YouTube video can be seen here:




It is not clear whether there was an actual medical indication, but given the recent history of circumcision, where doctors give phony excuses to circumcise healthy children, it may be possible that there was in fact none.

Another botch also made news reports earlier, this time in Malaysia.

According to Nation, 3 cases of botched circumcisions have come to light, and the Health Ministry is urging the child's parents to take the cases to court.

In South-East Asian countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, etc., both boys and girls are circumcised as a matter of religious course, as genital cutting is seen as religious sacrament there due Islam.

Unlike in America, boys in Muslim countries tend to be circumcised at later ages instead of as newborns.

According to one Dr. Subramaniam, "Hundreds of thousands of circumcisions were carried out every year in the country and that minor complications were bound to happen, but there were never any serious cases like these, even when traditional methods were widely used."

One of the victims, a 10-year-old boy, has to use a catheter and a urine bag after suffering severe damage to his penis. A portion of the boy’s private parts was severed by an assistant medical officer at a mass circumcision ceremony at a surau in Sungai Buloh on Nov 25.

The bleeding could not be stopped and the victim was rushed to Hospital Selayang.

The doctors were unable to reattach the head of the boy’s penis, which had already turned black.

The boy was then sent to a private hospital and underwent three surgeries, which were also unsuccessful.

In a different case, a nine-year-old boy had the glans of his penis severed during a circumcision at a private clinic in Jalan Ipoh on Dec 15.

And five days later, a 10-year-old boy lost the head of his penis as he was undergoing laser circumcision at a Taman Cheras Utama clinic.

The YouTube video for this report can be seen here:




It must be noted that both male and female circumcision are an ingrained part of the culture in South-East Asia.

These are cultures who, like America, should be used to this custom, and whose doctors, having done thousands of circumcisions, should be assumed to be well-trained.

In cases like these, circumcision advocates like to chant the old adage "Well if the circumcisions were performed by trained professionals, this wouldn't happen."

I don't think there could be any better trained professionals to do this than those who do it thousands of time for a living.

And they STILL happen.

It happens to trained doctors in America (The AAP gives a complication rate of 2%. What's 2% of 1.3 million babies a year?), it happens to Jewish mohels, it happens in the hospital, it happens when using the best equipment.

And the question must be repeated; how is this conscionable considering that circumcision is non-medical surgery, performed on healthy, non-consenting minors?

These are healthy children with no medical need for surgery we're talking about.

How is the complication rate anything above ZERO???

Instead of questioning the method, the persons who did it, where it was done, what setting, age, sex, WHATEVER, why aren't we questioning the need to circumcise ITSELF???

These children are going to suffer for the rest of their lives.

All for needless genital cutting.

Circumcision has risks.

The risks include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Are these worth it for non-medical surgery?

For "benefits" already easily attainable through non-surgical means?

Related Posts:
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA 

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy


INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

 CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

 FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game
 
Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud 

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage
 
FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision
 
What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child
 
FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision
 
EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life
 
BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision
 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life
 
TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia


Circumcision claims yet another life. This time, it happened in Russia.

According to the Moscow Times, a 3-yo boy at Krasnoyarsk, Russia, died following a circumcision performed at home.

The child underwent a circumcision at home on Jan. 6, performed by a surgeon summoned by his mother. The boy became seriously ill, and his mother tried to treat her son with various medicines. The boy as never even taken to the hospital, and he died at home.

Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights, Anna Kuznetsova, says criminal charges should be brought against the parents of a three-year-old boy, and that they must be held accountable for his death, regardless of whatever religious reasons they had for circumcising him at home and denying him proper medical attention.

But Yulia Zimova, a member of a presidential council on family issues, says that criminal charges would be inappropriate, given that the deceased boy’s parents “have already been punished by fate.” (Aw, poor parents...)

Before attempting to dismiss this case "because it wasn't performed in a medical setting," I'd like to remind readers that children have died in the hospital or clinical setting.

And I'd like to remind readers that in most, if not all cases, there was no medical or clinical indication.

Death is a risk of male infant circumcision, whether performed by "trained professionals" or amateurs with box cutters.


For other cases that have made the news, see the related posts below.

These are cases that have surfaced; there will be other cases that have not made the news because doctors and parents are complicit in keeping them secret, and American medical organizations whose members profit from male infant circumcision, aren't interested in documenting male infant circumcision deaths.

Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.

Are parents being properly informed of this risk?

Related Posts:
MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies
CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel
FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens
Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light
EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life
INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

Saturday, December 31, 2016

Carrots and Mushrooms: My Awakening to the Circumcision Issue


In this blog entry, I retrace my steps to when I first became aware of circumcision, and how deeply it was ingrained in American culture. Up until a certain point, it hadn't dawned on me that having anatomically correct male genitalia could be any kind of concern in the country where I was born and raised. I had known somewhat about circumcision, but until something prompted me to actually start looking up circumcision, I was blissfully unaware.

It all happened one afternoon at high school. I must have been 15 or 16 years old. It was during a P.E. class, and we were all walking from the gym to the football field to do our routine run around the track. All students had just finished changing into their P.E. clothes, and we were all walking slowly out of the locker rooms, slow enough that one could hear casual conversations among students. (At my high school we didn't get naked nor shower in front of each other, so no one ever saw each other naked. Cut and intact status was unknown amongst us.) I overheard a conversation among a group of 3 or four students. A male friend was pontificating to a group of 2 or 3 girls on the truths of the male penis. "Circumcised penises look like mushrooms, and non-circumcised penises look like carrots," the guy said. "Oh! So that's the difference," I heard one of the girls say. "Yes." They all agreed. It all sounded so matter-of-fact.

I remembered thinking "Circumcision? Now let's see... where have I heard this before... Circumcision, circumcision... Oh yes! This is something Jews do to their children as newborns." At that time, what I knew about circumcision was second-hand information, and limited to what I'd heard about. For example, I knew that circumcision was some important ritual for Jews. I think I've mentioned before on this blog, that I came from a very conservative protestant church that was very pro-Israel, very pro-Judaism. This church would have rabbis come speak, they would hold menorah lightings at Chanukkah, some homes had metzuzot on their door frames, and sometimes male members would wear yarmulkas to church. Now that I think of it, how pretentious and silly! I hope some members didn't take it as far as circumcision. I'm almost sure that some members thought they were being more Jewish by opting for circumcision for their children at hospitals. If Jewish scholars like Leonard Glick are correct, that's not the way it works.

I first became aware of circumcision as a religious ritual by overhearing others discuss it at bible studies. As far as I knew, it was something Jews did, but wasn't required by Christians because we've got baptism. Being called "uncircumcised" was supposed to be an insult in the Bible from Jews to non-Jews, and not being circumcised was, I guess, a problem back then. So I knew from a young age that not being circumcised could be seen as a problem by some, but I wasn't sure to what extent. To be sure, even though I knew there was a difference, I wasn't quite sure what that difference was, and what it actually meant to be circumcised.

I remember that one time I asked my mother this question. My father and some friends who were over at our house were having a bible study one day, and one of the topics that came up was circumcision. I must have been eight or nine. I take my mother to a different room and I ask her "Mom, what's circumcision? Why is it talked about in the bible?" The way she explained it was "Well, in Jewish families, when a boy is born, they cut off a little bit of skin from his little bird." (That's what she used to call it.) "Oh." I thought. "That's what this is all about? Cutting off a little bit of skin off a child's pee-pee? Doesn't sound like too big of a deal. Why is this always a big deal when people discuss it in the bible?" But those were just thoughts in my head. With my mother I just said "Oh! OK..." And that's where the conversation ended.

The image I had in my head following that conversation was light years away from the reality that is circumcision. I imagined someone taking a knife or blade and literally just taking a small piece of top layer of skin from the top of the penis. I didn't even think it had anything to do with the sleeve of flesh that covers the head of the penis. As a child, I thought maybe the piece of skin may be taken from the glans of the penis itself. I had absolutely no idea that circumcision actually meant taking a blade and actually cutting off the entire flesh hood covering the head of the penis to leave it exposed and raw.



My idea of circumcision as a 8 or 9yo...
In retrospect, circumcision may be closer to this...
Except it's not removing a top layer of skin,
but cutting off an entire sleeve of flesh.

At some other point, a few years later, my father would try to introduce me to the ritual of circumcision in his own way. I must have been 13 at this point. How did he do it? He showed me the movie "Europa, Europa." Before showing me the movie, he told me "This movie is a movie about the Jewish ritual of circumcision. It's right at the beginning of the movie, just so you know. It's about all the hardships that Jews have had to face, all because of circumcision," he briefed me before showing me the movie. So I watched the movie, and I thought "Now I'm going to see what it's all about. I'm going to see what was being talked about all these years." What I saw was a semblance of the ritual, people gathered, a baby screaming and a mohel there, but the movie didn't quite show the actual cutting. I think had the movie actually showed a real live circumcision, I might have been made an intactivist there and then. But it didn't happen this way.



After the movie, just like after any other holocaust movie, I felt real bad for Jewish people living in the Hitler era. It left me with the feeling of "Wow. It's so sad that Jews can't be allowed to practice their religion, and this is a part of their religion that they can't hide from anyone should they be stripped naked. When you're naked who is Jewish, and who is not is that obvious. And it's so sad that for Hitler to find out who is Jewish, all he had to do was strip people naked." I was left feeling sympathy for Jews and circumcision. Especially that last scene where two newly freed Jewish prisoners were allowed to "pee freely," to do something that you need to do every day without discrimination. It was touching. And now having grown up and being 35, kind of gross when I think about it... When a man is peeing, you look away, not check out to see if he's cut or not. But after seeing this movie, it makes you kinda wanna look, doesn't it.

Even after having watched that movie, the difference between circumcision and having anatomically correct male genitals wasn't clear. I think I can recall thinking that some guys' penises looked weird, that something was different about them, but I didn't put two and two together and thought that the reason was that those penises had been purposefully distorted to look that way. I can remember going to swimming classes and watching other men shower, and noticing that some men had funny looking penises. I think I can remember thinking to myself "Why do the ends of their penises look bulbous and discolored and dry like that? What's wrong with those men's penises?" At that time, I reasoned "It must be some genetic trait. Just like some people have outie belly buttons, and some people have innies, it must be that some people's penises just look that way." It hadn't dawned on me that I was looking at the results of circumcision.

Until that day in highschool when I heard the mushroom/carrot comparison. Even then, I was confused. I'm not circumcised, but I can assure you, when I get an erection and I pull back my foreskin, I most definitely have a mushroom. Even when I'm soft, I don't think my penis looks like a carrot. Maybe a bulbous, deformed carrot, but not really a carrot.

Hearing those words made me want to research what circumcision was once and for all. That same day, when I got home, I decided to look it up. Back then the big search engines were AltaVista and Ask.com. And that's how my interest in this issue all began.

I describe in another post my journey to becoming an intactivist. It would be a while after this before I would finally call myself an "intactivist." It was a difficult thing, coming to grips with how I really felt about male infant circumcision, and putting aside all that I was taught in childhood, that Jews were a special people who had suffered a lot, that circumcision was this important ritual for them etc. I felt, and continue to feel a pang of guilt when I think about it. I acknowledge that Jews have faced persecution for ages, and I understand that circumcision is an important rite for them. Even so, I have decided to break with my upbringing. I realize that in some people's eyes, this makes me look like an anti-Semite, and I accept this, for I feel that the forced circumcision of any sex, at any age, regardless of who does it, and for what reasons, is abuse, mutilation, and a gross violation of the most precious of human rights; the right to one's own body.

Life is short. You're born with one life, one body. Forced infant circumcision destroys this and condemns an individual with a damaged, maimed body for the rest of his life.

What does a human penis look like?

Before comparing it to mushrooms, carrots, anteaters, elephants' trunks or whatever, we must first ask ourselves, what does the human penis look like in its natural state? What does it look like left to be as nature intended it?

This is what the human penis is supposed to look like.

Anything outside of that is a forced, artificial phenomenon.

Related Posts:
I Remember

QUICK POST: "Just a Little Piece of Skin"

CIRCUMCISION: "Just a Little Piece of Skin?"

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

Who am I? Why am I so against circumcision?

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

FACEBOOK: Another Child in Critical Condition After Circumcision

Yet another circumcision botch from my Facebook news feed. These are way more common than circumcision advocates would like others to believe.

This one is unknown; the names have been blotted out for privacy.


What else can I say?

The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, child abuse, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.


Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

The fact is 70% of the men in the world have anatomically correct penises, and there simply isn't an epidemic of "problems."

The highest prevalence of STDs including HIV can be observed in the US, where 80% of males are already circumcised from birth.

Only about 1% of males will ever need to be circumcised.

STDs are already better prevented with sex education and condoms.

The circumcision of healthy male infants is not medically necessary.

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.

Are American doctors fully informing parents of these facts?

Related Posts:
FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA 

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy


INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves
MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies
CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light
 CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel
 FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game
 
 
Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud 

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage
 
 
FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision
 
 
What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child
 
 
FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision
 
 
EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life
 
 
BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision
 
 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life
 
 
TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Intactivists Relieved By Clinton Loss - Will Things Be Better Under Trump?


Of course for intactivists, high on the priority list for candidate eligibility is where they stand regarding circumcision, particularly the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors.

For a while, it was looking like Bernie Sanders was going to be the democratic nominee. That is until things got hairy in different states in regards to counting people's votes.

Anomalies marred the voting process all over the country, including the sudden change in affiliation or the outright disqualification of some voters in New York, the sudden reduction of polling places in Puerto Rico and Arizona causing long waiting lines and some people not being able to vote in time as a result, the convention mayhem that ensued in Nevada, not to mention the coin tosses that ensued in Iowa, and Hillary Clinton calling victory in California before all the votes could even be counted.

Bernie Sanders was a favorite among intactivists for a few reasons.

For one, though Bernie Sanders is Jewish, he wasn't using his Jewishness on his campaign ticket as Hillary was pushing her vagina; this lead to the hope that perhaps maybe, he doesn't feel as strongly for circumcision as religious Jews tend to do.

Additionally, Bernie was pro-universal health care, which for many intactivists, translated to male infant circumcision being defunded in all 50 states, as universal health care would be expected to pay for only medically necessary treatment and/or procedures, something which male infant circumcision is not.

If the following account is to be believed, Bernie Sanders actually made a statement on the subject of male infant circumcision. The following account was first published on Facebook. I have confirmed the source and the person has allowed me to reproduce it here under the condition of anonymity:
"Hi! I'm a precinct captain for my local Bernie Sanders office. I met him the day our office opened and talked briefly with him. I asked him how he felt about circumcision and he said, "I feel we should be following the lead of more medically advanced nations when it comes to any and all medical procedures." It was said directly to me. There were hundreds of people around. Considering more medically advanced countries do not cut infant boys, I took it as a good thing. He seemed a little taken aback with the question, answered it, and walked off. There was an older guy behind me. He said he was shocked I would ask such a personal question, shook his head, and walked away."
~A friend in the Midwest, Iowa, January 18, 2016

Bernie was a progressive who spoke to the issues of many, and he wasn't looking to further the interest of any one sex, race or religious creed. It was the ideal win-win situation; many intactivists really wanted Bernie Sanders to win.

But after Bernie conceded to Hillary Clinton, the issue of circumcision became very important to intactivists. After all, Bill and Hillary had been actively promoting circumcision in Africa as HIV prevention, and the Clinton Foundation even fronted millions of dollars for the goal of circumcising 28 million men in Africa. (The "science" surrounding this claim is dubious at best, and even if legit, circumcision would fail 40% of the time, so circumcised males and their partners need to be urged to continue to wear condoms.)

Intactivists were split into two camps; the side for which circumcision was issue number one, and the side for which circumcision would have to be put on the back burner because they would rather see Hillary Clinton as president over Donald Trump. Knowing Clinton's background with circumcision, some intactivists decided to vote for Jill Stein, or simply Donald Trump because they didn't want to see a president who was directly involved in the ongoing promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention in Africa rise to power.

It was a tough split. For a lot of intactivists, circumcision was not their sole issue; for some intactivists, preserving women's and LGBT rights, and preventing an unabashedly racist president were issues that were far more important than stopping the promotion of circumcision with pseudo-medical lies. Still others did not want a president who was wedded to the banks and corporations on Wall Street, and who had a history of promoting fracking and who was remaining silent on the ongoing Silent Rock oil pipeline crisis.

Between a president who wants to circumcise Africa, possibly the world, with financial interests in maintaining the status quo, and who seems intent on initiating World War 3 with Iran and/or Russia, and a president who disparages women, minorities and has ties to white supremacist groups, not to mention his inexperience in politics and his reputation as a failed businessman who evaded taxes, it was a really tough call.

Jill Stein had some qualities that made her very attractive to intactivists. For the most part, she echoed Bernie Sanders' progressive views. Like Bernie, she was also Jewish but she didn't wear her religion on her sleeve. The double-whammy was that she also happened to be a woman, who, unlike Hillary, wasn't tying her sex to her presidential campaign.

Something else that made Stein very attractive to intactivists was the allegation that she supposedly endorsed Intact America. The Green Party of New Jersey posted on their Facebook website (last accessed 11/18/2016) that she had given her endorsement back in 2012. A Jewish person taking a stand against the forced genital cutting of all children would be an attractive presidential candidate indeed.

But now it's all over, our next president has been decided, and while some intactivists dread the decision, and are browbeating all of those who didn't vote for Clinton, others are sighing a sigh of relief. At least with Clinton gone, they say, there might be less promotion of circumcision going on in Africa, and children in the US will be a little more safe.

But will the situation improve under Trump?

I'm not sure how many intactivists have been paying attention, but it looks as if Trump may have some incentive to continue promoting circumcision under the guise of medicine

According to Ezra Levant from "The Rebel," all of Donald Trump's children are either married to, or marrying Jewish people. Ivanka is married to Jared Kushner, who is Jewish; she converted to Judaism and actually took a Jewish name. Her kids, Trump's grandchildren would also be Jewish.

Donald Jr. is married to Vanessa Haydon, Eric Trump is married to Lara Yunaska, and Tiffany Trump is dating Ross Mechanic, all of whom are Jewish.

The very Trump Organization has people in high executive positions who are Jewish. Executive Vice Presidents Michael D. Cohen and Jason Greenblatt, along with Chief Financial Officer Alan Weisselberg are all Jewish.

There were Jewish people working within Trump's presidential campaign; his speech writer and opening speaker at many of his rallies, Stephen Miller, his Communications Coordinator, Michael Abboud, his Finance Chair, Steve Mnuchin, are all Jewish.


Now, it's not necessarily the case, that just because a person is Jewish, he or she has religious convictions to defend circumcision. After all, some of the most outspoken people in our movement happen to be Jewish.

But given the fact that Jews who oppose male infant circumcision are a minority, I'd say there's a very good chance that Trump will have plenty of incentive to continue promoting circumcision as medicine in Africa via PEPFAR.

Or, who knows.

Trump may decide PEPFAR is a "yuge" waste of money and an international aid folly the US can do without.

I'm not holding my breath...

Related Posts:
Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

10 Years Later, UNAIDS Still Hell Bent on Circumcising Africa


UNITED STATES: Infant Circumcision Fails as STI Prophylaxis

CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

Monday, October 24, 2016

10 Years Later, UNAIDS Still Hell Bent on Circumcising Africa


Is there a god?

Because only he would know what's come over the people at UNAIDS.

It seems that how many men they hornswoggle into getting circumcised, and how many parents they convince to allow doctors to circumcise their children, continues to be the new measure of "success" in reducing AIDS transmission at the WHO/UNAIDS.

Within the past few days, UNAIDS has published not one, not two, but three articles regarding so-called "VMMC" (the catchy acronym that stands for "Voluntary Male Medical Circumcision") on their website.

None of them question the mantra that "circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 60%" and what it's based on; they just tout it as given fact.

All of them sweep the reader past the fact that, in all actuality, scientists and researchers don't know that circumcision reduces the transmission of HIV at all, let alone by the fabled 60%.

The fact is that not a single scientist or researcher has been able to produce a scientifically demonstrable causal link between the presence of the male foreskin and an increase in HIV transmission.

But even accepting the claim that "circumcision prevents HIV transmission by 60%" at face value, no one seems to be concerned that there would still be that 40% that men and women have to worry about; circumcised men still run the risk of  acquiring HIV.

So ineffective would circumcision be at preventing HIV transmission, that HIV workers must stress to circumcised men and their partners, that circumcision is not protection, and that they still have to use condoms.

Bringing into question the use of promoting circumcision as HIV prevention in the first place.

The Underlying Theme: The Better Mousetrap
After reading each of the articles, I noticed a connecting underlying theme; and that's finding a better way to circumcise more males in a shorter time.

It's a recurring theme; actually, finding more men to circumcise is a problem HIV/AIDS organizations face every year.

Every year, WHO/UNAIDS sends a double-message. On the one hand, they want to let on on how successful their programs are. "Those foreskins are flying," Robert Bailey once assured in the New York Times. On the other hand, their strongest message is that "We still need your help! Don't stop sending us your money!"

Well, not exactly in those words, but you know, just about.

When the "mass circumcision programs" first began, there was an initial surge of men lining up to get circumcised at medical facilities. Initially, circumcision programs were able to claim success, but that has pretty much died down.

The number of men coming forward for circumcision, and parents allowing their children to be circumcised has since plateaued, and now circumcision promoters are at their wit's end trying to encourage more men to get circumcised.

In Swaziland, the "Soka Uncobe" (or "Circumcise and Conquer") campaign was launched with the intention of circumcising 80% of the male Swazi population (that's 200,000 men), but the program ended in failure, as after four years, the program was able to convince only 20% (roughly 34,000 men) of the population to undergo circumcision.

Programs in other countries are also facing the same failure to circumcise the number of men they want, such as in ZimbabweBotswana, Zambia and Kenya.

It is my suspicion that the men who initially did go in to get circumcised, were men who belonged to tribes and cultures where circumcision is already a rite of passage, and who were going to be circumcised anyway. (WHO/UNAIDS doesn't want to talk about this, but circumcision is already quite wide-spread in Africa. It is not too difficult to find men who want to get circumcised, because circumcision is already a rite of passage in many tribes and Muslim communities.)

Perhaps there were a few gullible men here and there who actually bought into the circumcision/HIV propaganda, but on the whole, those who went in were probably only men who couldn't care less about the potential HIV reduction, who said whatever they had to in order to cash in on a free and "safe" circumcision. All of the men who were going to get circumcised have gotten circumcised, so there's no one left, until new tribe or Muslim initiates come of age.

It seems circumcision promoters can't stop asking themselves, "What could be the problem? What has gone wrong? Why aren't men breaking down the doors to have part of their penis cut off?"

"Circumcise or bust!" seems to be the motto.

"We need to do whatever it takes to get as many men and boys circumcised."

And this, I believe, is what's wrong with HIV programs in Africa today. Somehow, progress on the HIV front has come to be measured, not by how much HIV infection has decreased in time, but by how prolific the practice of circumcision has become.

This time, they got it. They really got it.
WHO/UNAIDS has published the following report; "Effective HIV prevention and a gateway to improved adolescent boys & men’s health in eastern and southern Africa by 2021", which would be better labeled "Circumcising More Boys and Men."

The report says that the annual number of "VMMC" needs to increase to 5 million per year. According to the report, the following elements must be achieved:
  • Promoting VMMC as part of a wider package of sexual and reproductive services for men and boys, including comprehensive sexuality education, the use of condoms and communication around gender norms, including positive notions of masculinity.
  • Using new integrated service delivery models. 
  • Using approaches that are tailored for various age groups and locations.
  • Increasing domestic funding to ensure the sustainability of VMM[C] and expanding sexual and reproductive health services for men and boys.
  • Developing new approaches for adolescent and early infant circumcision.
  • Breaking down myths and misconceptions about circumcision.

To me, these read as:
  • Make circumcision as a condition for sex education, condoms, and manhood (e.g. social stigma)
  • Using the latest circumcision technology (e.g. prepex, accucirc etc... business ties anyone?)
  • Find out what it takes to circumcise people of different age groups
  • Make "VMMC" a condition for receiving funds for sex and reproductive health services for men and boys
  • Get 'em while they're young, target the youth and find ways to convince parents to have their children circumcised (WHERE'S THE "VOLUNTARY" IN THAT?)
    Brainwashing people into accepting circumcision by creating myths and misconceptions
In the second article published by UNAIDS, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation appears to be investing in "research" on how to brainwash the African populace to uptake circumcision more effectively.

Reads the article:
"...while service delivery for VMMC has improved, uptake has stalled. In response, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded Ipsos Healthcare, a market research company, to investigate how to better understand behavioural and psychographic characteristics of men and boys and the barriers and facilitators within their journey from awareness of the VMMC to uptake."

Circumcision or bust. In other words, they want to see what makes them tick, what buttons they have to push, such that they accept circumcision.

Readers, does this seem "voluntary" to you?

In the third UNAIDS article, it seems they want to target youths by taking them to camps, Jesus Camp style. The article is titled "Protecting men and boys’ health in Swaziland," where "protection" means, making sure they're circumcised.

The article talks about using soccer to get to youth.

There have already been reports of crafty organizers using soccer to attract youth, and then making circumcision a prerequisite for joining.

More and more the word "voluntary" seems to be nothing more than lip service.

Human Rights Violations
The fact that WHO/UNAIDS is effectively endorsing genital mutilation as HIV "prevention" is infuriating.

First off, circumcision simply does not prevent anything, and that promoting circumcision as HIV prevention is already resulting in a false sense of security in men and women, exacerbating the HIV transmission problem:
UGANDA: Myths about circumcision help spread HIV
ZIMBABWE: Circumcised men abandoning condoms
Botswana – There is an upsurge of cases of people who got infected with HIV following circumcision.
Zimbabwe – Circumcised men indulge in risky sexual behaviour
Nyanza – Push for male circumcision in Nyanza fails to reduce infections


Second, this endorsement is already resulting in the violation of basic human rights. Promoting circumcision as HIV prevention is giving circumcising tribes the green light to forcibly circumcise members of their tribes, and even members of rival tribes:
UGANDA: 220 men forcibly circumcised
UGANDA: HIV campaign confused with circum-rape: no effect on HIV rate
ZIMBABWE: 6 years for kidnapping, forced circumcision
UGANDA: Forced circumcision campaign stopped
UGANDA: Men flee "life-threatening" forced circumcision
UGANDA: Prisoners forcibly circumcised
KENYA: Circumcision forced on men and women - boy dies for refusing
UGANDA: Pretty women entrap intact men for enforced circumcision
SOUTH AFRICA: Taxi drivers fear forced dircumcision

The fact is that circumcision has become a prerequisite in receiving fund from donors. HIV organizations are being given quotas of circumcised males that they must meet in order to receive funds. This is resulting in very underhanded activity.

To increase the number of men being circumcised a year, circumcision promoters have tried everything in the book, from celebrity endorsement, to songs on the radio, to art exhibitions, to patriarchal endorsement, to bribery, to legislative proposition of compulsory circumcision for all (there goes the "voluntary" part of the program...), to making it a requirement to participate in sports, to outright emasculation and body shaming.

In some cases, children are being taken from schools, and even off the streets outright, and being circumcised without their parents' permission.

Programs are already underway to promote male infant circumcision to parents.

Again, is it not obvious that the "voluntary" part of the catchy "Voluntary Male Medical Circumcision" acronym is nothing more than vestigial?

On the bright side, perhaps the UNAIDS articles are good news for the intactivist movement. Perhaps they are a sign of circumcision advocates' despair and frustration, because their plans to circumcise Africa aren't going as swimmingly as they had originally planned.


Perhaps the need to underline that they're struggling to find better ways to spread circumcision, is indicative of the fact that Africans aren't buying the lie that circumcision has anything to do with HIV prevention so easily.

Africans Aren't Stupid
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why circumcision promoters are having trouble achieving their quotas. You don't need "studies" and "surveys" to figure out why.

Men simply don't see the value of getting circumcised, to undergo a painful, life-altering, permanent surgical alteration, which will permanently change the appearance and mechanics of their penises, if it means they only get "partial protection." Being told that "circumcision reduces HIV transmission by 60%" isn't all that impressive if it means that they still have to wear condoms.

Married men simply don't see the value of getting circumcised if they are faithful to their wives, and therefore not at risk for sexually transmitted HIV.

Women certainly don't want to be made to feel like their man is going out on them with other women. They want to be able to trust their partners with fidelity. So why would they encourage their men to go get circumcised? What can having their husbands go get circumcised mean, other than that they are expecting them to be unfaithful?

That the people up at HIV organizations think that they can actually get away with promoting circumcision the way they do can mean only one of to things; either HIV organizations are dense and stupid, or they believe the African public is.

From an outside, non-African perspective, I simply can't believe the bullshit that western HIV organizations are attempting to feed the people of Africa. Looking at what's going on in Africa, I'm simply insulted as an intact male.

As an intact man, I am expected to believe that, a) circumcision "reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission by 60% (from female to male)," and b) that I still have to wear condoms.


 


I ask, why in the world would any man in the right mind choose to have part of his penis removed, if it meant that one still had to wear condoms?

"60% protetion."

Just what does that mean?

Imagine parachutes that worked only 60% of the time, and malfunctioned the remaining 40%. 


For no discernible rhyme or reason.

Who in the right mind would want parachutes like that?

Is it any wonder HIV organizations are having trouble convincing the masses to accept circumcision as their lord and saviour?

I ask, if I'm not convinced by this argument, why would I expect any other man to be? Let alone the men in Africa?

No intact man in the right mind could ever go for this. Men who are fully informed, men who have been made aware of all the facts simply cannot see any value in undergoing circumcision, and can clearly see that it is complete madness that organizations are spending millions in funds trying to convince other men to part with their foreskins for only "partial protection." If you went around pushing this nonsense in Europe, people would laugh in your face. They're pushing this shit in Africa because they think Africans are gullible idiots.

The only people who see the value in circumcision campaigns are those men and women who already have religious or cultural convictions for the practice of circumcision. They would like circumcision to be a free service, performed at hospitals by trained professionals, as opposed to the African bush, performed by amateurs using crude utensils, where men are more likely to suffer complications, including infection, loss of their organ, and even death. People with religious or cultural convictions for circumcision cannot verily declare this to be the case, so they are more than likely to disguise these convictions and desire to have circumcision as a free service by parroting the circumcision/HIV propaganda. "I am glad I am protected," they will say, when they truly mean to say "I cashed in on a free circumcision, thanks to these HIV programs!" "Everybody should be circumcised in order to prevent HIV infection," they will say, when they mean to say "We want all men to be circumcised and must submit to our tribal or religious tradition."

THE SOLUTION: More Money, More Propaganda
So ten years and several million dollars later, the great scheme to circumcise Africa in the name of HIV transmission hasn't taken off. Africans simply aren't buying it. Worse than that, the risk compensation nightmare intactivists have warned about from the very beginning is coming true.



Men are walking away with the message that condoms aren't necessary once they're circumcised. This false sense of security makes it difficult for female partners to convince them to wear condoms.

The endorsement of circumcision as HIV prevention is seen as a green light for traditional, rite-of-passage circumcision practices, as well as the forced circumcision of men by men in rival circumcising tribes, resulting in infections, loss of genital organs and death, not to mention an increased risk of HIV transmission due to the usage of dirty, crude equipment.

These "mass circumcision campaigns" are a massive failure. But how are circumcision promotion agencies responding? What is their solution?

More money, more propaganda.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

"Demand creation," say the circumcision "experts," is the key.

HIV promoting organizations are observing what's happening, and their solution is to up the ante, use more coercive tactics to get the men to circumcise themselves "voluntarily."

The problem, the reason they aren't seeing men flocking to get circumcised, according to them, is that men simply don't understand what's good for them.

The women don't either.

The solution is to "understand" "why" people aren't buying it, in order to hit the right buttons, come up with the necessary "studies" that quell people's fears, and people will start banging down the doors.

"Demand Creation": What does it mean?
So how are they going to do it?

How are they going to get 5 million men a year to get circumcised?

"Demand creation" are the buzz words among circumcision promoters. But what do these words mean?

To me this can only mean brainwashing and counterproductive propaganda.

When the goal of HIV organizations is no longer to prevent HIV, when the goal is, instead, to circumcise as many men, boys and children as possible, when the goal is to gain the "acceptance" of circumcision, when the goal is to achieve a quota within a certain time frame, then the only outcome of this is can be lies and deception.

In order to achieve "demand creation," one can expect more attacks on African masculinity.

More coercion through sex appeal.

More "studies" exaggerating the "benefits" of circumcision.

More diseases that circumcision is supposed to cure.

With the promotion of male infant circumcision, there will be more "studies" minimizing the risks and harms of circumcision.

Men and women who fully understand the facts, that circumcision is a painful, permanent alteration which, even if the current "research" were correct, could only provide "partial" protection, that circumcision fails and therefore condoms must still be used, do not, cannot possibly see any value in circumcision.

Men fully aware of the facts do not, cannot be convinced to accept this for themselves.

Parents fully aware of the facts, do not, cannot be convinced to accept this for their children.

Therefore the only possible outcome is that, in order to realize quotas and meet deadlines, the facts must be denied, lies must be told, and the truth must be hidden at all costs.

Therefore the only outcome of "demand creation" is that the public will believe that circumcision prevents HIV transmission, that being circumcised means condoms are disposable, that unsafe sex with a man is acceptable as long as he is circumcised.

Therefore the only outcome of "demand creation" is, necessarily, that the HIV epidemic in African countries will be exasperated.

At the expense of the American taxpayer.

At the expense of the truth.

At the expense of scientific credibility.

At the expense of the human dignity of Africans.

At the expense of African lives.

At the expense of basic human rights of minors.

The problem isn't that African men and women "don't understand" and that they need to be "educated," no. The men and women and Africa understand what circumcision and HIV are. They understand that circumcision, even if the "research" were accurate, could only provide "partial protection," that men would still have to wear condoms, and simply aren't interested.

The problem is that the people at HIV organizations, the people at the American CDC, the people at PEPFAR, the people at Bill and Melinda Gates, the people at the WHO have all lost their senses completely.

It is absolute madness that they've all made it the end goal of the HIV movement to circumcise Africa, if not the world. While precious funds could be put to better use, millions are being squandered on promoting a dubious form of HIV prevention which is already superseded by the cheaper, less invasive, more effective modes of prevention which are condoms and education.

This has stopped being about preventing HIV transmission and stopping AIDS; this has become a human experiment in coercion and brainwashing, adding a whole new layer of ethics being violated.

The word "Voluntary" in "Voluntary Male Medical Circumcision" will be devoid of any meaning.

Meanwhile, Back in the US
It is simply mistaken to assume that a mostly circumcised population automatically translates to a lowered HIV transmission rate, as real-world data indicates.

Meanwhile, the CDC has declared that the US is experiencing record highs in STDs. Not to mention that, according to the CIA World Factbook, the US has a higher HIV prevalence rate than 53 countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced.

Why is this important?

Because what "researchers" are trying to achieve in Africa is already reality in the US; 80% of our male population is already circumcised from birth.

Circumcision has been ingrained in American culture for at least a century. Having intact male organs is already stigmatized and openly made fun of on social media, television and film.

Circumcision never prevented HIV or other STDs in America, but somehow, however, people are expected to believe that it is working miracles in Africa.

Can anyone else not see what's happening in Africa for what it is?

An unethical, waste of money?

Millions are being spent to brainwash Africans of a lie the rest of the world doesn't even believe?

Millions are being spent to forcibly cut the genitals of healthy, non-consenting individuals?

Millions are being spent to instill in African men and women a false sense of security?

Which is actually a disservice in the fight against HIV?

Which can be better spent in sex education?

Food?

Water?

Other much needed medicine?

When are world leaders going to see this half-baked effort to circumcise Africa for what it is?

A massive human experiment?

A monstrous hoax?

A practical joke of epic proportions?

When are world leaders going to call to stop taking advantage of Africans?

Isn't it about time to admit that circumcision doesn't work, it never worked, and even if it ever did work, there would already be better ways to prevent HIV?

Isn't it about time to move on and spend those millions of dollars more productively?

Related Posts:

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

UNITED STATES: Infant Circumcision Fails as STI Prophylaxis

CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

Posts on how circumcision may actually be worsening the HIV problem:


Posts on underhanded circumcision "upscale strategies"
BOTSWANA: Men Shunning Circumcision a "Mistery"


AFRICA: Creating Circumcision "Volunteers"
 
AFRICA: NGO's Taking Children from School to Circumcise Them Without Parents' Knowledge

MALAWI: USAID-Funded Program Kidnapping Children for Circumcision - Boy Loses Penis

Posts on Swaziland Soka Uncobe Saga:
Soka Uncobe: Our US Tax Dollars at Work

Soka Uncobe "Official Launch" - Come Again?

Soka Uncobe Ringleaders Getting a Little Desperate?
 
Swazi King: "Better You Than Me"

SWAZILAND: Compulsory Circumcision Law Proposed

Swazi Men Not As Dumb As American Circumcision Advocates Had Hoped

SWAZILAND: American Government Sinks to New Low

Why a U.S. Circumcision Push Failed in Swaziland | PBS NewsHour

Related Link:
NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization