# When peer pressure becomes coercion



## brant31 (Jan 11, 2009)

We all know that one of the most ridiculous reasons to consider putting your healthy child through penile surgery is the chance he may be teased in the locker room. There are so many holes in this theory that it's approaching urban myth status... few schools have group showers anymore; the circumcision rate in Canada and Australia is well below 50%, and approaching that in the US; and if your child has been raised with an appropriate self-esteem, the correct response is not shame but "Why are you looking at my penis anyway?" or "You're the one who's missing something."

None of us here condones their child making fun of another boy in class or at the pool because he has been circumcised. It may have happened for sound medical reasons or because the parents felt they had no choice given their faith, though far more often boys in the US are circumcised without any compelling reason at all. It's a surgical freebie through insurance, HMO or Medicaid, so it happens almost automatically. Whatever the reason, it is never right to make fun of another's penis.

So, imagine my outrage when I recently sat through an entire evening of presentations on "marketing" circumcision in Eastern and Southern Africa. I attended the 2010 AIDS conference in Vienna specifically to learn what the current plans are for ramping up circumcision. As many of you may know, the big news is a massive fundraising effort (between 1 and 2 billion US dollars) to circumcise 38 million African males over the age of 17 (and as low as 14 in cases of "emancipation" -- being married or working away from home). The goal is to snip off 38 million foreskins by 2015.

What shocked me even more, however, was the nonchalance with which the presenters talked about starting the infant & child circumcision programs in Year 2 of this 5-year plan. When they are through, they expect to have circumcised every newborn male and every boy of school age in 13 countries.

Dr. Iulian Circo, a young Romanian doctor, has been given the task by UNAIDS and WHO of marketing circumcision to boys by any appealing means his team can think of. So here is the plan he detailed 2 weeks ago:

Knowing how much boys love soccer, and yet how poor they are in Swaziland and many other African countries, the committee determined they would put together competitive leagues and bring in soccer heroes to teach the boys. All those who sign up get beautiful new uniforms, rides to compete in away games, and the best equipment money can buy. It is a dream come true for the impoverished boys in these countries.

The catch? To qualify, each team must convince a majority of the boys to have their foreskins cut off. Any team in which a majority of the boys fail to get circumcised is automatically disqualified from the competition. It is up to the boys on the team to put the maximum peer pressure on each other to get circumcised, and the sponsors help this by coaching the boys with lines like "it is more manly to be circumcised", "it is cleaner and safer to be circumcised" and "brave boys go have their circumcision without complaining".

A member of the audience stood up and told Dr. Circo that there is a fine line between encouragement and coercion, and it seems the doctor and his team have crossed it. Dr. Circo chuckled and said that his team wasn't coercing anyone, merely using natural peer pressure among boys to get them to meet the committee's goals. It would also teach boys the values of being men, since any boy reluctant or scared to get circumcised would have to learn to "take a bullet for the team" (his words). There would be no leeway or sympathy for any soccer team in which the boys failed at the task and did not convince a majority of their teammates to have their foreskins cut off; they're immediately suspended from the competition for defying the rule of majority circumcision.

Oh, how I wished right then and there that half that lecture hall was filled with MDC mamas and dads. You can imagine the reactions to the smirking young Dr. Circo.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

that is horrifying! i really have no words to say...

h


----------



## buckeyedoc (Nov 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brant31* 

The catch? To qualify, each team must convince a majority of the boys to have their foreskins cut off. Any team in which a majority of the boys fail to get circumcised is automatically disqualified from the competition. It is up to the boys on the team to put the maximum peer pressure on each other to get circumcised, and the sponsors help this by coaching the boys with lines like "it is more manly to be circumcised", "it is cleaner and safer to be circumcised" and "brave boys go have their circumcision without complaining".


----------



## buckeyedoc (Nov 9, 2006)

I also can't believe his last name is Circo. It's like Dr. DeCock. Too easy.


----------



## Pirogi (Apr 5, 2007)

OMG. I can't believe there was actually a conference about this.

By what leap of logic did they promote RIC for infants and children in Africa? How could they possibly extrapolate the results of the African studies to include children? Did they address this at all?


----------



## brant31 (Jan 11, 2009)

They put out slick, heavy-gauge brochures (I snagged copies of each) for the circumcision programs for each country. Most of the text and pictures concerned centers being built at great cost for the sole purpose of carrying out mass circumcisions.

The section of each detailing the upcoming circumcision of infants was entitled "Voluntary Male Infant Circumcision Programmes". Anyone else see the irony?


----------



## Pirogi (Apr 5, 2007)

Wow. I need to schedule a visit with a therapist or something. I just feel like we are losing ground on everything that matters.


----------



## brant31 (Jan 11, 2009)

The mantra of the presentations was Stigma Stigma Stigma. In other words, once the cutters had gone through all the 14-and-up, it would be a stigma for any boy to have a foreskin. So as not to shame the little ones, and to ensure that they were "protected" from HIV from the earliest age, and to reduce the cost of having to cut a lot of adults later with anesthesia, the circumcision program directors decided it would be best to circumcise every living male in those 13 countries starting 2 years from now. Actually, they anticipate only about 80% participation from adults, but the infants and young boys have no say in the matter so it will be universal. Any parent who balks will be counseled until they see the light.

Instead of making circumcision optional for any adult who is sexually active and believes circumcision will benefit him, WHO and UNAIDS decided it would be easier and cheaper to have NO foreskins in Eastern and Southern Africa starting with the class of 2012.

Brazil and Thailand both faced daunting statistics just a few years ago, and both countries launched tremendously successful containment programs without resorting at all to circumcision. The only possible explanation for why this could not also work in Africa is a presumption that Africans are too promiscuous and lazy to use condoms or take their meds, both of which are absolutely untrue.

Several of the presenters in Vienna remarked how "embarrassing", "uncomfortable" or "shameful" it would be to have a foreskin when the majority are cut. Anyone who read between the lines that evening could see that the real agenda here is that _uncut is primitive_ and _circumcised is beautiful and modern_. I don't think there was a single presenter who wasn't disgusted by foreskin. Last year one presenter even put up a photo of a nude intact male from the waist to knees and drew elephant ears on his thighs, as if the intact penis were an elephant's trunk.

When they insist it's about hygiene and health, it's really about *appearance* and about validating their own status.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

So incredibly sick!!


----------



## tennisdude23 (Apr 2, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pirogi* 
Wow. I need to schedule a visit with a therapist or something. I just feel like we are losing ground on everything that matters.

Actually, the word is getting out everywhere; so, big progress is being made, but like any other social justice/human rights issue, it's always two steps forward, one step back. To be honest, I am not at all surprised by the cronyism and corruption within the UN programs, as these two words virtually define the UN. The UN is a self-serving organization; and unfortunately, it's list of failures is quite long. I really cannot recollect one successful UN intervention anywhere, though perhaps my definition of success is rather stringent. I think most people realize that UNAIDS has done little to successfully stop HIV in Africa and that the disease is diminishing on its own. Along these lines, a lot of people and organizations are at the very least skeptical of mass circumcision programs, and a good number are horrified by this ludicrous idea, both in the West and Africa.

Here are two good articles to read on these points:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-r..._b_654904.html
http://news.myjoyonline.com/features/201007/49500.asp

Lastly, to address the issue of funding, it's important to remember that everything is always about money. In the case of HIV and Africa, funding is drying up and a lot of organizations are getting desperate to please their donors. Thus, they are clinging at straws to say that they are making progress, which I think partially explains this circumcision phenomenon in Africa. In any case, funding is a murky issue because a lot of the money goes through very corrupt channels, many times landing in the pockets of greedy government officials instead of going to people who need it. This is just one of many reasons why it's so difficult to give people access to basic resources, such as water, for example. As a result, the idea that Western funded programs are going to circumcise millions upon millions of Africans in five years is pretty naive in my opinion. It's extremely difficult to set up one clean health clinic anywhere in Africa, let alone hundreds of thousands. So, I think simple logistics, common sense, and general stupidity of mass circumcision will halt these programs sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, hopefully.


----------



## tennisdude23 (Apr 2, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brant31* 
Several of the presenters in Vienna remarked how "embarrassing", "uncomfortable" or "shameful" it would be to have a foreskin when the majority are cut.

While it's always unfortunate to come across opinions such as these, I think it's important to keep in mind that they are shared by a minority of people and that most AIDS/HIV work in Africa does not focus on circumcision. There are millions of people out there working hard to stop this disease but only a handful have taken up the circumcision mantra. Indeed, I feel it's paramount to keep all of this in perspective.


----------



## Pirogi (Apr 5, 2007)

I hope you're right, tennisdude. Because we HAVE exported our birth practices to other countries. We HAVE exported our poor diet. If we export circumcision too, it only takes 2 or 3 generations before the culture will be exactly like ours - aghast at keeping males intact. Doctors will no longer have education or training in intact penis care. Moms and dads will perpetuate the cycle. Fierce debates will ensue over the issue, but this time propping up their arguments with AIDS prevention tactics will carry more weight.

It is much easier to stem the circumcision tide before it becomes the norm in a society, than after.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

i am wondering what long term studies have been done to show that being circ'd has prevented the spread of HIV and AIDS. do they have more then a few years of info out there.
and why is the push so hard in africa? is it because they don't think africans are smart enough to get it? why would you forgo education and head right to circing?
i recall reading on here or someplace that USA has a big population of circ'd males with AIDS and HIV, is that not proof that it isn't a sure bet that circ won't prevent AIDS?

thank you for the info

h


----------



## brant31 (Jan 11, 2009)

Well, that's precisely why my colleagues and I were in Vienna. We were promoting education, condom use, sterile syringes and surgical equipment, and the availability of ARVs/HAART. Our message resonated with so many that we had over 1,000 visitors come by and talk with us.

I agree with you that the circumcision ramp-up is doomed to fail, and the promoters are already talking about how if they fail to reach the critical 80% their programs may yield nothing (and not be their fault!). We're already getting plenty of feedback that a lot of the recently circumcised men are not using condoms at all because they feel "protected" from HIV. Boy, that's a disaster waiting to happen.

The circumcision brigade is essentially a team of people who have staked their entire careers on the circ mantle in return for guaranteed high salaries and job security. They see no human rights issue in this; just a possibility of health improvement (which they still can't adequately/scientifically explain how) and some resumé-building stuff.

But don't anyone underestimate the power and extent of the circumcision proposals... they were on _everyone's_ lips at both Cape Town last year and Vienna this year. With $300 million from the Gates Foundation and both Bill Gates and Bill Clinton on stage this year pounding for the circumcision ramp-up, it is a _big deal_. The big deal.


----------



## PinkinPA (Feb 26, 2007)

Has any of this information been made available to Intact America or an other organizations??

This is beyond sick.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Well the UN and WHO in supporting this has basically lost whatever credibiity they had left with me.


----------



## Night_Nurse (Nov 23, 2007)

Oh. My God!


----------



## buckeyedoc (Nov 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree* 
i am wondering what long term studies have been done to show that being circ'd has prevented the spread of HIV and AIDS.

This is exactly what I think: circumcision won't make any difference in the long term. Even if there is a "real" statistically significant decrease in female to male HIV transmission over 18 months following circumcision, it isn't biologically significant. So a man who continues to live the same lifestyle in an HIV endemic area will be infected anyway, whether it takes one exposure or two exposures.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

The soccer deal sounds very reminiscent of what missionaries did back in the colonial days.


----------



## PuppyFluffer (Mar 18, 2002)

None of this surprises me.


----------



## WTHamI? (Jul 29, 2009)

That is horrifying.

What's really sad is that I can see this making the spread of AIDS and other STDs even worse because men who have been circumcised will think they are protected. A slightly reduced risk does not equal no risk. The people who are pushing this are not even thinking through the consequences.


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
The soccer deal sounds very reminiscent of what missionaries did back in the colonial days.

Seriously. This whole situation makes me want to vomit.


----------



## jenP (Aug 22, 2002)

Funny how quickly it went from "These HIV studies are being done on consenting adult volunteers; we have no plans to circumcise babies; we're all about helping consenting adults make their own decisions about how best to reduce their own risk of acquiring HIV" and so on to:
"We want to circumcise every male in Africa who is alive now, and then get all the new ones, too, as soon as they are born."

Jen


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WTHamI?* 
That is horrifying.

What's really sad is that I can see this making the spread of AIDS and other STDs even worse because men who have been circumcised will think they are protected. A slightly reduced risk does not equal no risk. The people who are pushing this are not even thinking through the consequences.

Yes, though the idea of so many men and boys losing a healthy functional part of their penises is sad, and a few will suffer from more major complications; the true tragedy will be in the numbers that will contract and spread HIV b/c they are being sold on this protection and will substitute it for safe sex.


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

It really baffles me that European researchers can say this IN Europe, where the majority of the male population is intact, and have no one balk at such blatantly inflammatory presentations. Sad.


----------



## buckeyedoc (Nov 9, 2006)

It also seems like the whole initiative has racist undertones. "Let's circumcise all of the black Africans, but the white Europeans can use other means to prevent HIV."


----------



## billikengirl (Sep 12, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WTHamI?* 
That is horrifying.

What's really sad is that I can see this making the spread of AIDS and other STDs even worse because men who have been circumcised will think they are protected. A slightly reduced risk does not equal no risk. The people who are pushing this are not even thinking through the consequences.

Exactly! How do these circumcisers explain the rates of HIV infection and other STDs in the U.S. where the majority of adult males are circumcised?


----------



## jenP (Aug 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *buckeyedoc* 
It also seems like the whole initiative has racist undertones. "Let's circumcise all of the black Africans, but the white Europeans can use other means to prevent HIV."


----------



## jenP (Aug 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *billikengirl* 
Exactly! How do these circumcisers explain the rates of HIV infection and other STDs in the U.S. where the majority of adult males are circumcised?

Yeah, someone recently addressed that in another thread. To paraphrase: "lucky thing all the men in the U.S. were circumcised or the AIDS epidemic here would have been way, way worse than it was."

Fear-mongering, in other words. Quick, circumcise everybody or we'll have even more infections!!

Jen


----------



## brant31 (Jan 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Papai* 
It really baffles me that European researchers can say this IN Europe, where the majority of the male population is intact, and have no one balk at such blatantly inflammatory presentations. Sad.

It's interesting... we had a lot of Europeans stop by and chat with us in Vienna, and they were baffled by our opposition to mass circumcision as an HIV containment strategy. By and large, their attitude was, "So what? Circumcision is no big deal. From what I've heard, it doesn't really change anything (function, sensation, etc.)."

So, we said, "Oh, so you wouldn't mind being circumcised, or having someone circumcise your children?" That's when they said, "Over my dead body!!"

When we told them that Africa is just the opening salvo in a movement to "normalize" circumcision further and spread the practice to every continent, they just chuckled and said, "Don't be ridiculous, it would never happen here. Let them cut all of Africa for all we care; Europeans are too sensible to allow anything like that to reach us."

Hmmm. That response sounded to me a little too much like the famous quote of Martin Niemöller that begins, ""They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist." You know the rest.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *billikengirl* 
Exactly! How do these circumcisers explain the rates of HIV infection and other STDs in the U.S. where the majority of adult males are circumcised?

As JenP said, the pro-circ crowd says, "Whew, thank goodness most of our boys were already circumcised or our HIV profile would be like Africa's!"

Utter nonsense. The appropriate comparison for the US would be Canada, or Western Europe. Point of fact, for the past 20 years Western Europe has had heterosexual HIV transmission rates ranging from US parity (Spain & Portugal, right next to Africa) to approximately 1/8 that of the US (Scandinavia). On average, it's about 1/4 the US rate, with similar profiles for condom use and injected drug use. Maybe it's intact sex organs that's actually _protecting_ Western Europe, which is not an outrageous idea. It has been known for several years now that moist mucosal tissue is a super-strong barrier to bacterial and viral infection -- unlike the dried glans and everted mucosa of the circumcised penis -- and circumcised men are more prone to microtearing of their own penile tissue and the vaginal lining of their partners. This nonsense from the African researchers about the benefits of a keratinized glans and the danger from Langerhans cells in the foreskin is mumbo-jumbo... it has absolutely no support in the published medical literature. It's a hole in their theory that you can drive a Range Rover through.

One UCSF researcher had the unmitigated gall to tell me that to his way of thinking, the US could have been 25% more protected from HIV with a 100% male circ rate, and Europe could have had no HIV at all if they adopted circumcision. I told him he had it completely backward... probably the US could have avoided more than half of our cases of HIV if we didn't circumcise at all. Per the Laumann study, sex overall would have been less risky and condom use would have been higher, since circumcised men complain more about feeling almost nothing with a condom on.

I want to scream when I see what is happening in East/South Africa. With 1 to 2 billion dollars now earmarked for circumcision, those governments could ensure the sterility of needles and scalpels, provide a wide variety of condoms for men to try, educate much more extensively, and make antiretrovirals widely available. It would virtually halt HIV in 5 years. But then, no one is making career headlines with such boring solutions.


----------



## Greg B (Mar 18, 2006)

So they have no reasonable argument as to why circ is better than intact. Instead they have to use unethical bribery...

Interesting. Perhaps we are making progress...but is too bad that vulnerable people will be unethically and improperly treated against their wishes, and before they can make an informed decision of their own.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

I know we are all horrified but what can we do to get the word out and put pressure on these groups so they can't get away with this?


----------



## Ron_Low (May 11, 2007)

On PSI.org they list the other speakers as Dr. but Circo is Mr.


----------



## Crunchy Frog (Aug 24, 2008)

This whole business seems strangely reminiscent of this episode in U.S. history:

Quote:

Solving the "***** rape problem"
Yet another advantage of circumcision

In the 1880s there were suggestions that African Americans should be forcibly circumcised as part of a campaign against venereal disease. It was asserted that they were irredeemably promiscuous and impossible to educate in the laws of hygiene...
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net...d=63&Itemid=52


----------



## nsmomtobe (Aug 22, 2009)

This makes me feel physically ill.

It is absolutely racist when the powerful educated White Man goes into developing nations with the "I know better than you do what's best for you and your people" attitude. The only way I can wrap my head around it is by reminding myself that most of the researchers, at least the American ones, truly think it is in everybody's best interest to be circumcised. As for the Europeans who think it is fine for Africans, but not for themselves... it's just inexcusable.


----------



## Mama Metis (Feb 10, 2010)

This is very disturbing. I understand that Uganda is one country that has done a decent job offering circ only to adults who request it, although I'm sure there have been exceptions...Just in case anyone has an interest in looking at it as a policy "best practice". Unfortunately I don't have any details.


----------



## Pirogi (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brant31* 
I want to scream when I see what is happening in East/South Africa. With 1 to 2 billion dollars now earmarked for circumcision, those governments could ensure the sterility of needles and scalpels, provide a wide variety of condoms for men to try, educate much more extensively, and make antiretrovirals widely available. It would virtually halt HIV in 5 years. But then, no one is making career headlines with such boring solutions.

Also, the problem would be mostly "solved," and funding would go away. No one who makes a living off of HIV solutions actually wants the solution to materialize.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

it seems so strange to me that people would act this way. like, it isn't that i doubt it (that the people funding this and doing the studies aren't doing for the money and not what is actually best for the people) i just have a hard time wrapping my mind around that sort of behavior. it makes me mad, sick, sad.









h


----------



## brant31 (Jan 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NSmomtobe* 
This makes me feel physically ill.

It is absolutely racist when the powerful educated White Man goes into developing nations with the "I know better than you do what's best for you and your people" attitude.

As for the Europeans who think it is fine for Africans, but not for themselves... it's just inexcusable.

We had quite a few Africans come talk to us in Vienna and, when I explained to them that circumcision was unnecessary, they said that one very convincing argument used repeatedly at home was that "All North American and European males are cut at birth." From this lie, the African men concluded that circumcision was universal in the First World and a very wise health decision.

I quizzed both African men and women about their knowledge of circ prevalence. Almost without fail, they guessed the US rate at 100% and the European rate at 100%. When I told them the European neonatal circ rate is under 2% and always has been, the US rate has fallen nearly to 50%, and Canada and Australia are on their way to abandoning RIC, they were floored. And angry. You could see the betrayal in their eyes.

In a sense, they were right. Bailey, Gray, Wawer and the others _are_ telling Africans that circumcision is what clean, prosperous people do. But that is their opinion, not a fact about the state of the planet.


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

The thing that really gets me is that they justify their lies under the guise of "public health." When called on their crap (and it IS crap, like the circ rates lie of the previous poster), they explain it away by saying, "Well, if we told the truth they wouldn't agree to be circumcised and since it is SO important that we circumcise them to reduce HIV and AIDS, we should do whatever we can to convince them to get circumcised for the greater good." And they get away with it! People accept that excuse! The mind boggles.









ETA: I would love to see the handouts. OP, is it possible for you to scan them and let us see them?


----------



## brant31 (Jan 11, 2009)

minkajane, your post got me going through the materials I brought home from Vienna -- and getting nauseated all over again! While there are several pages of the brochures that would be of interest to folks here, I am concerned about scanning and posting them because they are copyrighted material.

I guess it's OK to mention a few salient points they make. I will be careful to post just small excerpts of what each section contains:

From "Progress Report on Kenya's Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision Programme: 2008-2009 Summary" we see the following tidbits:

-- there is considerable resistance to circumcision from sexually active men over 25, but VMMC has proved popular among young boys and teens. "Research is needed to determine how to adjust communication and service delivery strategies to attract more sexually active men..."

In other words, those who actually have enjoyed their foreskins would like to keep them. Challenge is how to trick/force them into getting cut.

-- "Women play an influential role in men's decisions about circumcision, and they should be a primary audience for VMMC communications. Wives and girlfriends can benefit from the other HIV services offered"

In other words, let's lie to women and tell them that male circumcision benefits them, too -- even though studies show it actually puts women at greater risk. We'll also plant the message in communities that "real" men are cut and circumcised penises are much more attractive and cleaner. Nagging your husband to get cut and withholding sex until he does is highly effective (I heard this often in Vienna)

-- "Knowing that male circumcision is a story that lends itself to sensationalistic coverage, the national and provincial task forces convened a workshop for print and broadcast journalists. Supported by our partner the Male Circumcision Consortium, [we] established a basis for a positive relationship between the journalists and the task force members."

In other words, we thoroughly screened out anyone who does not agree 100% with our message and mission, and we feed only carefully-chosen propaganda to select journalists who agree to publish only what we want.

-- "By October 2009, 50,526 men and boys in Nyanza had been circumcised. Although this was a considerable achievement, the government was concerned the programme still might not be able to meet demand." Our plan for a Rapid Results Initiative (RRI) is a bold plan to mobilise all available resources to circumcise 30,000 men and boys ages 15 to 49 over 30 working days. In fact, we were able to circumcise 37,000.

In other words, they proceeded with reckless abandon. The next section reveals the problems: despite the target audience, more than 45% of those circumcised during the RRI were _under_ 15 years of age (and probably didn't fully understand what they were in for). The actual cohort circumcised consisted largely of virgin boys and therefore there would be no measurable benefit from circumcision. Alarmingly, the percentage of clients agreeing to be tested for HIV was only 39% (goal was 100%) and a staggering 77% of those circumcised during the RRI failed to return for any follow-up, so there is no way of knowing whether circumcision ultimately benefited them at all.

They note that these RRI figures are much worse than during routine VMMC delivery, suggesting that counseling, protocol and accuracy are being ignored for speed.

-- During its first 15 months, Kenya's VMMC programme laid the foundation for scale-up of male circumcision and provided services to 88,217. However, the programme is not yet on track to circumcise 420,000 men and boys 15-49 in Nyanza by 2013; so far, the appeal is mostly among boys under 15.

In other words, the peer pressure programs (like soccer) are succeeding too well -- the government is ending up circumcising heaps of boys who won't even be sexually active for years, and are not at any present risk of sexually-contracted HIV. Thus, there is no valid way to tell whether this is a valid public health strategy or just useless penile surgery on a large and expensive scale, on pubescent boys who don't really understand the loss from circumcision.

-- The Way Forward: Focus efforts on more effectively reaching sexually active males 15-49, and simultaneously implement SVIMMC -- Safe Voluntary Infant Medical Male Circumcision throughout the province.

In other words: scorched earth. And what precisely about healthy infant circumcision is _voluntary_ and _medical_?

Here are the partners in implementing the VMMC and SVIMMC programs in Kenya:

Catholic Medical Mission Board
University of California at San Francisco Family AIDS Care and Education Services
University of Illinois at Chicago (where Robert Bailey is a professor) -- UofI is also a founding member of the Male Circumcision Consortium (MCC), the propaganda machine roaring across East & Southern Africa
University of Manitoba
Impact Research and Development Organization
EngenderHealth - MCC founding member
UNAIDS
WHO
FHI (originally Family Health International at UNC Chapel Hill) -- MCC founding member
PSI (Population Services International)

Where is the money coming from for the African mass circumcision ramp-ups? Supporting (funding) partners:

PEPFAR -- The US President's Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
US Agency for International Development (AID)
US Department of Defense (yes, PEPFAR forced DoD to allocate a chunk of its budget for African circumcisions)
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Marie Stopes International
The World Bank, Washington DC


----------



## brant31 (Jan 11, 2009)

Note that with the exception of Marie Stopes International, based in London, ALL of the overseas money promoting circumcision in Africa is coming from the United States: The Gates Foundation; PEPFAR; CDC; The World Bank in Washington, DC; USAID; and DoD. It is rumored that the Bill Clinton Foundation is about to contribute significantly.

Where are the Germans? The French? The Japanese, the Brazilians, the Chinese, the Russians, the Italians, the Australians? Canada?

All of these countries do contribute to the world fight against HIV/AIDS. But they are not contributing one red cent toward the drive to circumcise. In fact, they are distancing themselves from the whole idea. It's almost solely a US initiative. There is no "global consensus" that circumcision works against HIV or any other disease; it's chauvinistic propaganda gushing out of Washington, Atlanta, Chicago and Seattle.


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

Brant, I almost cried reading all that! I just can't fathom how they are getting away with lying about every single thing they're doing???


----------



## Crunchy Frog (Aug 24, 2008)

I was just wondering, is there some sort of watch group to monitor and report on all this activity in a way that is accessable to the general public? If there isn't, then there definitely should be.

Publicity could at least embarrass them into behaving a little more ethically.

As for the "safe" circumcision of infants in the region, my understanding is that in the poor and rural areas of Africa, large numbers of newborns die of tetanus because they don't even have sufficient sanitation to cut umbilical cords cleanly. How on Earth are they going to "safely" cut newborn's penises and care for the wounds?


----------



## nsmomtobe (Aug 22, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brant31* 
Note that with the exception of Marie Stopes International, based in London, ALL of the overseas money promoting circumcision in Africa is coming from the United States: The Gates Foundation; PEPFAR; CDC; The World Bank in Washington, DC; USAID; and DoD. It is rumored that the Bill Clinton Foundation is about to contribute significantly.

Where are the Germans? The French? The Japanese, the Brazilians, the Chinese, the Russians, the Italians, the Australians? Canada?

The University of Manitoba is Canadian. I was disappointed to see that on the list. I'm not surprised that most of the drive is coming from the US, but I wonder why the other countries are not questioning this initiative.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

i am wondering if it is so lopsided american contributions because that is sort of how we deal with healthcare in this country... no real education just cut it out, give a pill for it, cover it up. but don't ever really treat the cause or educate on how to prevent the problem/disease.
i could you my mom as an example, she will not seek any help from a doctor UNLESS they will do some sort of surgery OR give her a pill for it. all the education they try is all just so much hot air. she could care less. so most doctors just don't bother, don't have time and could really care less themselves.

here you have a country that has a value system different then ours, they have social taboos that we don't have, they live in poverty alot of the time, alot of them can not go to school to get what we would consider an education, so i think we sort of see them as children, or maybe stupid and the best way to deal with that is to go as simple as possible. don't actually TRY and teach them anything, just tell them that cutting this piece of skin off will help them, feed them lies and send them on their way... problem solved. except it isn't.


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree* 
i am wondering if it is so lopsided american contributions because that is sort of how we deal with healthcare in this country... no real education just cut it out, give a pill for it, cover it up. but don't ever really treat the cause or educate on how to prevent the problem/disease.
i could you my mom as an example, she will not seek any help from a doctor UNLESS they will do some sort of surgery OR give her a pill for it. all the education they try is all just so much hot air. she could care less. so most doctors just don't bother, don't have time and could really care less themselves.

here you have a country that has a value system different then ours, they have social taboos that we don't have, they live in poverty alot of the time, alot of them can not go to school to get what we would consider an education, so i think we sort of see them as children, or maybe stupid and the best way to deal with that is to go as simple as possible. don't actually TRY and teach them anything, just tell them that cutting this piece of skin off will help them, feed them lies and send them on their way... problem solved. except it isn't.

i think you may be onto something. i think this is much like the anti bed-sharing campaigns that go on. instead of telling people how to do it safely, they just say not to. instead of educating on the importance of the prepuce, how to care for it properly (doing nothing, really







), they just cut it off.

sus


----------



## brant31 (Jan 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NSmomtobe* 
The University of Manitoba is Canadian. I was disappointed to see that on the list. I'm not surprised that most of the drive is coming from the US, but I wonder why the other countries are not questioning this initiative.


Because it doesn't personally affect them. For all they care, the US and Africa can start snipping at the foreskin and continue all the way up to their noses. Just so long as no one is coming after _their_ foreskins.

It is true that UManitoba is the only Canadian partner institution arranging the cutting in Africa, but at least they're not one of the financiers. And the ONLY reason UM is involved is because of the obsessive focus of Stephen Moses and Francis A. Plummer on circumcision; these guys have been hyperventilating about cutting boys for 30 years, long before HIV. They are members of the original cabal on a quest to eradicate foreskins from Earth, along with Edgar Schoen, Tom Wiswell, Roger Short, Ronald Gray and many others.

The "club" of foreskin-detesting researchers and doctors is almost exclusively *American, Canadian and Australian*... interestingly enough, the 3 largest countries that took the initial idea of medicalized circumcision in the late 1800s and pushed it to nearly universal levels in their countries. The Brits were part of this experiment, too, but sensibly never dabbled above about 35% with circumcision and quickly shot it back down to zero.

This band of middle-aged, white, circumcised men appears to have an almost pathological need to validate the surgery that was standard in their youth. At every possible turn they look for potential benefits of circumcision, spewing out research and reports at the rate of several dozen a year. They continually lament the "tragic, shortsighted" moves in their home countries away from infant circumcision.

If these 2 dozen dinosaurs would stop their crusade, infant circumcision would quietly die out in much of the world. But their mission is to fan the flames until their dying breaths, with brotherly support from each other. Nearly every news report about circumcision over the last 20 years can somehow be traced back to one or more of them.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brant31* 
Because it doesn't personally affect them. For all they care, the US and Africa can start snipping at the foreskin and continue all the way up to their noses. Just so long as no one is coming after _their_ foreskins.

I'm guessing most of the men at the U of M, who are pushing to be part of this, are all over 30. Though circ has become rare in Canada _today_ 50 years ago it was a different story. My DH was born up in Toronto, and MIL, who spoke very little english and no french at the time, was tricked into getting DH circ'd 39 years ago.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

my mil syas that 40 + years ago they didn't even ask you, they just did it. (here in the USA) she says now that she knows more, she wishes she hadn't had it done. they kept so many people in the dark about it.

h


----------



## serendipity22 (Sep 19, 2006)

These people who want to manipulate othes to get circumcised and circumcise their children remind me of another caring loving group of people:

The tobacco lobby:

We target the poor, the young, the uneducated and the stupid.

All this is nothing to do with health or AIDS or anything, its all to do with POWER.

Never underestimate the joy some people get from POWER over others. As one good doctor said he enjoyed POWER over others tremendously.


----------



## japonica (May 26, 2005)

brant, thanks for posting all this info...wow...I get queasy just reading it. It reminds me very much of some of the stuff Sonia Shah was writing about in _The Body Hunters_. Ethics as a moving target, just set up shop in some developing country, tell the population that you've got some magical treatment that will cure their ongoing problem (but don't actually let them know any more than this or ever inform them of possible complications and implications from agreeing to participate) and then push your agenda, no matter what happens to the local population or who dies as a result of your actions. I'm just so sickened that these individuals can get up at conferences, knowing that most of the first world is abandoning circ at record rates, and tell Africans that this is their salvation. It's insane. The patronizing arrogance of it all.

Quote:

I quizzed both African men and women about their knowledge of circ prevalence. Almost without fail, they guessed the US rate at 100% and the European rate at 100%. When I told them the European neonatal circ rate is under 2% and always has been, the US rate has fallen nearly to 50%, and Canada and Australia are on their way to abandoning RIC, they were floored. And angry. You could see the betrayal in their eyes.
This says it all. Unbelievable. And the people perpetuating these lies have no ethics, no conscience whatsoever. I'm at a loss for words for how ethically and morally depraved someone has to be to actively support and promote this initiative.


----------

