AFRICA: PEPFAR Taking Advantage of Father's Day to Push Circumcision

It seems circumcision advocates will take any and every opportunity to graft circumcision into any and every conversation.

It's surprising the claim that bing circumcised "reduces the risk" of Ebola hasn't been made yet.

I was scrolling through my Facebook newsfeed when I run into this shit.

They took Father's Day and used it as an opportunity to promote circumcision.

The way male circumcision, perhaps even HIV, is mashed up with Father's Day seems rather forced and contrived, one thing not having to do with each other.

At its simplest reduction, the message is, Happy Father's Day, reduce HIV, get circumcised.

It's like oil and water.

It sounds like the people in charge of PEPFAR PR have run out of ways to bang the circumcision pot.

What does Father's Day have to do with HIV prevention?

And what does circumcision have to do with anything?

The message is as convoluted as you can get.

Good Fathers Get Tested and Circumcised Before Cheating
Fathers, who are assumed to be living with their families, have to "do their part" to prevent HIV transmission, by getting tested and getting circumcised.

Stay with me here.

Why would fathers need to do this, other than the assumption that fathers are expected to be promiscuous and unfaithful?

Possibly having sex with their children? (How else would fathers spread a sexually transmitted disease to their children?)

Happy Father's Day, you dirty slut.

Yay.

That ought to make fathers feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Accepting It's OK To Assume Fathers Will Be Promiscuous...
OK, now taking as a given that it's perfectly fine to assume fathers are going to sleep around and engage in risky sexual practices with their children, why circumcision?

Why the need to graft the far-removed subject male circumcision into the conversation?

I can only imagine what is going through the PEPFAR worker's mind.

Father's Day is as good time as any to talk about HIV prevention. (Because, again, what says "diligent father" than a man who goes out on his family and children to engage in risky sexual practices?)

And nothing prevents HIV transmission better than HIV (except maybe condoms and refraining from risky sexual practices, e.g., going out on your wife).

Ergo, Father's Day is ipso-facto a good day to promote male circumcision.

It makes perfect sense!

How Much Longer?
How long is this farce of pretending to be interested in HIV prevention and men's health when the real reason is to defend the forced genital cutting that goes on back in our own country going to go on?

When are other medical authorities around the world going to denounce the promotion of "mass circumcision campaigns" as the scientific profanity and crime against humanity that it is?

Male Circumcision Does Not, Cannot Prevent HIV Transmission
Even if the "research" held any water (it's replete with flaws), circumcision would only "reduce" the risk of HIV transmission from female to male by 60%.

What is the risk of a female getting HIV from an HIV positive man who has sex with her without a condom?

What power does she have to demand her man wear a condom, if her man believes he is "protected" by circumcision?

Circumcision as HIV prevention FAILS.

This is why circumcised men and their partners must be compelled to continue to use condoms.

A good father remains FAITHFUL to his wife, thereby preventing HIV transmission to her and/or any future children.

What kind of message does "going for circumcision" send?

That he intends to sleep around and possibly contract the disease?

And what further that it say?

That a father may infect his daughter somehow?

Circumcision does NOT BELONG in a message congratulating fathers on this day

 It tarnishes the message of PEPFAR, it tarnishes Father's Day.

How absolutely disgusting that circumcision advocates are taking this opportunity to promote a dubious, failed HIV prevention method.

In America, 80% of men are all circumcised. Yet, according to the CIA World Factbook, we have a higher HIV prevalence than 53 countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced.

If circumcision "reduces HIV transmission," this is not evident in America.

It's not evident in 10 out of 18 African countries, where HIV is more prevalent among the circumcised.

Why is PEPFAR pushing this?

What does promoting HIV prevention have to do with Father's Day?

What message does it send?

SHAME on PEPFAR.

Lately, president Trump has been canceling programs that don't put "America First."

I hope President Trump defunds this next.

Using millions if not billions of our tax dollars to push dubious forms of HIV prevention that have never worked, to push insulting and dangerous propaganda is a complete waste of money.

Related Posts:

10 Years Later, UNAIDS Still Hell Bent on Circumcising Africa

 Related Posts:

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

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:

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

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

JAMA: Lead Article is a "Study" on Bribing Men to Get Circumcised

AFRICA: When Propaganda Fails, Try Bribery

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

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

As if it weren't already bad that circumcision advocates were using questionable "research" to push "mass circumcision campaigns" in Africa under the supposed guise of "HIV prevention," apparently US-funded organizations are now simply taking the liberty of kidnapping children off the streets and circumcising them without their parents' approval.

According to this report, SSDI, a component of the Malawi Ministry of Health, has been simply picking up children off the street, coaxing them with candy, cookies and drinks, forcibly circumcising them without their parents' awareness, and dumping them near their homes, much to their parents' dismay upon discovery.

SSDI apparently receives support from USAID to promote and perform male circumcisions through a campaign known as the "Sankhani HIV Prevention Project."

In one particular case in Chipakuza Village, T/A Lundu in Chikhwawa, a 9-yo boy has lost his entire penis, and his angry father is seeking to sue the Malawi Ministry of Health for damages.

The lawsuit documents served to the Attorney General and Chikhwawa District Hospital, stressed the need for authorities to take this matter seriously, chiefly citing the fundamental right of the minor, which had been violated, and the fact that the parents' wishes were not disregarded.

Furthermore, the father has complained that the people involved forcefully circumcised his son against the values and customs of the Sena culture, his culture of origin.

Given that circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery with dubious "benefits" that are already afforded by less invasive, more effective means, given that it was forcibly performed on a healthy, non-consenting child, given that his fundamental rights were violated, and given that his parents were completely disregarded, the fact that this child has lost his penis is a disastrous tragedy in more ways than one.

This needs to be brought to the attention of the WHO and UNICEF; what has happened here is anything but "voluntary."

Related Posts:

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

JAMA: Lead Article is a "Study" on Bribing Men to Get Circumcised

AFRICA: Creating Circumcision "Volunteers"

Circumcision in Africa: We Keep Warning. Is Anybody Listening?

Ever since the WHO endorsed circumcision as HIV prevention in 2006, we intactivists have been trying our best to warn promoters of circumcision, and organizers of so-called "mass-circumcision" campaigns that this is going to backfire.

We keep warning that the studies are horribly flawed, that empirical data completely contradicts the results in the so-called "research," and that African men are going to see this as nothing other than a green light for unprotected sex, putting millions of men and women in danger of sexually transmitted HIV.

IS ANYBODY LISTENING???
Nope, major charities and organizations such as Bill and Melinda Gates and PEPFAR are in Africa bankrolling so-called "mass circumcision campaigns" full-speed ahead. Whenever any of these organizations puts out any sort of statement, it's always "circumcision, circumcision, circumcision." Abstinence, faithfulness and condoms seem to have been placed on the back burner, and are barely even mentioned, if at all.

How is it possible that we are over-stating an alternative to the most effective mode of protection against sexually transmitted HIV known to us?

In May last year, I wrote a similar post to this one. PANOS Eastern Africa had put out a report that showed that the circumcision/HIV messages meant to reduce the prevalence of the disease were actually facilitating its spread. I also gave instances of others warning that this is precisely what would happen, as well as many cases in point in vivo.

It is now the end of January, starting a new year, and neither PEPFAR nor Bill Gates etc. have changed their message. In fact, these organizations and more have come out stronger than ever in their drive to circumcise the whole of Africa. In December last year, PEPFAR kicked off another year reinforcing the circumcision campaigns in Africa. Very recently, Bill Gates released his 2012 annual letter, and, as expected, he pushed circumcision. Circumcision, claims Gates, reduces AIDS transmission by a whopping 70%. Where IS he getting this number from? Why ISN'T this number manifested in the real world?

More Reports Come In
While you'll hear in the news about how "successful" the "mass circumcision campaigns" have been (not so much in reducing HIV, but in how many men they've managed to dupe), you won't hear about reports warning that men and women are taking home the wrong message.

According to AllAfrica.com, "Nyanza provincial director of public health and sanitation, who is also the task force chairman Jackson Kioko, said there have been reports that those who have been circumcised are taking it as immunity against HIV."

PlusNews reports of a study in Kenya conducted by the University of Illinois' Chicago School of Public Health, which found, among other things, that "most women were happy with the appearance of their partner's penis and enjoyed sex more after circumcision." (Others studies will find that there are men that like the experience of their partner's circumcised vulvas, and that they enjoy sex more, but we'll not ever hear about them.) As sexist and degrading as this "study" is to men, it was supposed to be the study's "plus" side. On the negative, the study found that the women believed that condoms were less necessary than circumcision, that they were more likely to have more than one sexual partner, and to have sex without a condom. One would think that these issues would have been addressed BEFORE rolling out these so-called "circumcision campaigns?"

HELLO??? IS ANYBODY AT THE WHO LISTENING?
Nevermind the ethical dilemma of endorsing genital mutilation in the name of  public health interests, and nevermind the sexist, misandrist marketing practices of trying to sexify circumcision, and stigmatize intact men. And nevermind the fact that plans are already underway to forcibly circumcise newborns and youth.

Is nobody concerned that the promotion of circumcision will deprecate the value of cheaper, more effective, less invasive HIV prevention measures, thereby putting the lives of millions of African men and women in danger???

The Warning Continues...
The promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention is a catastrophic mistake. Even if the "research" was correct, and it is horrendously flawed, circumcision would fail to deliver the efficacy of HIV prevention methods which far exceed it. In light of condoms and education, which have been conclusively proven to prevent HIV, promoting circumcision is an impertinent disservice in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

The promotion of circumcision will result is already resulting in Africans perceiving the most effective HIV prevention known to us as an expendable option. The promotion of circumcision is going to backfire, sending the wrong message, putting the lives of men and women in danger. The promotion of circumcision is going to be a waste of precious funds, where they are desperately needed in other areas (i.e. food, water, access to actually needed healthcare, etc). The promotion of circumcision is an ethical, scientific scandal waiting to explode. The promotion of circumcision is going to be a disaster that is going to haunt any organization and individual that ever endorsed it.

Even if the "research" was accurate, circumcision fails. Circumcision fails, and this is why even the very authors cannot stress the importance of condoms enough. Condoms would prevent, not only the transmission of HIV, but the transmission of other STDs more effectively, and more efficiently. Condoms would prevent STD transmission not only in men, but in their partners as well. Additionally, condoms prevent unwanted pregnancy. Circumcision does not.

It is going to prove a fatal mistake to have ever endorsed a dubious alternative to the only effective method of HIV prevention ever known to us.

AND...
It is endorsing the grossest violation of  the most basic of human rights.

Consider this: There would never be enough "science" or "research" to endorse the promotion of female circumcision to prevent ANYTHING.

It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were made "painless," "bloodless," and it didn't affect a girl's sexuality. It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were performed in the clean environment of the hospital, by a trained professional, using pain killers and the most pristine, and most "advanced" utensils. Why do "researchers" grope for reasons to promote male circumcision?

Genital mutilation, whether wrapped in "science," "research," and feigned interests in public health, is still, in the end, genital mutilation.

The day will come when anyone whoever endorsed this despicable human rights violation will be too embarrassed to ever admit that they did.

May god have mercy on their souls.