When it first came out, there was much ado about Soka Uncobe, a US backed initiative to mutilate 80% of the men and male children in Swaziland in the name of so-called "HIV prevention." (Nevermind the fact that HIV was more prevalent amongst the circumcised population there.)
The initiative had a bumpy start, as the message was confusing people, sending the message that getting circumcised meant not having to wear condoms and having sex with multiple partners. The Ministry of Health was left defending its obviously flawed campaign.
In recent bulletins, the Soka Uncobe campaign was reported to be having disappointing results. In a more recent one from the Swazi Observer, it was reported that a law to make circumcision for men compulsory was on the table.
And now, it looks like their latest tactic is to try and use celebrity endorsement by getting an entire team of soccer players to get circumcised and using this to push circumcision on influential youth. Are Soka Uncobe directors getting a bit desperate? Has PEPFAR twisted their arm and threatened to cut AIDS funds unless they see results?
"NOT only are they focused in football matters but newly promoted elite league outfit Tambankulu Callies also ‘play it safe’."
Once again, Soka Uncobe is going to risk sending a mixed message. What does "play it safe" mean? That once you're circumcised you're "safe" and don't have to wear condoms? We keep saying it, and we'll keep saying it; promoting circumcision, even if the latest "studies" were accurate, is a bad idea because it causes confusion where there needn't be. Promoting circumcision is already proving to be disastrous, resulting in confused citizens and an increased HIV rate.
"Interviewed on the developments, the team’s PRO Senzo Shabangu said they decided it was a good idea to have the team educated on how to behave themselves, especially now that they had been promoted to the elite league.
'They have been educating us on how this procedure can be of benefit to us men when it comes to health issues so we took the decision to go for it. After our nurse at the Clinic brought up this issue we decided to take up the challenge,' he said."
You really need to cut off part of somebody's penis to "educate" him? I wonder what exactly is passing as "education." I'm afraid these poor men are being hornswoggled. Are they going to interview the men that get erection problems and manage to contract HIV despite their circumcisions?
"Shabangu added that this was also meant to protect the boys just in case they were overwhelmed by fame."
You have GOT to be kidding me! I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. They seriously think this is going to make any difference! Because circumcision was already "reducing HIV" in Swaziland, right? As it has in other African countries and other countries of the world? On the other hand, this may be the key to Soka Uncobe's undoing; when the footballers start getting AIDS and giving it to their partners, I'd like to see Soka Uncobe and PEPFAR promoting the team then.
"When sought for comment on the matter, PSI’s Communications Officer Bongiwe Zwane said they were very happy with the initiative taken by the team.
"Football players are very influential in their communities so in this way more youngsters will want to be part of this procedure.
We would encourage other teams to follow suit so that we have a healthy nation,” he said."
Yes, we can see where PSI's hearts lie; they're more concerned about getting everybody circumcised than they are about actual HIV prevention. I'm wondering how long will this continue until people finally realize circumcision is a waste of money that doesn't work. It is possible to have a healthy nation WITHOUT circumcision.
How many infected men and women until we realize the money could have been better spent?
Message to the Men of Africa
To any Swazi men or other men being coerced to undergo circumcision by local campaigns in Africa, I've got something to tell to you; circumcision doesn't prevent anything. Never has, never will. I'm afraid your governments have come to depend on sick benefactors who care about nothing more than mutilating your bodies and the bodies of your children for aid. You're at the mercy of corrupt government leaders who have sold your foreskins for so-called "humanitarian aid." You lose part of your genitals and they line their pockets. And you're still no better protected.
I'm here to tell you, you don't have to get circumcised to prevent HIV. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent you from getting sexually transmitted HIV. Only condoms provide true protection. When nurses and doctors ask you if you've circumcised yourself or your children, tell them it's none of their business. Tell them that you're educated enough to learn how to take a shower. Tell them that you are faithful to your wife. Tell them you want an alternative.Tell them you want an HIV prevention method that does not require cutting off part of your genitals and the genitals of their children. Tell them thanks, but no thanks. Demand the respect and dignity you deserve. You are human beings, not animals.
Do you have a Facebook account? Would you like to know what Soka Uncobe isn't telling you? Do you want to avoid AIDS but don't want to get circumcised? Find us on Facebook! Log on and click on the following link:
You Can Conquer Without Circumcision: Say NO to "Soka Uncobe"
There are plenty of pro-circumcision "information resources." In this blog, I present what they leave out.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query soka uncobe. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query soka uncobe. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Soka Uncobe "Official Launch" - Come Again?
Right. So Swazi circumcision/HIV enthusiasts keep babbling on about Soka Uncobe, the American government's vicarious efforts to circumcise an entire nation thus creating a miniature version of America itself (in terms of 80% circumcision prevalence). The pretext for mutilating 80% of Swaziland's males is, of course, the so-called prevention of HIV, even though Swaziland was one of the African nations where HIV was more prevalent among the circumcised population.
As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent). (p. 256)
Not to mention the fact that having a 90% prevalence of circumcised males never prevented HIV transmission in America. Not to mention that circumcision never prevented HIV anywhere else. Not to mention recent reports that the circumcision/HIV message is actually confusing the people of Africa, agravating the situation.
Despite all of the Swazi government's efforts to blow the Soka Uncobe campaign out of proportion, judging by recent reports, it seems the campaign is not having the intended effect of getting all the men to line up to be mutilated, and officials don't seem to know what else to do. So unsuccessful are efforts to circumcised everybody that even laws are being discussed to make circumcision compulsory. In a recent report by the Swazi Observer (Why don't they allow any comments by the way? Maybe they've been ordered to silence the voice of criticizm?), it looks like Soka Uncobe officials have recruited an entire football team to get circumcised and endorse the Soka Uncobe campaign. I'm wondering how much PEPFAR money was used to convince these men to submit to the cut, and how many men will need more money to pay for anti-retrovirals when they get HIV.
And now, according to the Swazi Observer, the Soka Uncobe campaign is going to undergo its "official launch." (Because it wasn't "officially launched" before?)
Here's my critique of the report:
"THE Soka Uncobe national male circumcision campaign could prevent 90 000 new HIV infections in the next decade, and save the country over E4 billion.
This was revealed by American Ambassador to Swaziland, Earl Irving during a Ministry of Health Soka Uncobe press briefing at the Mbabane Government Hospital yesterday. It was attended by Minister of Health Benedict Xaba, PS Steven Shongwe and health officials along with US Embassy staff."
Irving isn't "revealing" anything new. Circumcision/HIV enthusiasts have been touting circumcision as a "cost-effective" HIV prevention method since last decade. The 90,000 figure is based on the dubious premise that circumcision actually prevents HIV transmission 60% as per the three famous African trials. Real world data demonstrates, however, that circumcision fails to prevent HIV in the real world, not to mention the very US.
"The campaign launch by His Majesty King Mswati III will be held at Mankayane, while the roll out began in February."
Roll out first. Campaign launch AFTERwards. That should always be the order of things I'm sure.
It looks to me like just another publicity stunt. The first attempts didn't work, and it doesn't sound like they have too much faith in the football team. Perhaps getting royal endorsement might cause Swazi men to relinquish their bodies for mutilation?
"Ambassador Irving said if Swaziland would be able to meet the circumcision goals, it would take a giant step towards meeting the United Nations declaration of zero new HIV infections by 2020."
Ambassador Irving is speaking on behalf a nation who has been on a quest to legitimize the forced genital cutting of children for at least a century. There is no doubt in my mind that Irving is himself circumcised and more than happy to tout a party line that legitimizes his own circumcision status, and if he is married with children, the circumcision status of his own sons. Ambassador Irving, and the nation he represents, all have a glaringly obvious conflict of interest; the competing interests are HIV prevention, and the justification of male circumcision, especially male infant circumcision back home.
"'Since 2006, with funding from PEPFAR and others, Swaziland has been scaling up male circumcision as part of the National Strategic Framework on HIV/AIDS. The goal is to reach 80% of 15-49 year-old males with voluntary medical male circumcision...'"
If compulsory circumcision is made law, circumcision will be anything but voluntary. And the forced circumcision of minors is NOT voluntary, and a violation of basic human rights. As an American citizen, I am absolutely disgusted that the abuse of children, and the coersion of African men into having their bodies mutilated under the pretext of HIV prevention is what my tax dollars are being used for.
"'... As we prepare to have His Majesty the King officially launch the Soka Uncobe male circumcision campaign, we know that it could not come at a more opportune time."'
Officially launch? More like, officially ENDORSE. The campaign has been "launched" since February. Was this "launch" in the campaign's schedule? Or was it thrown in at the last minute because the campaign is not having its intended effect?
"...Soka Uncobe is an innovative, Cabinet- approved programme to achieve one of the major goals of the National Strategic framework on HIV/AIDS."
Circumcision, if we are to believe circumcision enthusiasts, has been around for at least two millenia, and, in the United States, for just over a century. It is anything but "innovative," and judging from real world data, nowhere near effective at preventing HIV/AIDS.
"'...From a national perspective investing in male circumcision could avert 90 000 new HIV infections. This fact alone could save over E4 billion in the next decade,' said Irving."
Notice the half-concealed qualification.
From a national perspective, HIV was found to be more prevalent among the circumcised. (See 2nd paragraph above). From a national perspective, circumcision is a waste of money and a disservice to the people, as it is sending conflicting messages.
"He said the American government supported the initiative because Swazis including the King had shown great interest in improving the local health system."
The American government "supports" the initiative because they have an interest in seeing as many men and children circumcised as possible. Circumcision is a dying trend, and it is ever being challenged at home. More than ever, the American medical industry needs to secure acquiescence of circumcision as a "prophilactic measure" against something. They've been trying to do this for over a century. This whole publicity stunt is about vindicating circumcision, particularly infant circumcision. It has ALWAYS been about that. It has absolutely nothing to do with HIV prevention. It is a shame and a disgrace that our country is pushing on Africans a "prevention measure" that never worked in our own country.
There is not a doubt in my mind that Swazis, including the king, have been told that the price for "humanitarian aid" is their endorsement of circumcision. The American circumcision lobby has hijacked PEPFAR and other humanitarian organizations, and has made it so that anybody that wants aid must agree to endorse "mass circumcision campaigns." Hence PEPFAR beneficiaries sing the praises of circumcision. Hence they show "interest." Hence "circumcision is so successful that African goverments are taking it up as a tool." Hence, circumcision has "benefits," hence doctors can keep reaping profit from performing it on non-consenting children at home. THIS is what it has always been about. The pseudo-scientific vindication of forced male genital mutilation at the expense of the poor people of Africa.
"Minister Xaba urged the public to attend the launch since it would be graced by His Majesty the King, apart from being a good initiative worth supporting."
I find it almost laughable how "being a good initiative worth supporting" is an afterthought. It is clear Xaba hopes that the king's endorsement will finally get the Soka Uncobe campaign to perk.
"'In light of the current financial challenges faced by the country, we are optimistic that the country will save millions through investing on male circumcision, hence we would urge the public to support the ministry of health by attending the launch,” said Xaba."
Translation; if men don't start lining up to be circumcised, we could lose PEPFAR aid, losing the country millions. We want the public to attend the launch so that they are ordered directly by the king to submit and be conquered by Soka Uncobe, since the campaign is such a failure.
I feel so sorry for the men of Swaziland. To be coerced on the street by strangers. To have their masculinity challenged. To be threatened with making circumcision legally compulsory. To have their sports interests exploited. And now, to be ordered by their own king.
Has anybody stopped to think, maybe perhaps the men of Swaziland DON'T WANT to be circumcised?
Has anybody stopped to think Swazi men think this idea of mass coerced circumcision is crazy?
Has anybody stopped to think the people of Swaziland want an ALTERNATIVE?
Circumcision is NOTHING like a vaccine. A vaccine strengthens the immune system against microbes that cause disease. Circumcision is cutting part of a person's penis off. It is an intentional and deliberate wound. When HIV invades the body, it does not matter whether a person is circumcised or not.
WHY are circumcision enthusiasts hell-bent on stuffing circumcision down these people's throats?
Look up "circumcision" on PubMed. Scientists are no longer looking into how exactly circumcision prevents HIV anymore. That doesn't matter. The bulk of recent circumcision "study" focuses on, get this, how they can effectively get people to accept circumcision. What's the most effective way to brainwash people. What's the most effective way to get people to submit themselves and their children to circumcision.
Did you know that no scientist can tell you how exactly circumcision prevents HIV? Did you know that outside of the famed trials, the "reduced risk of HIV transmission by 60%" fails to manifest itself? Did you know that circumcision has failed to prevent HIV in the US, of all places?
Of all the research that people could be working on, WHY is so much money being poured into circumcision???
Progress is defined by the replacement of the old with the new and better. Science is always seeking to replace itself; to make itself obsolete. Instead of seeking for alternatives to circumcision, instead of seeking ways to avoid surgical intervention, WHY are "studies" focusing on preserving, even necessitating a blood ritual that has been around for at least two millenia? "Researching" ways to necessitate surgery, and then "researching" ways on how to impose it on the most people as possible, even going as far as imposing it on healthy, non-consenting children, has got to be the most ass-backwards logic I've ever heard of.
The article continues...
"'More than 28 000 have already been circumcised since inception of the campaign which are signs that we will be able to meet the 152 000 target set for the year 2011,' said Xaba."
This sounds like 1984 newspeak.
Here's what I've managed to prevent from being tossed down the memory hole:
"The ambitious, US-funded campaign hopes to reach one in eight Swazi men, but has had disappointing results so far.
The clinic performing Mfanzile’s procedure is geared to see 80 patients a day. At best 15 trickle in - fewer than even before the campaign began in February.
Adverts urging men to “circumcise and conquer” are everywhere but organisers now admit they may not reach their targets as quickly as hoped."
"Most of the time in Swaziland, men are the decision makers. Men must be in the forefront of this battle,” said Health Minister Benedict Xaba. “It takes time for a Swazi person to accept something new; to accept change."
Let's see, it is already the middle of July, and 28,000 men have been circumcised. The goal is 152,000, and they're not even past their half-way point. But suddenly these are signs that the target will be met? I'm guessing Xaba is counting on the king's endorsement to drive the men to the circumcision clinics in throngs.
I'm wondering if PEPFAR and Swazi officials have thought about this possibility.
What if their Soka Uncobe campaign fails to circumcise 152,000 men?
What if in the end, the men of Swaziland stand up and tell their king they will not submit themselves or their children to infant genital mutilation?
What if the men told Swazi officials "we WILL not go through with this?"
What then?
What's plan B?
Well they start thinking about HIV campaigns WITHOUT circumcision THEN?
In America, circumcision is a dying trend. More and more parents are leaving their children intact, despite all of the purported "medical benefits." According to the CDC, the rate of infant circumcision is down to 33% or so, with differing rates across the country. In California, the rate is as low as 22%. This means that, circumcision is clearly being abandoned in favor of other less invasive, more effective means of disease prevention.
So what if the people of Swaziland make it clear to their government that they will not take up circumcision?
What will PEPFAR etc. do then?
Think it possible.
African people might actually get smart enough to figure it all out.
Message to the Men of Africa
To any Swazi men or other men being coerced to undergo circumcision by local campaigns in Africa, I've got something to tell to you; circumcision doesn't prevent anything. Never has, never will. I'm afraid your governments have come to depend on sick benefactors who care about nothing more than mutilating your bodies and the bodies of your children for aid. You're at the mercy of corrupt government leaders who have sold your foreskins for so-called "humanitarian aid." You lose part of your genitals and they line their pockets. And you're still no better protected.
I'm here to tell you, you don't have to get circumcised to prevent HIV. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent you from getting sexually transmitted HIV. Only condoms provide true protection. When nurses and doctors ask you if you've circumcised yourself or your children, tell them it's none of their business. Tell them that you're educated enough to learn how to take a shower. Tell them that you are faithful to your wife. Tell them you want an alternative.Tell them you want an HIV prevention method that does not require cutting off part of your genitals and the genitals of their children. Tell them thanks, but no thanks. Demand the respect and dignity you deserve. You are human beings, not animals.
Do you have a Facebook account? Would you like to know what Soka Uncobe isn't telling you? Do you want to avoid AIDS but don't want to get circumcised? Find us on Facebook! Log on and click on the following link:
You Can Conquer Without Circumcision: Say NO to "Soka Uncobe"
As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent). (p. 256)
Not to mention the fact that having a 90% prevalence of circumcised males never prevented HIV transmission in America. Not to mention that circumcision never prevented HIV anywhere else. Not to mention recent reports that the circumcision/HIV message is actually confusing the people of Africa, agravating the situation.
Despite all of the Swazi government's efforts to blow the Soka Uncobe campaign out of proportion, judging by recent reports, it seems the campaign is not having the intended effect of getting all the men to line up to be mutilated, and officials don't seem to know what else to do. So unsuccessful are efforts to circumcised everybody that even laws are being discussed to make circumcision compulsory. In a recent report by the Swazi Observer (Why don't they allow any comments by the way? Maybe they've been ordered to silence the voice of criticizm?), it looks like Soka Uncobe officials have recruited an entire football team to get circumcised and endorse the Soka Uncobe campaign. I'm wondering how much PEPFAR money was used to convince these men to submit to the cut, and how many men will need more money to pay for anti-retrovirals when they get HIV.
And now, according to the Swazi Observer, the Soka Uncobe campaign is going to undergo its "official launch." (Because it wasn't "officially launched" before?)
Here's my critique of the report:
"THE Soka Uncobe national male circumcision campaign could prevent 90 000 new HIV infections in the next decade, and save the country over E4 billion.
This was revealed by American Ambassador to Swaziland, Earl Irving during a Ministry of Health Soka Uncobe press briefing at the Mbabane Government Hospital yesterday. It was attended by Minister of Health Benedict Xaba, PS Steven Shongwe and health officials along with US Embassy staff."
Irving isn't "revealing" anything new. Circumcision/HIV enthusiasts have been touting circumcision as a "cost-effective" HIV prevention method since last decade. The 90,000 figure is based on the dubious premise that circumcision actually prevents HIV transmission 60% as per the three famous African trials. Real world data demonstrates, however, that circumcision fails to prevent HIV in the real world, not to mention the very US.
"The campaign launch by His Majesty King Mswati III will be held at Mankayane, while the roll out began in February."
Roll out first. Campaign launch AFTERwards. That should always be the order of things I'm sure.
It looks to me like just another publicity stunt. The first attempts didn't work, and it doesn't sound like they have too much faith in the football team. Perhaps getting royal endorsement might cause Swazi men to relinquish their bodies for mutilation?
"Ambassador Irving said if Swaziland would be able to meet the circumcision goals, it would take a giant step towards meeting the United Nations declaration of zero new HIV infections by 2020."
Ambassador Irving is speaking on behalf a nation who has been on a quest to legitimize the forced genital cutting of children for at least a century. There is no doubt in my mind that Irving is himself circumcised and more than happy to tout a party line that legitimizes his own circumcision status, and if he is married with children, the circumcision status of his own sons. Ambassador Irving, and the nation he represents, all have a glaringly obvious conflict of interest; the competing interests are HIV prevention, and the justification of male circumcision, especially male infant circumcision back home.
"'Since 2006, with funding from PEPFAR and others, Swaziland has been scaling up male circumcision as part of the National Strategic Framework on HIV/AIDS. The goal is to reach 80% of 15-49 year-old males with voluntary medical male circumcision...'"
If compulsory circumcision is made law, circumcision will be anything but voluntary. And the forced circumcision of minors is NOT voluntary, and a violation of basic human rights. As an American citizen, I am absolutely disgusted that the abuse of children, and the coersion of African men into having their bodies mutilated under the pretext of HIV prevention is what my tax dollars are being used for.
"'... As we prepare to have His Majesty the King officially launch the Soka Uncobe male circumcision campaign, we know that it could not come at a more opportune time."'
Officially launch? More like, officially ENDORSE. The campaign has been "launched" since February. Was this "launch" in the campaign's schedule? Or was it thrown in at the last minute because the campaign is not having its intended effect?
"...Soka Uncobe is an innovative, Cabinet- approved programme to achieve one of the major goals of the National Strategic framework on HIV/AIDS."
Circumcision, if we are to believe circumcision enthusiasts, has been around for at least two millenia, and, in the United States, for just over a century. It is anything but "innovative," and judging from real world data, nowhere near effective at preventing HIV/AIDS.
"'...From a national perspective investing in male circumcision could avert 90 000 new HIV infections. This fact alone could save over E4 billion in the next decade,' said Irving."
Notice the half-concealed qualification.
From a national perspective, HIV was found to be more prevalent among the circumcised. (See 2nd paragraph above). From a national perspective, circumcision is a waste of money and a disservice to the people, as it is sending conflicting messages.
"He said the American government supported the initiative because Swazis including the King had shown great interest in improving the local health system."
The American government "supports" the initiative because they have an interest in seeing as many men and children circumcised as possible. Circumcision is a dying trend, and it is ever being challenged at home. More than ever, the American medical industry needs to secure acquiescence of circumcision as a "prophilactic measure" against something. They've been trying to do this for over a century. This whole publicity stunt is about vindicating circumcision, particularly infant circumcision. It has ALWAYS been about that. It has absolutely nothing to do with HIV prevention. It is a shame and a disgrace that our country is pushing on Africans a "prevention measure" that never worked in our own country.
There is not a doubt in my mind that Swazis, including the king, have been told that the price for "humanitarian aid" is their endorsement of circumcision. The American circumcision lobby has hijacked PEPFAR and other humanitarian organizations, and has made it so that anybody that wants aid must agree to endorse "mass circumcision campaigns." Hence PEPFAR beneficiaries sing the praises of circumcision. Hence they show "interest." Hence "circumcision is so successful that African goverments are taking it up as a tool." Hence, circumcision has "benefits," hence doctors can keep reaping profit from performing it on non-consenting children at home. THIS is what it has always been about. The pseudo-scientific vindication of forced male genital mutilation at the expense of the poor people of Africa.
"Minister Xaba urged the public to attend the launch since it would be graced by His Majesty the King, apart from being a good initiative worth supporting."
I find it almost laughable how "being a good initiative worth supporting" is an afterthought. It is clear Xaba hopes that the king's endorsement will finally get the Soka Uncobe campaign to perk.
"'In light of the current financial challenges faced by the country, we are optimistic that the country will save millions through investing on male circumcision, hence we would urge the public to support the ministry of health by attending the launch,” said Xaba."
Translation; if men don't start lining up to be circumcised, we could lose PEPFAR aid, losing the country millions. We want the public to attend the launch so that they are ordered directly by the king to submit and be conquered by Soka Uncobe, since the campaign is such a failure.
I feel so sorry for the men of Swaziland. To be coerced on the street by strangers. To have their masculinity challenged. To be threatened with making circumcision legally compulsory. To have their sports interests exploited. And now, to be ordered by their own king.
Has anybody stopped to think, maybe perhaps the men of Swaziland DON'T WANT to be circumcised?
Has anybody stopped to think Swazi men think this idea of mass coerced circumcision is crazy?
Has anybody stopped to think the people of Swaziland want an ALTERNATIVE?
Circumcision is NOTHING like a vaccine. A vaccine strengthens the immune system against microbes that cause disease. Circumcision is cutting part of a person's penis off. It is an intentional and deliberate wound. When HIV invades the body, it does not matter whether a person is circumcised or not.
WHY are circumcision enthusiasts hell-bent on stuffing circumcision down these people's throats?
Look up "circumcision" on PubMed. Scientists are no longer looking into how exactly circumcision prevents HIV anymore. That doesn't matter. The bulk of recent circumcision "study" focuses on, get this, how they can effectively get people to accept circumcision. What's the most effective way to brainwash people. What's the most effective way to get people to submit themselves and their children to circumcision.
Did you know that no scientist can tell you how exactly circumcision prevents HIV? Did you know that outside of the famed trials, the "reduced risk of HIV transmission by 60%" fails to manifest itself? Did you know that circumcision has failed to prevent HIV in the US, of all places?
Of all the research that people could be working on, WHY is so much money being poured into circumcision???
Progress is defined by the replacement of the old with the new and better. Science is always seeking to replace itself; to make itself obsolete. Instead of seeking for alternatives to circumcision, instead of seeking ways to avoid surgical intervention, WHY are "studies" focusing on preserving, even necessitating a blood ritual that has been around for at least two millenia? "Researching" ways to necessitate surgery, and then "researching" ways on how to impose it on the most people as possible, even going as far as imposing it on healthy, non-consenting children, has got to be the most ass-backwards logic I've ever heard of.
The article continues...
"'More than 28 000 have already been circumcised since inception of the campaign which are signs that we will be able to meet the 152 000 target set for the year 2011,' said Xaba."
This sounds like 1984 newspeak.
Here's what I've managed to prevent from being tossed down the memory hole:
"The ambitious, US-funded campaign hopes to reach one in eight Swazi men, but has had disappointing results so far.
The clinic performing Mfanzile’s procedure is geared to see 80 patients a day. At best 15 trickle in - fewer than even before the campaign began in February.
Adverts urging men to “circumcise and conquer” are everywhere but organisers now admit they may not reach their targets as quickly as hoped."
"Most of the time in Swaziland, men are the decision makers. Men must be in the forefront of this battle,” said Health Minister Benedict Xaba. “It takes time for a Swazi person to accept something new; to accept change."
Let's see, it is already the middle of July, and 28,000 men have been circumcised. The goal is 152,000, and they're not even past their half-way point. But suddenly these are signs that the target will be met? I'm guessing Xaba is counting on the king's endorsement to drive the men to the circumcision clinics in throngs.
I'm wondering if PEPFAR and Swazi officials have thought about this possibility.
What if their Soka Uncobe campaign fails to circumcise 152,000 men?
What if in the end, the men of Swaziland stand up and tell their king they will not submit themselves or their children to infant genital mutilation?
What if the men told Swazi officials "we WILL not go through with this?"
What then?
What's plan B?
Well they start thinking about HIV campaigns WITHOUT circumcision THEN?
In America, circumcision is a dying trend. More and more parents are leaving their children intact, despite all of the purported "medical benefits." According to the CDC, the rate of infant circumcision is down to 33% or so, with differing rates across the country. In California, the rate is as low as 22%. This means that, circumcision is clearly being abandoned in favor of other less invasive, more effective means of disease prevention.
So what if the people of Swaziland make it clear to their government that they will not take up circumcision?
What will PEPFAR etc. do then?
Think it possible.
African people might actually get smart enough to figure it all out.
Message to the Men of Africa
To any Swazi men or other men being coerced to undergo circumcision by local campaigns in Africa, I've got something to tell to you; circumcision doesn't prevent anything. Never has, never will. I'm afraid your governments have come to depend on sick benefactors who care about nothing more than mutilating your bodies and the bodies of your children for aid. You're at the mercy of corrupt government leaders who have sold your foreskins for so-called "humanitarian aid." You lose part of your genitals and they line their pockets. And you're still no better protected.
I'm here to tell you, you don't have to get circumcised to prevent HIV. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent you from getting sexually transmitted HIV. Only condoms provide true protection. When nurses and doctors ask you if you've circumcised yourself or your children, tell them it's none of their business. Tell them that you're educated enough to learn how to take a shower. Tell them that you are faithful to your wife. Tell them you want an alternative.Tell them you want an HIV prevention method that does not require cutting off part of your genitals and the genitals of their children. Tell them thanks, but no thanks. Demand the respect and dignity you deserve. You are human beings, not animals.
Do you have a Facebook account? Would you like to know what Soka Uncobe isn't telling you? Do you want to avoid AIDS but don't want to get circumcised? Find us on Facebook! Log on and click on the following link:
You Can Conquer Without Circumcision: Say NO to "Soka Uncobe"
Swazi King: "Better You Than Me"
So in my last post, I suspected that Soka Uncobe organizers were growing desperate. There had been reports that in spite of all the hype, the campaign wasn't having the desired impact. Laws are on the table to make circumcision compulsory, organizers have resorted to using the influence of celebrity endorsement, and recently the Soka Uncobe project was supposed to be "re-launched" with the Swazi king's endorsement.
So according to Times Live, the king himself has indeed endorsed circumcision, likening HIV to a "terrorist."
At first I was very concerned that the country's monarch endorsing circumcision might actually make an impact, but then I read this and I almost died laughing!
Apparently it's not the first time the king has made some outrageous remarks; a decade ago he posited that HIV-positive people should all be "branded and sterilised". (Could you imagine a campaign for THAT!)
And, apparently circumcision used to be widespread in Swaziland, but the practice was abandoned in the 19th century. The king likens the return of the practice to other traditions he has revived as a response to the rampant HIV epidemic; in 2001 he required young girls to wear tassels to display their virginity and banning men from having sex with girls under 18. (When he broke his own ban by taking a 17-year-old wife, he fined himself a cow.)
While the article repeats Ambassador Irving's statement of reaching a goal of zero infections by 2020, it also points to the reality that Swaziland has a long way to go; 4 out of 10 pregnant women test HIV-positive at clinics, according to Health Minister Benedict Xaba. (Remember him?) Circumcision will not prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission, and it will not cure an HIV+ child. But nevermind that, let's spend millions on circumcising the men, discouraging the use of condoms and increasing the infection of women!
Here's the strange part. While in the Swazi Observer Xaba reports that 28,000 men have been circumcised due to the campaign, the Times Live says that only 3,000 men have undergone circumcision since the massive Soka Uncobe campaign began. OK, so how many men have fallen for Soka Uncobe REALLY? With illusive numbers like these we may never know for sure.
And, it's just as I've thought. Soka Uncobe is such a failure that the organizers were hoping that the king could, in the words of Times Live, "breathe life into the campaign."
A ray of hope lies yet for those of us against this deliberate rape of Africa:
"The king still commands enormous respect, but in the rural areas near Mankayane dissatisfaction is bubbling to the surface as his subjects feel the pinch of a deepening economic crisis.
'The king has a lot of money in the bank but he can't help us. He has many women and a luxurious life. His children get an overseas education. He doesn't care about Swazis,' local Boxer Vilakazi told AFP."
'I love the king but 90 percent of youth are not working. Only those close to the king get jobs,' said 21-year-old Mthobisi Dlahla, who said he planned to go for the surgery for his own safety -- not because Mswati said so. (6 months into the campaign and he's still "planning" on it? Hrm...)
The polygamous monarch has been criticised for failing to lead by example in his kingdom, where multiple partnerships are seen as the major catalyst of the AIDS crisis.
Mswati did not say Friday whether he intended to get circumcised himself."
So not only is Soka Uncobe proving to be a big flop, but now it looks as though the organizers are so desperate that they'll even stoop as low as trying to use the endorsement of a monarch whose influence and authority is dwindling, and who can't even lead by example!
And how can we be sure that Soka Uncobe organizers are putting their money where their penises are? It would be interesting to ask them to strip for us to make sure they're leading by example. What would we find? Not even the KING is circumcised yet!
At this point I must ask, WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING ON HERE? What's REALLY going on in Africa? Are the numbers we see in the news even real? Let's strip down Callie's footballers. Were they REALLY circumcised, or were they payed PEPFAR money to give their endorsement?
WHEN ARE WE GONNA STOP DICKIN' AROUND WITH CIRCUMCISION AND STICK TO WHAT WE KNOW PREVENTS HIV TRANSMISSION FOR SURE?
Circumcision DOES NOT PREVENT HIV, and spending millions promoting as HIV prevention is not only a waste of money, because African men AREN'T BUYING IT, it's actually COSTING LIVES.
Americans
If you think the promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention is a waste of our tax dollars, get a hold of PEPFAR and let them know.
Africans
To any Swazi men or other men being coerced to undergo circumcision by local campaigns in Africa, I've got something to tell to you; circumcision doesn't prevent anything. Never has, never will. I'm afraid your governments have come to depend on sick benefactors who care about nothing more than mutilating your bodies and the bodies of your children for aid. You're at the mercy of corrupt government leaders who have sold your foreskins for so-called "humanitarian aid." You lose part of your genitals and they line their pockets. And you're still no better protected.
I'm here to tell you, you don't have to get circumcised to prevent HIV. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent you from getting sexually transmitted HIV. Only condoms provide true protection. When nurses and doctors ask you if you've circumcised yourself or your children, tell them it's none of their business. Tell them that you're educated enough to learn how to take a shower. Tell them that you are faithful to your wife. Tell them you want an alternative.Tell them you want an HIV prevention method that does not require cutting off part of your genitals and the genitals of their children. Tell them thanks, but no thanks. Demand the respect and dignity you deserve. You are human beings, not animals.
Do you have a Facebook account? Would you like to know what Soka Uncobe isn't telling you? Do you want to avoid AIDS but don't want to get circumcised? Find us on Facebook! Log on and click on the following link:
You Can Conquer Without Circumcision: Say NO to "Soka Uncobe"
So according to Times Live, the king himself has indeed endorsed circumcision, likening HIV to a "terrorist."
At first I was very concerned that the country's monarch endorsing circumcision might actually make an impact, but then I read this and I almost died laughing!
Apparently it's not the first time the king has made some outrageous remarks; a decade ago he posited that HIV-positive people should all be "branded and sterilised". (Could you imagine a campaign for THAT!)
And, apparently circumcision used to be widespread in Swaziland, but the practice was abandoned in the 19th century. The king likens the return of the practice to other traditions he has revived as a response to the rampant HIV epidemic; in 2001 he required young girls to wear tassels to display their virginity and banning men from having sex with girls under 18. (When he broke his own ban by taking a 17-year-old wife, he fined himself a cow.)
While the article repeats Ambassador Irving's statement of reaching a goal of zero infections by 2020, it also points to the reality that Swaziland has a long way to go; 4 out of 10 pregnant women test HIV-positive at clinics, according to Health Minister Benedict Xaba. (Remember him?) Circumcision will not prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission, and it will not cure an HIV+ child. But nevermind that, let's spend millions on circumcising the men, discouraging the use of condoms and increasing the infection of women!
Here's the strange part. While in the Swazi Observer Xaba reports that 28,000 men have been circumcised due to the campaign, the Times Live says that only 3,000 men have undergone circumcision since the massive Soka Uncobe campaign began. OK, so how many men have fallen for Soka Uncobe REALLY? With illusive numbers like these we may never know for sure.
And, it's just as I've thought. Soka Uncobe is such a failure that the organizers were hoping that the king could, in the words of Times Live, "breathe life into the campaign."
A ray of hope lies yet for those of us against this deliberate rape of Africa:
"The king still commands enormous respect, but in the rural areas near Mankayane dissatisfaction is bubbling to the surface as his subjects feel the pinch of a deepening economic crisis.
'The king has a lot of money in the bank but he can't help us. He has many women and a luxurious life. His children get an overseas education. He doesn't care about Swazis,' local Boxer Vilakazi told AFP."
'I love the king but 90 percent of youth are not working. Only those close to the king get jobs,' said 21-year-old Mthobisi Dlahla, who said he planned to go for the surgery for his own safety -- not because Mswati said so. (6 months into the campaign and he's still "planning" on it? Hrm...)
The polygamous monarch has been criticised for failing to lead by example in his kingdom, where multiple partnerships are seen as the major catalyst of the AIDS crisis.
Mswati did not say Friday whether he intended to get circumcised himself."
So not only is Soka Uncobe proving to be a big flop, but now it looks as though the organizers are so desperate that they'll even stoop as low as trying to use the endorsement of a monarch whose influence and authority is dwindling, and who can't even lead by example!
And how can we be sure that Soka Uncobe organizers are putting their money where their penises are? It would be interesting to ask them to strip for us to make sure they're leading by example. What would we find? Not even the KING is circumcised yet!
At this point I must ask, WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING ON HERE? What's REALLY going on in Africa? Are the numbers we see in the news even real? Let's strip down Callie's footballers. Were they REALLY circumcised, or were they payed PEPFAR money to give their endorsement?
WHEN ARE WE GONNA STOP DICKIN' AROUND WITH CIRCUMCISION AND STICK TO WHAT WE KNOW PREVENTS HIV TRANSMISSION FOR SURE?
Circumcision DOES NOT PREVENT HIV, and spending millions promoting as HIV prevention is not only a waste of money, because African men AREN'T BUYING IT, it's actually COSTING LIVES.
Americans
If you think the promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention is a waste of our tax dollars, get a hold of PEPFAR and let them know.
Africans
To any Swazi men or other men being coerced to undergo circumcision by local campaigns in Africa, I've got something to tell to you; circumcision doesn't prevent anything. Never has, never will. I'm afraid your governments have come to depend on sick benefactors who care about nothing more than mutilating your bodies and the bodies of your children for aid. You're at the mercy of corrupt government leaders who have sold your foreskins for so-called "humanitarian aid." You lose part of your genitals and they line their pockets. And you're still no better protected.
I'm here to tell you, you don't have to get circumcised to prevent HIV. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent you from getting sexually transmitted HIV. Only condoms provide true protection. When nurses and doctors ask you if you've circumcised yourself or your children, tell them it's none of their business. Tell them that you're educated enough to learn how to take a shower. Tell them that you are faithful to your wife. Tell them you want an alternative.Tell them you want an HIV prevention method that does not require cutting off part of your genitals and the genitals of their children. Tell them thanks, but no thanks. Demand the respect and dignity you deserve. You are human beings, not animals.
Do you have a Facebook account? Would you like to know what Soka Uncobe isn't telling you? Do you want to avoid AIDS but don't want to get circumcised? Find us on Facebook! Log on and click on the following link:
You Can Conquer Without Circumcision: Say NO to "Soka Uncobe"
Monday, July 25, 2011
SWAZILAND: American Government Sinks to New Low
It seems our American goverment is going to stop at nothing to try and normalize circumcision in Swaziland. As if the Soka Uncobe "mass circumcision" campaign weren't enough, they've turned to celebrity endorsement by employing a football team and even a less than influential king to try and "breathe life" into the campaign. (The Soka Uncobe campaign is turning out to be a big flop, and the Swaziland ministry of health and American officials don't know why the men aren't rushing to have their organs mutilated.)
And now, it seems, the American government is turning to art to try and "inspire" the men of Swaziland to get circumcised. According to the Swazi Observer, an artist has chosen "Male Circumcision and Life!" Wow. Really? A foreskin is a life-threatening medical condition? I'm going to go through and disect the disgusting article.
"One of the hallmarks of expression in society is art."
The author is already trying to sound lofty and "artistic." Yes, one of the hallmarks of expression in society is art, but this isn't saying much; cavemen were engaging in artistic expression long before civilization as we know it existed. One can still find said pieces of art in caves.
"Stories put a human face on the important work that we do- making it come to life, appealing to emotion while showcasing talent and expressing passion about our work."
An artistic blurb that I'm not even sure is supposed to mean anything. But let's move on...
"In life and art, sculptor Raymond ‘Pondai’ Mishi focuses on the positive. A spirit of hope and sense of purpose give meaning to his life and find expression in his art."
More meaningless twaddle I think the author hoped would sound elloquent and "artistic" to his or her readers. What does any of this have to do with artistic expression? I think most people find some sort of meaning to their lives. Otherwise they lose hope and commit suicide. There has got to be some underlying message in all of this. Wait for it... here it comes...
"efforts
Consider the sculpture he created for a special art exhibit, IndzabaYetfu, hosted by the United States government to commemorate HIV prevention efforts in the Kingdom of Swaziland."
Yes! Let's consider it! What "efforts" could the United States government POSSIBLY be "commemorating..."
"Raymond shared his skills, talent and expertise in designing a 200 centimetres tall sculpture made entirely from recycled medical instruments- between 2 000 and 3 000 sterilised forceps that had been used to perform medical male circumcision, an HIV prevention intervention that is underway in Swaziland."
Bingo. Oh how "artistic."
"It took him just one week to do it. The theme for the art is 2011 60% Safer Avenue symbolic of male and female genitalia but with a symbol of practising safe sex even after one is circumcised."
Because "safe sex" is simply impossible when one isn't circumcised?
"elongated
The elongated upper torso is the penis with foreskin and the red light should be the one exposed after a man is circumcised."
More artistic use of the English language? This author is truly gifted. I'm guessing there are two penises depicted? One circumcised and one not?
"The curly middle part signifies the public area of the art work and the two legs embrace the sculpture and could be both the male’s legs wearing blue socks and also the woman’s hands embracing his partner and encouraging him to circumcise and heal the family."
What's wrong? Is the family sick? How does a father having normal genitals make his family "sick?" What if the man doesn't want to get circumcised but instead practice monogamy and faithfulness? Should a woman not encourage this? How absolutely insane.
"When asked how he feels about his artwork, Raymond was quick to say he was excited to have learnt something new and innovative."
An artistic answer to an artistic question. How is Raymond SUPPOSED to feel about his artwork? Absolutely ashamed I'm sure. He is asked about how he feels about his artwork, and he responds by telling of something "new" and "innovative" he just learned. His artwork seems to be a secondary thought. Let's see what comes first...
"I knew I wanted to do a sculpture without affecting the environment negatively using welding tools,” says Raymond, a native of Zimbabwe who lived and worked in Mozambique before settling in Swaziland."
Hrm. A non-Swazi... peculiar...
"Welding can sometimes cause more harm and instead, I used a solution queue bond which attaches metal pieces together and it sticks in two seconds… My design was born! I am proud to introduce a new art form. Take it up! Every single pair (of surgical scissors) has been in contact with the flesh, the artifacts have been in contact with life itself”. His life affirming message to young men is abstinence, the most important key to a safe and healthy life."
This is something new. It reads like cheese and chalk; you can see both this sculptor and author are working hard together to force two unrelated things to mix. The author is interested in "not causing harm"; so he employs materials that were used to destroy normal, healthy human tissue. What this has to do with "affirming life" is beyond me. If abstinence is the most important key to a safe and healthy life, where do circumcision tools come into the picture?
"It is good to be circumcised; it’s hygienic and if you decide on having sex make sure you protect yourself using a condom correctly and consistently. Sex is part of life and culture but we shouldn’t perish” he says."
What a strange, sad conglomeration of the English language. What a grotesque verbal sculpture. It's possible to practice safe sex without the use of a condom? Sex is a part of life and culture, but it is not necessary to be circumcised to practice good hygiene and safe sex. Not one thing has to do with the other. What a horrible attempt to mix two completely unrelated things.
"prone
Scientific evidence confirms that male circumcision reduces the risk of the acquisition of HIV by men by sixty percent (60%)."
Scientific evidence does no such thing. The "researchers" asserting this 60% figure have yet to furnish the evidence that circumcision indeed reduces the risk of HIV transmission. The best they can do is present statistics that don't correlate anyhere else in the world, not even in Africa.
"In addition, a circumcised penis is also easy to clean and is less prone to some sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and cancer of the penis."
More irrelevant and unproven claims. The Americans and the Swazi ministry of health are trying to reduce the spread of HIV, not promote better hygiene or reduce cancer of the penis in Africa. It is not necessary to be circumcised to clean the penis, and a circumcision does not prevent the transmission of STIs. Circumcision fails at preventing STIs so much that the authors of these so-called "studies" and the promoters of circumcision themselves cannot stress the use of condoms enough. Circumcision is worthless.
"Now it is my turn. I am ready to circumcise! I have made a personal choice to do so”.
I wonder whom he is going to circumcise? And I wonder if the person he is circumcising has made that personal choice himself? I can only guess that this person is talking about himself. If he wants to become circumcised, more power to him. I only wonder if he is actually going for the cut, and not just merely saying so because the American Government paid him money to say these words for this promotional article. Who knows? The man isn't even Swazi and already is circumcised and is pretending he is not for this propaganda piece.
I question any person in these pro-circumcision articles; how many have actually undergone the cut? How many are speaking because they got PEPFAR money to be part of a promotional ad? How many were already circumcised prior in their own culture?
"Raymond first learnt about medical male circumcision when he met the Soka Uncobe team from Jhpiego, a global health non-profit organisation and affiliate of John Hopkins University that is working in more than 50 countries to prevent the needless deaths of women and their families."
Preventing the needless deaths of women and their families? Or promoting the needless genital mutilation of men and their children? By now it should be obvious what this article is; a promotional advertisment for a mass genital mutilation campaign that is failing to produce the desired results. Raymond is but another celebrity that has been hired to promote circumcision; who knows if the man already belongs to a circumcising culture, if he is not and he'll actually go for the cut or, like the Swazi king, paying lipservice to a benefactor of so-called "humanitarian aid."
"In Swaziland Jhpiego is part of the consortium of organisations implementing the Accelerated Saturation Initiative on male circumcision dubbed Soka Uncobe which means ‘circumcise and conquer’. The organisation also works with professionals, governments and community leaders to provide high quality health care for their people."
(If you can call genital mutilation in lieu of more effective, less invasive modes of prevention "high quality health care.")
"The owner of Yebo Art Gallery Mr. Peter ‘Senzenjani’ Armstrong encouraged Swazi parents to allow their children to study art as a subject in school in order to inculcate their desire and love for art. “Whatever your desire on wish it can be achieved through art expression” he says."
Let's just see if PEPFAR and the Swazi ministry of health achieve their desires and wishes through this disgusting piece of work.
I am absolutely disgusted at this disgraceful use of art. The use of art. To try and elevate and beautify genital mutilation. There are somethings that no matter how hard you try, you just can't make "beautiful."
Making a sculpture out of glass shards or rusty blades used in female circumcision would not make female genital mutilation any more acceptable. Not even if you used scissors, scalpels or other tools that doctors use to carry out the procedure in a sterile, clinical setting.
What a sick disgusting shame that my government is sinking this low to try and get Africans to accept genital mutilation. Absolute coersion and harrassment. All in the name of "humanitarian aid."When does this madness end?
Americans
If you think the promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention is a waste of our tax dollars, get a hold of PEPFAR and let them know. There is a page for this on Facebook:
Pepfar is a waste of American Tax Dollars
Africans
To any Swazi men or other men being coerced to undergo circumcision by local campaigns in Africa, I've got something to tell to you; circumcision doesn't prevent anything. Never has, never will. I'm afraid your governments have come to depend on sick benefactors who care about nothing more than mutilating your bodies and the bodies of your children for aid. You're at the mercy of corrupt government leaders who have sold your foreskins for so-called "humanitarian aid." You lose part of your genitals and they line their pockets. And you're still no better protected.
I'm here to tell you, you don't have to get circumcised to prevent HIV. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent you from getting sexually transmitted HIV. Only condoms provide true protection. When nurses and doctors ask you if you've circumcised yourself or your children, tell them it's none of their business. Tell them that you're educated enough to learn how to take a shower. Tell them that you are faithful to your wife. Tell them you want an alternative.Tell them you want an HIV prevention method that does not require cutting off part of your genitals and the genitals of their children. Tell them thanks, but no thanks. Demand the respect and dignity you deserve. You are human beings, not animals.
Do you have a Facebook account? Would you like to know what Soka Uncobe isn't telling you? Do you want to avoid AIDS but don't want to get circumcised? Find us on Facebook! Log on and click on the following link:
You Can Conquer Without Circumcision: Say NO to "Soka Uncobe"
And now, it seems, the American government is turning to art to try and "inspire" the men of Swaziland to get circumcised. According to the Swazi Observer, an artist has chosen "Male Circumcision and Life!" Wow. Really? A foreskin is a life-threatening medical condition? I'm going to go through and disect the disgusting article.
"One of the hallmarks of expression in society is art."
The author is already trying to sound lofty and "artistic." Yes, one of the hallmarks of expression in society is art, but this isn't saying much; cavemen were engaging in artistic expression long before civilization as we know it existed. One can still find said pieces of art in caves.
"Stories put a human face on the important work that we do- making it come to life, appealing to emotion while showcasing talent and expressing passion about our work."
An artistic blurb that I'm not even sure is supposed to mean anything. But let's move on...
"In life and art, sculptor Raymond ‘Pondai’ Mishi focuses on the positive. A spirit of hope and sense of purpose give meaning to his life and find expression in his art."
More meaningless twaddle I think the author hoped would sound elloquent and "artistic" to his or her readers. What does any of this have to do with artistic expression? I think most people find some sort of meaning to their lives. Otherwise they lose hope and commit suicide. There has got to be some underlying message in all of this. Wait for it... here it comes...
"efforts
Consider the sculpture he created for a special art exhibit, IndzabaYetfu, hosted by the United States government to commemorate HIV prevention efforts in the Kingdom of Swaziland."
Yes! Let's consider it! What "efforts" could the United States government POSSIBLY be "commemorating..."
"Raymond shared his skills, talent and expertise in designing a 200 centimetres tall sculpture made entirely from recycled medical instruments- between 2 000 and 3 000 sterilised forceps that had been used to perform medical male circumcision, an HIV prevention intervention that is underway in Swaziland."
Bingo. Oh how "artistic."
"It took him just one week to do it. The theme for the art is 2011 60% Safer Avenue symbolic of male and female genitalia but with a symbol of practising safe sex even after one is circumcised."
Because "safe sex" is simply impossible when one isn't circumcised?
"elongated
The elongated upper torso is the penis with foreskin and the red light should be the one exposed after a man is circumcised."
More artistic use of the English language? This author is truly gifted. I'm guessing there are two penises depicted? One circumcised and one not?
"The curly middle part signifies the public area of the art work and the two legs embrace the sculpture and could be both the male’s legs wearing blue socks and also the woman’s hands embracing his partner and encouraging him to circumcise and heal the family."
What's wrong? Is the family sick? How does a father having normal genitals make his family "sick?" What if the man doesn't want to get circumcised but instead practice monogamy and faithfulness? Should a woman not encourage this? How absolutely insane.
"When asked how he feels about his artwork, Raymond was quick to say he was excited to have learnt something new and innovative."
An artistic answer to an artistic question. How is Raymond SUPPOSED to feel about his artwork? Absolutely ashamed I'm sure. He is asked about how he feels about his artwork, and he responds by telling of something "new" and "innovative" he just learned. His artwork seems to be a secondary thought. Let's see what comes first...
"I knew I wanted to do a sculpture without affecting the environment negatively using welding tools,” says Raymond, a native of Zimbabwe who lived and worked in Mozambique before settling in Swaziland."
Hrm. A non-Swazi... peculiar...
"Welding can sometimes cause more harm and instead, I used a solution queue bond which attaches metal pieces together and it sticks in two seconds… My design was born! I am proud to introduce a new art form. Take it up! Every single pair (of surgical scissors) has been in contact with the flesh, the artifacts have been in contact with life itself”. His life affirming message to young men is abstinence, the most important key to a safe and healthy life."
This is something new. It reads like cheese and chalk; you can see both this sculptor and author are working hard together to force two unrelated things to mix. The author is interested in "not causing harm"; so he employs materials that were used to destroy normal, healthy human tissue. What this has to do with "affirming life" is beyond me. If abstinence is the most important key to a safe and healthy life, where do circumcision tools come into the picture?
"It is good to be circumcised; it’s hygienic and if you decide on having sex make sure you protect yourself using a condom correctly and consistently. Sex is part of life and culture but we shouldn’t perish” he says."
What a strange, sad conglomeration of the English language. What a grotesque verbal sculpture. It's possible to practice safe sex without the use of a condom? Sex is a part of life and culture, but it is not necessary to be circumcised to practice good hygiene and safe sex. Not one thing has to do with the other. What a horrible attempt to mix two completely unrelated things.
"prone
Scientific evidence confirms that male circumcision reduces the risk of the acquisition of HIV by men by sixty percent (60%)."
Scientific evidence does no such thing. The "researchers" asserting this 60% figure have yet to furnish the evidence that circumcision indeed reduces the risk of HIV transmission. The best they can do is present statistics that don't correlate anyhere else in the world, not even in Africa.
"In addition, a circumcised penis is also easy to clean and is less prone to some sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and cancer of the penis."
More irrelevant and unproven claims. The Americans and the Swazi ministry of health are trying to reduce the spread of HIV, not promote better hygiene or reduce cancer of the penis in Africa. It is not necessary to be circumcised to clean the penis, and a circumcision does not prevent the transmission of STIs. Circumcision fails at preventing STIs so much that the authors of these so-called "studies" and the promoters of circumcision themselves cannot stress the use of condoms enough. Circumcision is worthless.
"Now it is my turn. I am ready to circumcise! I have made a personal choice to do so”.
I wonder whom he is going to circumcise? And I wonder if the person he is circumcising has made that personal choice himself? I can only guess that this person is talking about himself. If he wants to become circumcised, more power to him. I only wonder if he is actually going for the cut, and not just merely saying so because the American Government paid him money to say these words for this promotional article. Who knows? The man isn't even Swazi and already is circumcised and is pretending he is not for this propaganda piece.
I question any person in these pro-circumcision articles; how many have actually undergone the cut? How many are speaking because they got PEPFAR money to be part of a promotional ad? How many were already circumcised prior in their own culture?
"Raymond first learnt about medical male circumcision when he met the Soka Uncobe team from Jhpiego, a global health non-profit organisation and affiliate of John Hopkins University that is working in more than 50 countries to prevent the needless deaths of women and their families."
Preventing the needless deaths of women and their families? Or promoting the needless genital mutilation of men and their children? By now it should be obvious what this article is; a promotional advertisment for a mass genital mutilation campaign that is failing to produce the desired results. Raymond is but another celebrity that has been hired to promote circumcision; who knows if the man already belongs to a circumcising culture, if he is not and he'll actually go for the cut or, like the Swazi king, paying lipservice to a benefactor of so-called "humanitarian aid."
"In Swaziland Jhpiego is part of the consortium of organisations implementing the Accelerated Saturation Initiative on male circumcision dubbed Soka Uncobe which means ‘circumcise and conquer’. The organisation also works with professionals, governments and community leaders to provide high quality health care for their people."
(If you can call genital mutilation in lieu of more effective, less invasive modes of prevention "high quality health care.")
"The owner of Yebo Art Gallery Mr. Peter ‘Senzenjani’ Armstrong encouraged Swazi parents to allow their children to study art as a subject in school in order to inculcate their desire and love for art. “Whatever your desire on wish it can be achieved through art expression” he says."
Let's just see if PEPFAR and the Swazi ministry of health achieve their desires and wishes through this disgusting piece of work.
I am absolutely disgusted at this disgraceful use of art. The use of art. To try and elevate and beautify genital mutilation. There are somethings that no matter how hard you try, you just can't make "beautiful."
Making a sculpture out of glass shards or rusty blades used in female circumcision would not make female genital mutilation any more acceptable. Not even if you used scissors, scalpels or other tools that doctors use to carry out the procedure in a sterile, clinical setting.
What a sick disgusting shame that my government is sinking this low to try and get Africans to accept genital mutilation. Absolute coersion and harrassment. All in the name of "humanitarian aid."When does this madness end?
Americans
If you think the promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention is a waste of our tax dollars, get a hold of PEPFAR and let them know. There is a page for this on Facebook:
Pepfar is a waste of American Tax Dollars
Africans
To any Swazi men or other men being coerced to undergo circumcision by local campaigns in Africa, I've got something to tell to you; circumcision doesn't prevent anything. Never has, never will. I'm afraid your governments have come to depend on sick benefactors who care about nothing more than mutilating your bodies and the bodies of your children for aid. You're at the mercy of corrupt government leaders who have sold your foreskins for so-called "humanitarian aid." You lose part of your genitals and they line their pockets. And you're still no better protected.
I'm here to tell you, you don't have to get circumcised to prevent HIV. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent you from getting sexually transmitted HIV. Only condoms provide true protection. When nurses and doctors ask you if you've circumcised yourself or your children, tell them it's none of their business. Tell them that you're educated enough to learn how to take a shower. Tell them that you are faithful to your wife. Tell them you want an alternative.Tell them you want an HIV prevention method that does not require cutting off part of your genitals and the genitals of their children. Tell them thanks, but no thanks. Demand the respect and dignity you deserve. You are human beings, not animals.
Do you have a Facebook account? Would you like to know what Soka Uncobe isn't telling you? Do you want to avoid AIDS but don't want to get circumcised? Find us on Facebook! Log on and click on the following link:
You Can Conquer Without Circumcision: Say NO to "Soka Uncobe"
Monday, May 23, 2011
Circumcision in Africa: It ain't workin'...
We keep saying it, and we will continue to say it; nothing good can come of promoting circumcision over HIV. The promotion of circumcision is a disservice to the fight against HIV. It is already sending confusing messages and giving men a false sense of security. Promoting circumcision is going to HASTEN the spread of HIV, not reduce it.
I've already blogged about the ongoing circumcision disaster in Africa here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/male-circumcision-and-hiv-in-africa.html
And here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/soka-uncobe-our-us-tax-dollars-at-work.html
Here is yet another voice of reason. When are people going to snap out of the circumcision craze and listen?
http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1167560/-/c1fynnz/-/
Church heads criticise male circumcision
Posted Monday, May 23 2011 at 00:00
The launch of safe male circumcision in Bushenyi District has been met with stiff resistance from church leaders, who say the practice is against morals.
Religious leaders said the way the medical people have packaged messages about male circumcision encourages people to go on sex rampage after the exercise.
The Rev. Can. Norbert Tibikoma, the Archdeacon for All Saints Church Greater Bushenyi, said the church will not compromise its morality.
"Telling people that circumcision will prevent them from the risk of HIV is very unfortunate. We have buried circumcised people who died of the disease. The way they are putting across their message of circumcision is like giving a licence to commit adultery.
It is like saying now you are free go and sin," he said during the launch of the exercise last week.
He said the message from the church is that couples should remain faithful and those who are not yet married should abstain from premarital sex in order to avoid acquiring HIV.
The chaplain of Masheruka Girls SS, the Rev. Ananias Ntereyo, said the approach being used to promote male circumcision should be changed.
"Circumcision has been in existence for ages. Putting HIV/Aids at the fore will encourage people to have sex with multiple partners. We have seen those who are circumcised also getting the disease," he said.
And we are seeing the destruction the promotion of circumcision is causing all over Africa.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/male-circumcision-and-hiv-in-africa.html
The Soka Unkobe campaign is a sad example of how the circumcision/HIV message is going out of control.
I repost highlights of it here:
http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=24311
May 04, 2011
THE public has received the Male Circumcision campaign "Soka Uncobe" with mixed feelings as some people have come out to say the message was not clear.
A concern has been raised that the kombis which had been branded with the advertisements promoting the campaign display four women, which is said to be confusing as to whether once a person is circumcised they got more women. The logo itself, “Soka Uncobe” has raised a lot of questions as people wonder if by being circumcised it means one “has conquered” and would not get HIV and AIDS.
"If it had been the picture of a family including the wife supporting her man, who goes to circumcise then that would be better, but in this case you see four beautiful women and it says they are going to support you, it is really confusing. Are they now promoting multiple partners?" said one of the people who raised a concern. (HELLO???)
Solomon Mndzebele, who is a caregiver under Red Cross, made a personal plea to the ministry of health to remove the message from the kombis stating that it was making his work difficult.
"When you tell people about condoms they would just tell you that they would circumcise and by then they would have conquered HIV AIDS.
The Swazi Ministry of Health tries to explain away the blunder.
We could see it coming a million miles away. Most people with half a brain could predict that circumcision would become an alternative to condoms.
Cameroon table 16.9, p17 (4.1% v 1.1%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR163/16chapitre16.pdf
Ghana table 13.9 (1.6% v 1.4%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR152/13Chapter13.pdf
Lesotho table 12.9 (22.8% v 15.2%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR171/12Chapter12.pdf
Malawi table 12.6, p257 (13.2% v 9.5%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR175/FR-175-MW04.pdf
Rwanda , table 15.11 (3.5% v 2.1%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf
Swaziland table 14.10 (21.8% v 19.5%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf
According to USAID, "There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
"Conclusions: We find a protective effect of circumcision in only one of the eight countries for which there are nationally-representative HIV seroprevalence data. The results are important in considering the development of circumcision-focused interventions within AIDS prevention programs."
http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2197431
"Results: ...No consistent relationship between male circumcision and HIV risk was observed in most countries."
http://apha.confex.com/apha/134am/techprogram/paper_136814.htm
According to Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan, more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims. In Malaysia the majority of the males in the Muslim population are circumcised, whereas circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community. This means that HIV is spreading in the community where most men are circumcised at an even faster rate, than in the community where most men are intact.
http://www.mmail.com.my/content/39272-72-percent-aidshiv-sufferers-malaysia-are-muslims-says-council
In the 2010 Global AIDS report released by UNAIDS in late November, the Philippines was one of seven nations in the world which reported over 25 percent in new HIV infections between 2001 and 2009, whereas other countries have either stabilized or shown significant declines in the rate of new infections. Among all countries in Asia, only the Philippines and Bangladesh are reporting increases in HIV cases, with others either stable or decreasing.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20110102-312124/Philippines-HIVAIDS-problem-worries-UN
Despite circumcision being near-universal, it hasn't stopped HIV transmission in Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/failing-the-aids-test-1.249088
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/israeli-gays-shun-condoms-despite-worrying-rise-in-aids-1.249372
http://www.haaretz.com/news/has-the-aids-cocktail-worked-too-well-in-israel-1.258520
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hiv-diagnoses-in-israel-climb-new-cases-among-gays-up-sharply-1.248651
Circumcision hasn't stopped HIV in our own country.
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/1998/19981125_global_epidemic_report_en.pdf
And, it hasn't stopped other STDs either.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/13/us-infections-usa-idUSTRE50C5XV20090113?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
In America, the majority of the male population is circumcised, approximately 80%, while in most countries in Europe, circumcision is uncommon. Despite these facts, our country does poorly.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=177
I've already blogged about the ongoing circumcision disaster in Africa here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/male-circumcision-and-hiv-in-africa.html
And here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/soka-uncobe-our-us-tax-dollars-at-work.html
Here is yet another voice of reason. When are people going to snap out of the circumcision craze and listen?
http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1167560/-/c1fynnz/-/
Church heads criticise male circumcision
Posted Monday, May 23 2011 at 00:00
The launch of safe male circumcision in Bushenyi District has been met with stiff resistance from church leaders, who say the practice is against morals.
Religious leaders said the way the medical people have packaged messages about male circumcision encourages people to go on sex rampage after the exercise.
The Rev. Can. Norbert Tibikoma, the Archdeacon for All Saints Church Greater Bushenyi, said the church will not compromise its morality.
"Telling people that circumcision will prevent them from the risk of HIV is very unfortunate. We have buried circumcised people who died of the disease. The way they are putting across their message of circumcision is like giving a licence to commit adultery.
It is like saying now you are free go and sin," he said during the launch of the exercise last week.
He said the message from the church is that couples should remain faithful and those who are not yet married should abstain from premarital sex in order to avoid acquiring HIV.
The chaplain of Masheruka Girls SS, the Rev. Ananias Ntereyo, said the approach being used to promote male circumcision should be changed.
"Circumcision has been in existence for ages. Putting HIV/Aids at the fore will encourage people to have sex with multiple partners. We have seen those who are circumcised also getting the disease," he said.
And we are seeing the destruction the promotion of circumcision is causing all over Africa.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/male-circumcision-and-hiv-in-africa.html
The Soka Unkobe campaign is a sad example of how the circumcision/HIV message is going out of control.
I repost highlights of it here:
http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=24311
May 04, 2011
THE public has received the Male Circumcision campaign "Soka Uncobe" with mixed feelings as some people have come out to say the message was not clear.
A concern has been raised that the kombis which had been branded with the advertisements promoting the campaign display four women, which is said to be confusing as to whether once a person is circumcised they got more women. The logo itself, “Soka Uncobe” has raised a lot of questions as people wonder if by being circumcised it means one “has conquered” and would not get HIV and AIDS.
"If it had been the picture of a family including the wife supporting her man, who goes to circumcise then that would be better, but in this case you see four beautiful women and it says they are going to support you, it is really confusing. Are they now promoting multiple partners?" said one of the people who raised a concern. (HELLO???)
Solomon Mndzebele, who is a caregiver under Red Cross, made a personal plea to the ministry of health to remove the message from the kombis stating that it was making his work difficult.
"When you tell people about condoms they would just tell you that they would circumcise and by then they would have conquered HIV AIDS.
The Swazi Ministry of Health tries to explain away the blunder.
We could see it coming a million miles away. Most people with half a brain could predict that circumcision would become an alternative to condoms.
The "protection" circumcision provides is dubious at best. Real-world data shows us that circumcision is irrelevant in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
Contradicting Statistical Data
In the following African countries, HIV was found to be more prevalent among the circumcised:
Cameroon table 16.9, p17 (4.1% v 1.1%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR163/16chapitre16.pdf
Ghana table 13.9 (1.6% v 1.4%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR152/13Chapter13.pdf
Lesotho table 12.9 (22.8% v 15.2%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR171/12Chapter12.pdf
Malawi table 12.6, p257 (13.2% v 9.5%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR175/FR-175-MW04.pdf
Rwanda , table 15.11 (3.5% v 2.1%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf
Swaziland table 14.10 (21.8% v 19.5%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf
According to USAID, "There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
"Conclusions: We find a protective effect of circumcision in only one of the eight countries for which there are nationally-representative HIV seroprevalence data. The results are important in considering the development of circumcision-focused interventions within AIDS prevention programs."
http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2197431
"Results: ...No consistent relationship between male circumcision and HIV risk was observed in most countries."
http://apha.confex.com/apha/134am/techprogram/paper_136814.htm
According to Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan, more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims. In Malaysia the majority of the males in the Muslim population are circumcised, whereas circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community. This means that HIV is spreading in the community where most men are circumcised at an even faster rate, than in the community where most men are intact.
http://www.mmail.com.my/content/39272-72-percent-aidshiv-sufferers-malaysia-are-muslims-says-council
In the 2010 Global AIDS report released by UNAIDS in late November, the Philippines was one of seven nations in the world which reported over 25 percent in new HIV infections between 2001 and 2009, whereas other countries have either stabilized or shown significant declines in the rate of new infections. Among all countries in Asia, only the Philippines and Bangladesh are reporting increases in HIV cases, with others either stable or decreasing.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20110102-312124/Philippines-HIVAIDS-problem-worries-UN
Despite circumcision being near-universal, it hasn't stopped HIV transmission in Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/failing-the-aids-test-1.249088
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/israeli-gays-shun-condoms-despite-worrying-rise-in-aids-1.249372
http://www.haaretz.com/news/has-the-aids-cocktail-worked-too-well-in-israel-1.258520
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hiv-diagnoses-in-israel-climb-new-cases-among-gays-up-sharply-1.248651
Circumcision hasn't stopped HIV in our own country.
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/1998/19981125_global_epidemic_report_en.pdf
And, it hasn't stopped other STDs either.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/13/us-infections-usa-idUSTRE50C5XV20090113?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
In America, the majority of the male population is circumcised, approximately 80%, while in most countries in Europe, circumcision is uncommon. Despite these facts, our country does poorly.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=177
But even if the "studies" were 100% accurate, circumcision would still be a moot point.
Even if...
At best, circumcision would "reduce the risk of HIV by a 60%" (over 1.5 years), while a condom conclusively reduces the risk of HIV by over 90%. Circumcision would still fail. Circumcision fails, which is why even the very authors of the African "studies" themselves cannot stress the use of condoms enough. At best, circumcision would be like a permanent condom that broke 40% of the time. If "researchers" were promoting a condom that broke over 40% of the time, they'd be laughed out of the room!
Squaring circles...
Circumcision promoters actually think that they can make it work. They actually think that they can get African men to get circumcised AND wear a condom. Only in a perfect world...
A Deadly Shortcut
One must seriously wonder. What on earth are they smoking up at the WHO? Are American leaders on crack? How on EARTH does it make sense to promote a dubious alternative to the most effective method of HIV prevention known to us?
When "scientists" and "researchers" are more concerned with validating a historically controversial and ethically problematic surgical procedure, rather than finding and promoting less expensive, less invasive, more effective ways to reduce HIV transmission, we've got a serious problem.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
BOTSWANA: Men Shunning Circumcision a "Mistery"
A few blog posts ago, I expose how the PEPFAR backed Soka Uncobe campaign is having trouble getting off the ground. Such a failure the campaign has been so far that organizers have tried boosting the campaign with a football team and endorsement from the king himself.
It looks like, however, Swaziland is not the only country where men aren't swallowing the circumcision/HIV pill. According to Mmegi, in Botswana, only 14,000 of 467,000 targeted men (12%) have stepped forward since the program began last year.
In the words of Principal public relations officer at the ministry of health Temba Sibanda, that a large portion of the targeted group is not coming forth for circumcision is a "mystery."
A "mistery?" Really? Has the ministry of health not considered that perhaps these men aren't too keen on getting part of their penises cut off? Even with perceived "benefits?"
Have "mass circumcision campaign" organizers ever considered the possibility that some men may never agree to get circumcised? That some men treasure their bodies and would prefer an alternative? What alternatives do circumcision campaign organizers have ready for such men? Or was prefering to stay intact simply not supposed to be an option?
The Soka Uncobe campaign has tried to appeal to Swazi masculinity by employing the imagery of women, and asking women to "support" men who go in for circumcisions. But does that same "support" go for the men who would rather learn proper hygiene and the proper usage of condoms?
That is a question that needs to be put to these knife-happy pro-mutilators. What if despite all the efforts, the men would prefer an alternative to circumcision? Do they have that scenario in mind? Do they have education packages as part of these "mass circumcision campaigns" for men who do not want to be circumcised in place? Or are they simply not going to offer these men that option?
The priorities of so-called humanitarian aid organizations come ever into view; what is the true end-game? Is it truly the prevention of HIV transmission? Or is it the acceptance and proliferation of a controversial surgical procedure?
It looks like, however, Swaziland is not the only country where men aren't swallowing the circumcision/HIV pill. According to Mmegi, in Botswana, only 14,000 of 467,000 targeted men (12%) have stepped forward since the program began last year.
In the words of Principal public relations officer at the ministry of health Temba Sibanda, that a large portion of the targeted group is not coming forth for circumcision is a "mystery."
A "mistery?" Really? Has the ministry of health not considered that perhaps these men aren't too keen on getting part of their penises cut off? Even with perceived "benefits?"
Have "mass circumcision campaign" organizers ever considered the possibility that some men may never agree to get circumcised? That some men treasure their bodies and would prefer an alternative? What alternatives do circumcision campaign organizers have ready for such men? Or was prefering to stay intact simply not supposed to be an option?
The Soka Uncobe campaign has tried to appeal to Swazi masculinity by employing the imagery of women, and asking women to "support" men who go in for circumcisions. But does that same "support" go for the men who would rather learn proper hygiene and the proper usage of condoms?
That is a question that needs to be put to these knife-happy pro-mutilators. What if despite all the efforts, the men would prefer an alternative to circumcision? Do they have that scenario in mind? Do they have education packages as part of these "mass circumcision campaigns" for men who do not want to be circumcised in place? Or are they simply not going to offer these men that option?
The priorities of so-called humanitarian aid organizations come ever into view; what is the true end-game? Is it truly the prevention of HIV transmission? Or is it the acceptance and proliferation of a controversial surgical procedure?
Monday, June 27, 2011
SWAZILAND: Compulsory Circumcision Law Proposed
So while intactivists are fighting in San Francisco to ban the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants, officials in Swaziland are trying to make it legally compulsory for all men, under the mistaken belief that circumcision does anything in the fight against HIV.
According to the Swazi Observer, there is a group of women advocating this law, and demanding chiefs cooperate in making sure the law was followed. Men who refused to be circumcised would be fined.
Discussions and lectures were organized by the Swazi Ministry of Health. Apparently Swaziland has a "National Male Circumcision Director." I can't even believe this!
Apparently the women believe that "having all men circumcised would not only help [the men], but the nation at large in that the risks of their wives contracting sexually transmitted diseases would decrease."
What in the WORLD are they feeding these women? Is the Swazi goverment on crack? Don't they know that the studies conflict with reality, and that even if they were 100% accurate, circumcision would not offer women any benefits?
I sense American influence behind this. Perhaps PEPFAR and Bill Gates are frustrated that the much hyped Soka Uncobe campaign is failing to help reach the proposed 80% quota, that now they are twisting Swazi officials arms to get a move on with the mass mutilation campaign?
And they want to do this even though HIV was shown to be more prevalent in circumcised men in this country?
"As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent)".
Studies show that circumcision is next to worthless in the fight against HIV. Actually, it's proving to be less than worthless, as it's leading men to believe that they don't have to wear condoms, making the situation worse. The Soka Uncobe campaign was the biggest blunder for the Swazi Ministry of Health because it sent the message that "Circumcise and Conquer" meant once you were circumcised you "conquered" HIV, and you could "conquer" all the women you want.
Circumcision gives men an excuse to be complacent with condoms, which, even if "studies" were correct, outperforms circumcision. And now they want to make circumcision for all the men compulsory?
![]()
Precisely what crock have Americans been feeding the men of Swaziland? Or are they simply that gullible?
The day is coming when this drive to mutilate the whole of Africa under the guise of HIV prevention will be seen for the despicable human rights atrocity that it is. Sooner or later America is going to have to be responsible.
How much longer before the world wakes up to this mass genocide being conducted in Africa?
EDIT (added 6-27-2011):
Just imagine. How would this story be reported in the news if it were the opposite? What if officials were pushing for a law that made female circumcision mandatory? What if there were men who wanted their women circumcised? How would that play out?
What if "studies showed" that female circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV" in women? Would American institutions of higher education pay to conduct "studies" to find this out? Would they fly to Africa, circumcise 1000 women and then follow them around to see who got AIDS first? And then use the results to say that "circumcision prevented HIV" in the women who didn't get it? Would they then use these "studies" to pressure the WHO to endorse female circumcision as HIV prevention policy? Would they pressure governments to enact "mass-circumcision campaigns" and compulsory laws?
Why, why, why is this acceptable to do with male circumcision?
Incidentally, "studies show" female circumcision could help "reduce the risk" of HIV here, here, and here. Not to mention that "studies" ALSO show that women who have been circumcised still experience sexual pleasure here and here.
So what are we waiting for! I don't see the WHO, UNAIDS, USAID, PEPFAR etc. getting behind this... Why, they're completely ignoring another "tool" in the fight against AIDS!
(Sorry for the sarcasm...)
According to the Swazi Observer, there is a group of women advocating this law, and demanding chiefs cooperate in making sure the law was followed. Men who refused to be circumcised would be fined.
Discussions and lectures were organized by the Swazi Ministry of Health. Apparently Swaziland has a "National Male Circumcision Director." I can't even believe this!
Apparently the women believe that "having all men circumcised would not only help [the men], but the nation at large in that the risks of their wives contracting sexually transmitted diseases would decrease."
What in the WORLD are they feeding these women? Is the Swazi goverment on crack? Don't they know that the studies conflict with reality, and that even if they were 100% accurate, circumcision would not offer women any benefits?
I sense American influence behind this. Perhaps PEPFAR and Bill Gates are frustrated that the much hyped Soka Uncobe campaign is failing to help reach the proposed 80% quota, that now they are twisting Swazi officials arms to get a move on with the mass mutilation campaign?
And they want to do this even though HIV was shown to be more prevalent in circumcised men in this country?
"As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent)".
Studies show that circumcision is next to worthless in the fight against HIV. Actually, it's proving to be less than worthless, as it's leading men to believe that they don't have to wear condoms, making the situation worse. The Soka Uncobe campaign was the biggest blunder for the Swazi Ministry of Health because it sent the message that "Circumcise and Conquer" meant once you were circumcised you "conquered" HIV, and you could "conquer" all the women you want.
Circumcision gives men an excuse to be complacent with condoms, which, even if "studies" were correct, outperforms circumcision. And now they want to make circumcision for all the men compulsory?
Precisely what crock have Americans been feeding the men of Swaziland? Or are they simply that gullible?
The day is coming when this drive to mutilate the whole of Africa under the guise of HIV prevention will be seen for the despicable human rights atrocity that it is. Sooner or later America is going to have to be responsible.
How much longer before the world wakes up to this mass genocide being conducted in Africa?
EDIT (added 6-27-2011):
Just imagine. How would this story be reported in the news if it were the opposite? What if officials were pushing for a law that made female circumcision mandatory? What if there were men who wanted their women circumcised? How would that play out?
What if "studies showed" that female circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV" in women? Would American institutions of higher education pay to conduct "studies" to find this out? Would they fly to Africa, circumcise 1000 women and then follow them around to see who got AIDS first? And then use the results to say that "circumcision prevented HIV" in the women who didn't get it? Would they then use these "studies" to pressure the WHO to endorse female circumcision as HIV prevention policy? Would they pressure governments to enact "mass-circumcision campaigns" and compulsory laws?
Why, why, why is this acceptable to do with male circumcision?
Incidentally, "studies show" female circumcision could help "reduce the risk" of HIV here, here, and here. Not to mention that "studies" ALSO show that women who have been circumcised still experience sexual pleasure here and here.
So what are we waiting for! I don't see the WHO, UNAIDS, USAID, PEPFAR etc. getting behind this... Why, they're completely ignoring another "tool" in the fight against AIDS!
(Sorry for the sarcasm...)
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Swazi Men Not As Dumb As American Circumcision Advocates Had Hoped
I've already posted on how American money is being spent to promote male circumcision as HIV prevention in Africa via PEPFAR:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/soka-uncobe-our-us-tax-dollars-at-work.html
And I've already posted on how the promotion of circumcision is sending conflicting messages, making the situation worse:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/male-circumcision-and-hiv-in-africa.html
Of particular interest is the Soka Uncobe, or "circumcise and conquer" campaign, which aims to circumcise over 80% of the male population in Swaziland. I also posted an article on how the campaign was already turning out to be disaster, as it was percieved to send the message that circumcision made you a "conqueror" of women, and that once you were circumcised you "conquered" HIV.
http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=24311
The campaign to circumcise 80% of Swazi men was launched in spite of the fact that earlier studies had shown HIV to be prevalent among CIRCUMCISED men:
"As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent)".
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf
However, it looks as though Swazi men aren't as gullible as people behind PEPFAR had hoped.
"The ambitious, US-funded campaign hopes to reach one in eight Swazi men, but has had disappointing results so far.
The clinic performing Mfanzile’s procedure is geared to see 80 patients a day. At best 15 trickle in - fewer than even before the campaign began in February.
Adverts urging men to “circumcise and conquer” are everywhere but organisers now admit they may not reach their targets as quickly as hoped."
http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/news/africa-at-forefront-of-aids-war-1.1075615
Do American circumcision advocates really think African men are simply that stupid?
The article continues:
"Most of the time in Swaziland, men are the decision makers. Men must be in the forefront of this battle,” said Health Minister Benedict Xaba. “It takes time for a Swazi person to accept something new; to accept change."
Or perhaps the men of Swaziland are not as dumb as they look.
The so-called "studies" have numerous flaws that bring their credibility into question, not to mention that their conclusions don't correlate with real world empirical data:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html
But assuming the studies were 100% accurate, circumcision would still fail as an HIV prevention method. Circumcision is so ineffective at preventing HIV transmission that even the very authors of these studies cannot stress the use of condoms enough.
Conductors of these "mass circumcision campaigns" have the double burden of trying to convince men to undergo circumcision, AND, to make sure that they know that once they're circumcised, they'd still have to wear condoms.
But once a man has learened that all he has to do is wear a condom, why would he EVER choose to become circumcised? If he chooses circumcision, isn't that a sign that he DOESN'T really understand?
Some men have chosen to undergo circumcision. But what were they actually told? What did they understand circumcision would to for them? Were they told the truth? Or were they told whatever circumcision promoters needed to tell them in order to secure more numbers for their 80% quota?
Whatever they're telling them, it looks like not all of them are buying it. It's heartening to know that in spite of all the money, lies and deception being hurled at these African men, most have the good sense to know better.
I only feel sorry for those who were ensnared by the American mutilation machine. What must go through the minds of those who go to a clinic and find out they were infected with HIV anyway, despite having gone through radical genital surgery?
What's next for them? Expensive ARTs for the rest of their lives? And the lives of their partners?
Is this what "researchers" mean by "cost-effective?"
These "mass circumcision" campaigns are an insult to the people of Africa, and the American taxpayer. What harrassment and abject humiliation to be reeled in by nifty slogans, music and other propaganda to be told you have to both be circumcised AND have to wear condoms.
I hope this serves as a lesson to PEPFAR and others funding these abominable campaigns:
Money and propaganda can only take you so far; not everyone is as dumb as you think.
Most anybody with a brain should be able to figure out that you don't need circumcision if you wear a condom. If men are choosing to get circumcised then there is a problem; they're either not fully understanding, or circumcision promoters are deliberately LYING to them.
This IS going to come back and haunt us in the future.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/soka-uncobe-our-us-tax-dollars-at-work.html
And I've already posted on how the promotion of circumcision is sending conflicting messages, making the situation worse:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/male-circumcision-and-hiv-in-africa.html
Of particular interest is the Soka Uncobe, or "circumcise and conquer" campaign, which aims to circumcise over 80% of the male population in Swaziland. I also posted an article on how the campaign was already turning out to be disaster, as it was percieved to send the message that circumcision made you a "conqueror" of women, and that once you were circumcised you "conquered" HIV.
http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=24311
The campaign to circumcise 80% of Swazi men was launched in spite of the fact that earlier studies had shown HIV to be prevalent among CIRCUMCISED men:
"As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent)".
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf
However, it looks as though Swazi men aren't as gullible as people behind PEPFAR had hoped.
"The ambitious, US-funded campaign hopes to reach one in eight Swazi men, but has had disappointing results so far.
The clinic performing Mfanzile’s procedure is geared to see 80 patients a day. At best 15 trickle in - fewer than even before the campaign began in February.
Adverts urging men to “circumcise and conquer” are everywhere but organisers now admit they may not reach their targets as quickly as hoped."
http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/news/africa-at-forefront-of-aids-war-1.1075615
Do American circumcision advocates really think African men are simply that stupid?
The article continues:
"Most of the time in Swaziland, men are the decision makers. Men must be in the forefront of this battle,” said Health Minister Benedict Xaba. “It takes time for a Swazi person to accept something new; to accept change."
Or perhaps the men of Swaziland are not as dumb as they look.
The so-called "studies" have numerous flaws that bring their credibility into question, not to mention that their conclusions don't correlate with real world empirical data:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html
But assuming the studies were 100% accurate, circumcision would still fail as an HIV prevention method. Circumcision is so ineffective at preventing HIV transmission that even the very authors of these studies cannot stress the use of condoms enough.
Conductors of these "mass circumcision campaigns" have the double burden of trying to convince men to undergo circumcision, AND, to make sure that they know that once they're circumcised, they'd still have to wear condoms.
But once a man has learened that all he has to do is wear a condom, why would he EVER choose to become circumcised? If he chooses circumcision, isn't that a sign that he DOESN'T really understand?
Some men have chosen to undergo circumcision. But what were they actually told? What did they understand circumcision would to for them? Were they told the truth? Or were they told whatever circumcision promoters needed to tell them in order to secure more numbers for their 80% quota?
Whatever they're telling them, it looks like not all of them are buying it. It's heartening to know that in spite of all the money, lies and deception being hurled at these African men, most have the good sense to know better.
I only feel sorry for those who were ensnared by the American mutilation machine. What must go through the minds of those who go to a clinic and find out they were infected with HIV anyway, despite having gone through radical genital surgery?
What's next for them? Expensive ARTs for the rest of their lives? And the lives of their partners?
Is this what "researchers" mean by "cost-effective?"
These "mass circumcision" campaigns are an insult to the people of Africa, and the American taxpayer. What harrassment and abject humiliation to be reeled in by nifty slogans, music and other propaganda to be told you have to both be circumcised AND have to wear condoms.
I hope this serves as a lesson to PEPFAR and others funding these abominable campaigns:
Money and propaganda can only take you so far; not everyone is as dumb as you think.
Most anybody with a brain should be able to figure out that you don't need circumcision if you wear a condom. If men are choosing to get circumcised then there is a problem; they're either not fully understanding, or circumcision promoters are deliberately LYING to them.
This IS going to come back and haunt us in the future.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Soka Uncobe: Our US Tax Dollars at Work
In an earlier post, I talked about how the promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention policy is confusing Africans, confounding HIV/AIDS prevention efforts, as predicted.
Earlier Story:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/male-circumcision-and-hiv-in-africa.html
Towards the end, I present an article where the circumcision campaign Soka Uncobe is turning out to be a disaster, and the ministry of health tries to shamelessly justify itself.
http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=24311
Upon further investigation, it turns out this campaign is being funded and aided in great part by America's PEPFAR.
http://swaziland.usembassy.gov/pr32212.html
It seems the United States is funding the deliberate miseducation of African people.
Swaziland was one of many countries where HIV transmission was found to be more prevalent among CIRCUMCISED men.
"As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent)".
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf
What in the world are our leaders thinking?
With what audacity do we hand out millions to promote an HIV "prevention method" that never worked in our own country?
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/1998/19981125_global_epidemic_report_en.pdf
How in the world is it logical to promote a dubious "prevention method" that discourages the use of the most effective prevention method known to us?
I simply can't believe the level to which they're sinking. This campaign is not about HIV prevention, it's about coercing and berating men into getting a permanent surgical procedure with dubious "benefits" they may not need nor want. It's not about preventing more HIV cases, it's clearly about fulfilling a quota, at the expense of Swazi youth.
I feel sorry for those Swazi men and youth; it must be utterly humiliating to be approached to be asked about what are supposed to be your private parts, and to be made to feel like you're failing your country if you don't submit; like they actually care about your health and not about fulfilling a quota for your donors. What utter shame and disrespect for the men of Swaziland. What if you are married and faithful to your wife?
As I have shown in my last post on this subject, what we said would happen is already happening, and circumcision is proving to be a needless nuisance. Men are already using circumcision as an excuse to forgo condoms. When HIV workers try to talk to the men about condoms, the response is "It's OK doc, I'm circumcised, so I've already conquered HIV."
This project is going to fail. When it does, and the number of AIDS cases rises, will we be responsible? Or, like the Swaziland ministry of health, will we try to justify this horrendous mistake? Or will we continue to lie to the Swazi people and to pump millions into worthless genital mutilation to save face?
I am ashamed that this is what my tax dollars are being used for, the needless genital mutilation of African men and children.
Earlier Story:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/male-circumcision-and-hiv-in-africa.html
Towards the end, I present an article where the circumcision campaign Soka Uncobe is turning out to be a disaster, and the ministry of health tries to shamelessly justify itself.
http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=24311
Upon further investigation, it turns out this campaign is being funded and aided in great part by America's PEPFAR.
http://swaziland.usembassy.gov/pr32212.html
It seems the United States is funding the deliberate miseducation of African people.
Swaziland was one of many countries where HIV transmission was found to be more prevalent among CIRCUMCISED men.
"As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent)".
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf
What in the world are our leaders thinking?
With what audacity do we hand out millions to promote an HIV "prevention method" that never worked in our own country?
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/1998/19981125_global_epidemic_report_en.pdf
How in the world is it logical to promote a dubious "prevention method" that discourages the use of the most effective prevention method known to us?
I simply can't believe the level to which they're sinking. This campaign is not about HIV prevention, it's about coercing and berating men into getting a permanent surgical procedure with dubious "benefits" they may not need nor want. It's not about preventing more HIV cases, it's clearly about fulfilling a quota, at the expense of Swazi youth.
I feel sorry for those Swazi men and youth; it must be utterly humiliating to be approached to be asked about what are supposed to be your private parts, and to be made to feel like you're failing your country if you don't submit; like they actually care about your health and not about fulfilling a quota for your donors. What utter shame and disrespect for the men of Swaziland. What if you are married and faithful to your wife?
As I have shown in my last post on this subject, what we said would happen is already happening, and circumcision is proving to be a needless nuisance. Men are already using circumcision as an excuse to forgo condoms. When HIV workers try to talk to the men about condoms, the response is "It's OK doc, I'm circumcised, so I've already conquered HIV."
This project is going to fail. When it does, and the number of AIDS cases rises, will we be responsible? Or, like the Swaziland ministry of health, will we try to justify this horrendous mistake? Or will we continue to lie to the Swazi people and to pump millions into worthless genital mutilation to save face?
I am ashamed that this is what my tax dollars are being used for, the needless genital mutilation of African men and children.
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 Zimbabwe, Botswana, 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
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:
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:
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
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
Posts on underhanded circumcision "upscale strategies"
BOTSWANA: Men Shunning Circumcision a "Mistery"
BOTSWANA: Men Shunning Circumcision a "Mistery"
Posts on Swaziland Soka Uncobe Saga:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)