COUNCIL OF EUROPE: When Israel Says "Jump," Secretary General Says "How High?"

It's been only a few days since the Council of Europe declared the medically unnecessary circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, to be a human rights violation, and, as predicted, it has drawn non-stop fire from Jewish organizations.

Said Benjamin Albalas, President of the Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece:

"This is a sign of anti-Semitism."
The Jerusalem Post

If one reads the comments to these articles criticizing the Council of Europe for their stance, the argumentum at Hitlerem is never-ending.

Israel Gets Involved
Apparently, Israel has gotten involved, with President Shimon Peres, sending a letter to Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjorn Jagland, asking for his intervention.

Thorbjorn Jagland,

Secretary General of the Council of Europe

And, apparently, the Secretary General has complied, signaling that the Council of Europe has begun to backpedal.

According to a tweet from Jagland's press spokesman Daniel Holtgen, Jagland has expressed:

“Female genital mutilation violates human rights. Male circumcision does not.”

But this was to be expected; Israel also got involved when the Cologne ruling was handed down in Germany, causing the Bundestag to write up a resolution "protecting" non-medical child genital mutilation.

Poor Europe, stuck between a rock and a hard place; they must perform a delicate balancing act, wanting to protect basic human rights, while at the same time, appeasing Jews who hold the Holocaust ever over their heads.

Special Pleading
In his letter to the European Council Secretary General, Shimon Peres stressed that infant circumcision is of "great importance" in Jewish and Muslim religious tradition. (Since when does the Israeli President care about Islam?) He also noted that male circumcision has been practiced by Jewish communities for thousands of years and is a " fundamental element and obligation of Jewish tradition." Peres stressed that Jewish communities across Europe would be "greatly afflicted to see their cultural and religious freedom impeded upon by the Council of Europe," which Peres observed is "an institution devoted to the protection of these very rights."

Of course, Shimon Peres, and other advocates of circumcision that make these arguments are employing logical fallacies, either inadvertently, or quite deliberately.

Of course, where it is practiced, female circumcision has also been practiced "for thousands of years," and those who practice it see it as a "fundamental element" and obligation for their traditions. Communities across Europe who practice female circumcision are also "greatly afflicted" because their "cultural and religious freedoms" are infringed upon by the local government. But, apparently, while the Council of Europe is to condemn the forced genital mutilation of females, ad antiquitam should afford male genital mutilation special treatment.

Circumcision is Not Exclusive to Jews
Accusations of anti-Semitism are based on three assumptions:

1) That circumcision is exclusively Jewish
2) That circumcision is universal among Jews
3) That intactivists focus on stopping only Jewish circumcision

The fact is, circumcision is not exclusive to Jews.

Circumcision also happens to be Muslim practice. It is considered a rite of passage in the Philippines, and it is considered a rite of passage in many parts of Africa, where, as in female circumcision, boys and men of varying ages are forcibly circumcised in the wilderness using raw materials. Not to mention that in the United States, 1.2 million baby boys a year are circumcised, only about 3% or so, comprising of Jewish brisim.

A commenter on Facebook made the following observation:
Jews are 1.7% of the US population (5,425,000 out of 313,900,000) and only about 30% of American Jews have a bris; the remainder have their son circumcised in the hospital or doctor's office just like all other American boys or skip circumcision. By my math, 30% of 1.7% is just over one half of one percent, or one-sixth of your figure.

In Muslim tradition, boys are circumcised at later ages,

when they can remember. Here, a boy is being circumcised

at a medical facility in Turkey. Note his white circumcision outfit.

In Marikina, east of Manila, boys "receive" their "free" circumcisions.

 Boy in Africa being circumcised.

In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes "sunat" to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.

Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons.

(Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")

(Only one of the above "traditions" should be a human rights violation, according to circumcision advocates. Can you guess which one?)

In addition, circumcision is not universal among Jews. There are Jews in Europe who have been leaving their children intact for years. A growing number of Jews are forgoing a traditional Bris Milah circumcision ceremony, and instead opting for a more peaceful, non-cutting Bris Shalom naming ceremony. Even in Israel, there is a growing number of parents who are not circumcising their children. A recent poll reveals that 1/3rd of Israeli parents question the practice.

And finally, it would be one thing if intactivists targeted the Jewish ritual of infant circumcision. The fact is that intactivists oppose the forced genital cutting of ALL minors, regardless of race or creed. Jewish bris is only one form of male infant genital mutilation. We're opposed to ALL of it.

It is dishonest for Jewish advocates of circumcision to pretend like they're being "singled out," when this clearly isn't the case. Little by little people are seeing through this smear tactic, as more and more people have the courage to speak out, despite the threat of being labeled Nazi-Germans.

Questions to consider:
For better or for worse, the forced genital mutilation of females has also existed "for thousands of years," and it is considered an important rite of passage where it is performed. In some tribes and communities, a woman who has not undergone genital cutting is seen as a social outcast.

Is declaring the forced genital cutting of girls to be a "violation of human rights" not "affliction" to those living in Europe who practice it?

Is being against the forced cutting of girls and women "anti" ethnic groups that do it? (e.g. anti-African, anti-Indonesian, anti-Malaysian, anti-Brunei, etc.?)

Is a ban on female circumcision not infringing on "religious" or "parental rights?"

If leaders of countries where female genital cutting is practiced were to write to the Council of Europe, would they be obliged to soften their stance against the forced genital cutting of girls?

Why the special treatment of only MALE forced genital mutilation?

When are world leaders going to cut the political pandering and call a spade a spade?

Related Posts:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom

Germany "Protects" the Forced Genital Mutilation of Boys

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

Intactivism Isn't Making Anyone Rich

There is no money in trying to convince people to do nothing.

It'd be nice if I could leave the job I do every day and live off of trying to convince people that cutting children is wrong.

The sad reality is that while circumcision promoters get cuts (pun absolutely intended) in the form of grants, foreign aid, and getting paid for performing circumcision itself, intactivists have to sacrifice a lot of their time and money to get our message across.

Circumcising a child pays; allowing him to go home whole does not.

Yet I have read here and there, on Facebook, on parenting forums etc., accusations to the effect that intactivists are being "funded by millionaires."

I have never heard of a more ignorant straw-man, ad-hominem accusation.

While intactivists take time out of their busy schedule, not to mention precious time they could be spending with their family and loved ones, not to mention time they could be spending for themselves (e.g. going to school, improving their skills, another job, etc.), there are circumcision promoters whose sole source of income is the promotion of circumcision, if not performing circumcision itself.

The ignorant accusation that "intactivists are being funded by millionaires" stems from the fact that at one point, an intactivist organization, Intact America, got a kick-start grant of a million dollars from a single donor.

 Click Here to visit the Intact America website

While this is irrefutable fact, it's a stretch to say that we're being "funded by millionaires."

Intact America is only ONE organization who got paid one million dollars, one time, by one donor, but that was a long time ago, and that money is gone now. No other intactivist organization has gotten a donation anywhere close to that amount. Intact America now survives on donations it can muster from willing intactivists.

But while circumcision advocates point their fingers and accuse intactivists of being involved in a money-making scam, they either seem oblivious to what's happening in their own camp, or they're deliberately trying to draw attention away from it.

Yes, at one point, Intact America got a million dollar grant from a generous donor.

But how much money do circumcision promoters get?

How much money are circumcision "researchers" like Maria Wawer, Ronald Gray, Robert Bailey, Daniel Halperin, etc., etc., getting for their work in the way of grants and scholarships?

How much money is PEPFAR handing over to PrePex and other organizations to circumcise 20 million Africans?

"Funded by millionaires?"

It would sure be nice if we could get someone like Bill Gates to donate to us the amount of money he's paying circumcision promoters in Africa.

It'd sure be nice if we could get money from the World Bank, UNAids, WHO, PEPFAR etc. to promote HIV prevention to those who don't want to get circumcised.

It'd sure be nice if the NIH, Johns Hopkins, etc. would give grants to researchers who want to find ways to prevent HIV WITHOUT circumcision.

It'd be nice if intactivists were given money to ready information packages, fly to Africa and educate the people of Africa on STD prevention, hygiene etc.

It'd be nice if we could pay artists to write songs about intactivism and speak out against male genital mutilation at HIV/AIDS conferences.

But we just don't have that kind of money.

Circumcisers get cash for their work. For many, this is their sole occupation.

It's intactivists who have to scrounge around for cash, when and if time and circumstances allow, and only after their own obligations and commitments.

When you look at just how much money is being pumped into circumcision promotion and facilitation, it's kind of ridiculous, not to mention dishonest and insulting, to hear a circumcision advocate try and discredit us by accusing us of being "funded by millionaires."

Ad lazarum, ad hominem and projection all rolled into one.

Related Posts:

PEPFAR To Blow Millions on PrePex

External Links:

Bill Gates helps fund mass circumcision programme

The 'Circumcision Song' Hits Airwaves Across Africa Thanks to Bill Gates' Funding

RED HERRING: The Abortion Debate

I always find it entertaining when a circumcision advocate thinks s/he is being so clever to bring up the abortion debate. It's amusing to watch them congratulate themselves because they're so sure they've caught intactivists in an inconsistency.

The quip goes something like this:

"You intactivists are the same people who support abortion. You support killing an unborn child, but are up in arms about a tiny piece of skin?"

The wording varies from person to person, but overall, the accusation that intactivists are all pro-abortion, and the attempt at dismissing intactivists based on this accusation is the same.


Straw Man
There are many things wrong with bringing up the abortion debate, particularly in the fashion in which circumcision advocates do, beginning with the straw man accusation that all those who protest the forced genital mutilation of infants also happen to be pro-abortion.

 

Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

The fact is that there are intactivists on both sides of the abortion debate. There are intactivists believe that it is a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to carry a baby to term, and then there are intactivists who believe it's wrong to kill an unborn child.

Intactivists on BOTH sides of the abortion debate, however, agree that circumcision should be the choice of the individual male to whom the penis in question belongs.

Red Herring

The truth of the matter is that the abortion debate is nothing more than a diversion to distract from the crux of the argument; a red herring.

Why does the crux of the argument always seem to elude people? Are people being willfully ignorant? Or are they simply that dense?

Intactivism is about CHOICE for the individual.

Though the standpoint is different on each side, choice is at the crux of both sides of the abortion debate, be it choice for the unborn child, or choice for the mother.

For this reason, being in favor of circumcision of infants is inconsistent with either side of the abortion debate.

A person who is "pro-choice" could not consistently argue "my body, my choice" for women, while ignoring the same principle violated in healthy, non-consenting children. 

 (Unless you're male...)

If you are "pro-choice," it is hypocritical to be arguing "my body, my choice" for girls and women, but tossing this argument out the window when it comes to boys and men.

If you are "pro-life," it kind of defeats the purpose to be fighting for his "right to life," but not for the right to his own body.

"Protect the unborn child..." (until he's born)

Why is it wrong to chop up a child within his mother's womb, but perfectly OK to be cutting off parts of his penis just as soon as he comes out?

Conclusion

I repeat; being in favor of circumcision of infants is inconsistent with either side of the abortion debate.

"My body, my choice" applies to both men AND women.

A child's "right to life" includes his right to his own body.

Phimosis and Circumcision in Japan

Honen Fertility Festival, Tagata Shrine, Japan

Readers: Notice the foreskin in the banner, and the wooden phallus

Japanese culture has always fascinated me. I studied abroad in Japan, and decided I would one day like to go back to work as an English teacher, so I could travel around and see the sights.

It is no surprise that I was interested in the ways Japanese perceived the male penis, circumcision, sexuality, nudity and the like, so during my time as an English teacher, I did my fair share of investigating and poking around (pun absolutely intended), so I'd say I have a very good idea.

Some time ago, a distressed person posted some pictures of a Japanese manga-style penile surgery pamphlet on a forum I used to frequent, wanting to know what it was about. Others began to get worried that the pamphlet meant that somehow circumcision had taken root in Japan, and that the forced genital mutilation of children existed there also.

After having looked through the pictures, I decided to post my insights, so that the readers could understand that there was actually nothing to worry about.

I've decided to post a heavily modified version of that response here, so that readers can get an insight on how the penis and circumcision are viewed in Japan.

In advance, readers should know that although my observations are based on my own personal experiences, they are but one person's observations, and are not to be taken as gospel truth. What I share here is knowledge I have gathered on my own, talking to my Japanese friends, going to Japanese bathing facilities, and looking through Japanese literature. My Japanese is very limited, and there maybe nuances that I may be going over my head. The pictures are also very blurry and some words are hard to make out, so I acknowledge others may have more accurate interpretations of what is being said.

1st Photo

My first observation was that the cartoon drawings, which look like they were taken out of a pamphlet for a particular doctor's office, were a bit dated. In Japan, there are many "clinics" aimed at male clientele.

The heading of the 1st picture reads "包茎手術," (hokei shujutsu) or "phimosis surgery," which implies that the surgery is being offered as a solution for phimosis. In the past, and still today, circumcision is seen as a solution for phimosis, known as "hokei" (包茎, lit. "wrapped stock") in Japanese. Visitors to Japan will still see ads for these "clinics" announcing their "services" to a vulnerable male audience.

As you can see, it is showing examples of an unhappy penis, whose foreskin cannot retract when erect. After the surgery, however, the penis is "happy" because the head can now see the light of day.

This pamphlet is announcing a procedure that won't "stand out" (目立たない, medatanai), where the scar is "hidden." There are two types, the type where the scar rides up close to the corona, so it doesn't "stand out," and the type where the scar is near the base of the penis. The idea is that the scar doesn't "stand out" because it's either too close to the corona, or as far down to the base that nobody notices. (Because nobody wants to be seen with an ugly scar, you know?)

So patients can choose from either type.

"Leave your phimosis to Dr. Yoshizawa!", says the comic doctor in the first picture.

You see three series of pictures to your left.

The first is is a "common penis." Or "正常なペニス." (seijo na penisu)

It's hard to read, and I can barely make it out, but it says "the head of the penis usually protrudes." Perhaps this might be normal for Japanese. Or, perhaps, a false "normal" that was introduced to sell this "service."

The second is called "false phimosis," or "仮性包茎." (kasei hokei)

It reads, "the head of the penis is covered, but becomes uncovered upon erection." (Actually, THIS is the common, normal penis.)

The last series is called "true phimosis." Or, "真性包茎." (shinsei hokei)

"The head of the penis is covered, and does not become uncovered during erection."

The picture in the middle says "a typical circumcision procedure." Or, "一般的な包茎手術." (Ippan-teki na hokei shujutsu.) This is literally translated as "a common phimosis operation," which indicates that circumcision is usually only performed as a measure for phimosis, real or perceived.

This one's hard to make out so I can't read it. But I think it says something like "in a common circumcision, there is an ugly scar left over in the middle of the shaft."

In walks the doctor saying "I can perform an exceptional job, hiding your circumcision scar for you, up close to the corona, or down close to the shaft."

(Well, not exactly in those words, but that's the idea.)

2nd Photo

The doc offers a penile lengthening procedure. It's very hard for me to read the text.

It shows three types of "small penises."

Penis A (from right to left) "I'm big enough."

Caption: "In actuality, this penis is small."

Penis B (I think it reads, [too small and blurry to read]) "This penis' shaft is buried in the body.)

Penis C Fat makes the penis looks small. (I think...)

The doctor seems to say "This is where my expertise comes in. Leave it to me!"

(Really doc?)

3rd Photo

This is the page that was getting people's panties in a bunch.

The heading says "Childhood Phimosis." (子供の包茎, kodomo no hokei)

"From the age of 6 on, a child can have the procedure done and he can go home immediately."

Lower set of pictures, from right to left:

(I can barely make it out...)

"A phimosed penis will restrict the growth of the glans. However, if you perform the operation in childhood, by the time the child is 18, the head will have grown, giving it a bigger appearance."

This pamphlet must have been written before Japanese studies showed that "phimosis" is normal in childhood.

See an article on the retraction of the foreskin here.

And obviously, the whole glans thing is a crock. Perhaps the doc was appealing to parents who wanted to give their child more prowess.

4th Photos

 
Heading: "Silicone Balls"

This doctor offers men the option of getting silicone balls implanted in their penis.

Again, offering a man more for his tackle box.

Not worth it to me to read any further.

5th photo

Heading: "Pipe Cut"

In reference to a vasectomy.

Needs no explanation.

Joseph4GI sez...
As I've said before, from my own experience, having lived in Japan as an English teacher, I can give my own insight.

Circumcision ads are very common in Japan, but they usually offer circumcision as a solution to phimosis, real or perceived, or in the context of "male enhancement." You'll often find these in male oriented books, such as older boys' comics, or girlie magazines. You'll see these ads right next to other "male enhancement" ads, such as pumps, pills and other surgical operations that will make you "better in bed." (You saw the "lengthening," and the silicone implants... some clinics claim to be able to make the head of the penis look bigger... I wonder how...)

Some clinics offer "help" to growing boys, and actually offer pretty good advice. On their websites they'll tell you that if you have "false phimosis," you don't need surgery, and they also offer ways to help without surgery. They will say that if you have "true phimosis," that the best thing for you is surgery. Obviously, not always true, but hey. Clinics need to make their money somewhere.

If you live in Japan, and you have Japanese friends, at some point you'll be invited to go out to a bathhouse or hot springs. (銭湯, sento, and 温泉, onsen, respectively) The Japanese don't have qualms with nakedness, and thus you can see everything clearly, and people don't seem to mind.

From my experience, circumcision tends to be much more common in the older generation, and less common, if even present, in the younger generation. My guess is that perhaps many of the older generation were circumcised in childhood because they were diagnosed with "childhood phimosis" as indicated above. The younger generations tend to be all intact, with some exceptions. (Phimosis diagnosis perhaps? Or perhaps some poor dude whose parents were duped into an operation?) From what I was able to see in the bathhouse, children are NEVER circumcised.

Rolling Back the Foreskin
There is also a phenomenon that can be observed; the older generation has this custom of rolling back their foreskin in the bathhouse. I remember thinking my landlord may have been circumcised (he and I were good friends, and he used to invite me whenever he went out with his buddies), but then one time I caught him with his foreskin down, and he had quite a lot of overhang. With a single motion his foreskin was tucked behind the head of his penis, and he looked circumcised.

So then, some men may look circumcised, when they're actually not. In my experience, younger guys tend not to do this; most younger guys leave their foreskins down and don't care.

Japan is a mixture of different cultures, old and new. I wonder if this foreskin rolling phenomenon is old, or if it's new, created when foreigners tried to import circumcision into the country... I wonder if the idea of "childhood phimosis" existed before the West tried to bring in circumcision, or if it was invented afterwards...

So who gets circumcised in Japan?
I've asked a lot of people about circumcision in adulthood and childhood; my landlord, a few friends and acquaintances, and actually, random people I've met, and they all tell me the same thing. No one really gets circumcised unless they really need to, or if they want to out of style. Children are never circumcised. The people I've asked tell me the idea of circumcising newborns is so foreign that it's not even an option at Japanese hospitals.

One time, I went with a Japanese friend to a baby ware expo they held in the area where I used to live  (she was pregnant, and she asked if I could come along, so I did). There were many booths here and there for many things. Pampers was there, along with Toys R Us (yep, they're in Japan too), various name brand stroller manufacturers etc. There were some booths that offered advice on basic child care, such as bathing, breastfeeding, hygiene etc... I know I shouldn't have been afraid to find some sort of booth pushing RIC, but I somehow was. I was very relieved to stroll around the grounds, and not have found a single cutter in sight. No doubt Japanese parents would be HORRIFIED to see something like that here.

What IS "Phimosis?"
The word for "phimosis" (包茎 hokei) in Japanese is ambiguous. It can mean one of three things:

1. A penis whose foreskin cannot retract the way a normal penis can. (So called, "true phimosis.")

2. A penis who's foreskin does retract, but which still covers the head of the penis. (So-called "false phimosis." Essentially, the Chinese characters for "hokei" are "wrapped stalk.")

3. A penis which isn't circumcised.

In other words, the word for "phimosis" can refer to a penis with a foreskin, whether or not it is suffering a muzzled condition.

Thus, in Japanese, when a man says he has "hokei," it doesn't necessarily mean that he has a problem. If somebody says s/he prefers somebody that is not "hokei," it doesn't mean that s/he prefers somebody that is circumcised; rather, that person usually means s/he prefers it if his/her partner's foreskin can retract normally. (i.e. doesn't have "true phimosis")

My guess is that there are many Japanese men who got circumcised who didn't need the procedure, but may have been duped by a greedy doctor trying to make a buck.

Though circumcision is rare in Japan, it appears the Japanese are about as in-the-dark about phimosis and the normal intact penis as are Americans, and both countries could benefit from an overhaul to their medical curricula.

The word "phimosis"
The Greek word "phimosis" actually refers to a specific condition. It actually refers to a stricture in the foreskin in the penis WHEN AND IF it is caused by Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans (BXO). In this one specific case, some doctors recommend circumcision to alleviate the problem, however others claim to know how to cure it without surgery. If the foreskin is simply narrow and does not allow the glans penis to pass through, the narrowing is called "preputial stenosis," and can usually be remedied without surgery.

Read more on the word "phimosis," what it meant in antiquity, what it came to mean during the circumcision years, and what it technically refers to today, here.

The Faces of Genital Mutilation

If you have to make a face like this man and woman are making in these pictures, then you know very well that you must be doing something wrong to a child.

Kurdish girl being circumcised

Men circumcising a newborn boy

Taking advantage of a smaller, weaker person, is the very definition of "abuse."

Related Posts:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

COLORADO: Politicians Try to Restore Medicaid Circumcision Funding AGAIN

Representative Paul Rosenthal moved an amendment to restore Medicaid funding of circumcision.

Rosenthal's argument was that "the AAP supports this amendment ... because they said that the benefits outweigh the risks...."

The move to amend was struck down on the technicality that the amendment was out of order, because it would make a substantive law via a footnote.

Audio available here.

This wouldn't be the first time a politician has attempted to restore Medicaid coverage for infant circumcision on the grounds of public health interest; last year, Senator Joyce Foster tried to do the same by introducing Senate Bill 90.

The bill died in the Colorado House in May last year.

Ostensibly, Foster acted in interest of "helping the poor" and public health, and denied any connection with her Jewish faith. In an article at the time, she said:

"This bill will have absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish community of Colorado... [I am] most persuaded by the medical evidence." ("Evidence" that couldn't persuade respected medical organizations in and outside the US to endorse the practice?)

 The Jewish Daily Forward betrayed her true motives for the Colorado bill, however:

Foster, the main backer of the Colorado bill, said she believes that cutting Medicaid coverage for circumcision sent a message of support to anti-circumcision activists who want see the procedure outlawed nationwide. She is determined to push back against that effort. 

"Ultimately, I think when the anti-circumcision people begin to see so many states denying benefits... it will be easier for them now to make their case that circumcision should be banned altogether."

Rosenthal touted the latest AAP one-liner. (Interesting, he doesn't mention the fact that the latest AAP statement has been formally rejected by pretty much the rest of modern medicine, and is currently in the hot seat.)

But, like Joyce Foster, could his true motives have lied lain elsewhere?



Earlier posts:
COLORADO: Conflicts of Interest Plague Medicaid Circumcision Coverage Bill 

COLORADO: Senator Aguilar Circumvents Circumcision Debate

COLORADO: Jewish Circumcision Protection Bill Moves Forward

NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

Two more baby boys have contracted herpes via ultra-orthodox Jewish practice of metzitzah b'peh, or sucking a newly circumcised child's penis with the mouth.

This time, one tested positive for HIV-1.

The New York City Department of Health deputy commissioner said it was "too early to tell" if the babies would suffer long-term health consequences from the infection.


I'm not sure what else to say.


CORRECTION:
The child in question did NOT contract HIV-1 as reported by Medical Daily. It was a misprint, as the child tested for HSV-1, which is the herpes virus.

The original report can be read here.

The Medical Daily article which has now been corrected can be read here.


This misprint is no excuse to ignore the incident; herpes being deliberately transmitted to children by otherwise intelligent adults is still a problem, and the New York City Health Department needs to stop shirking their responsibilities.


Related Articles:

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

Yet another case of herpes given to a baby by a mohel via metzitzah b'peh (ultra-orthodox tradition of oral suction of the circumcision wound). Apparently, this is the 2nd confirmed case of the year.

A law was enacted dictating mohels that perform this practice disclose the risks to parents, but there is no actual ban or regulation of metzitzah b'peh, mohels face no penalties whatsoever if the waivers are not signed, and even if they are, no one is held responsible if the child contracts herpes, rendering it basically useless.

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reports no form was submitted for the procedure, but says it has no plans to pursue any kind of legal case.

There have been 13 confirmed cases by the DOHMH since 2000, although it is alleged by Rabbi Hershel Schachter, an influential senior rabbinic authority at Yeshiva University, that New York City hospitals and the city’s Department of Health are suppressing disclosure of even more cases.

It is obvious to me why anyone would want to downplay the number of these cases; religious advocates want to preserve their traditions, the Health Department doesn't want to be labeled Nazi German, and health boards want to continue to tout circumcision as being "risk-free."

What is it going to take for authorities to do their jobs and protect the rights, healths and lives of children?

Related Articles:

Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

 

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

 

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

Who's the "Douchebag?"

Every once in a while, you'll get someone writing about the "right" way to talk about circumcision.

The latest I've seen is in a blog post titled "How to Talk About Circumcision Without Being a Douchebag."

On the one hand, I could see what the author was getting at, but on the other, I feel that one side is being ignored.

A good point she makes is that intactivists could do a better job of delivering their message, and I agree.

But there are some points that I simply can't see eye to eye with.

To each their own, but I'm not sure I could continue being "best friends" with someone I knew agreed to have their children mutilated after having given them information.

Would you want to continue to be friends with someone you knew was OK with doing other abusive things to their children?

Beating them black and blue?

Sexually molesting them?

Yes, I see circumcision on par with sexual molestation.

Worse; sexual mutilation.

A child could heal from the wounds of sexual molestation through therapy, but a circumcision scar is permanent and can never be erased.

The author also seems to believe that circumcision is "just another choice," like bottle feeding or using disposable diapers vs. cloth diapers.

"We had a conversation about a subject that can be controversial without making it controversial because that is how adults interact.

And both of our children are thriving.  Both of our children our loved, breastfed, well taken care of."

I've seen this "celebrate our parental choices" attitude before:

And I couldn't agree any less.

It is a mistake to attack and humiliate parents over something they honestly didn't know any better about, and who would take it all back if they knew what they were doing to their children.

I'm not advocating that.

But I also do not advocate corroberating with parents, rewarding willful ignorance, making them feel justified and entitled by calling circumcision a "choice" to be "celebrated."

This author seems willing to pander to her "best friend" at the expense of the basic human rights of that friend's children, because she is more interested in "staying friends" than the principle of basic human rights for all.

I can't agree with sacrificing principle for the sake of friendship.

I couldn't pretend like "nothing happened," just to stay friends with someone whom I gave information to, but decided to mutilate his/her child anyway.

Who is a douchebag?
Now, let's talk about just who the "douchebag" is.

Who is a douchebag?

Someone whom you don't like, or has done something you don't like.

I am ready to acknowledge that there are some intactivists out there who cross the line. There is much reason an intactivist does it though; we feel as passionate about male infant circumcision as people feel about say, female circumcision. It is a gross violation of basic human rights and not to be taken lightly.

People keep saying "you shouldn't judge."

But let's ask, how do you feel about female circumcision?

How do you feel about parents that circumcised their daughters?

And be honest.

Would you hold back and "not judge?"

Would you respect that "parental choice?"

Or would you say the first thing on your mind?

That said, there are also intactivists who have lots of time and patience, and who try to deliver their message in as a non-judgemental way as possible. They try to post facts, links to information, and just leave it a that; only to have it be called "bashing" and "harassment" by parents who simply want to hear nothing other than validation and encouragement, and have it promptly deleted, user blocked.

So who's the douchebag?

The answer is, someone whom you don't like, or has done something you don't like.

Intactivists could tone it down. I will admit.

But why is the first reaction from parents who are adamant about having their child circumcised defensiveness and hostility?

Why does it make someone who wants to post factual information automatically a "douchebag?"

Not all intactivists are extreme. Not all parents are close-minded and pawn off whomever they don't want to hear as "douchebags."

This is probably asking for the sun and the moon, but there needs to be acknowledgement on both sides.

Yes, intactivists can be extreme douchebags.

But if you're a parent who things you've got it all right, but then you openly post about your son's circumcision online, and then complain that you're being "harrassed" and "bullied" by people whom all they want to do is give you information to make a better choice for your children, and that they're "getting into your business," and then delete what they have to say and block them, because you care more about mutilating your son and being "right" than you actually do about his health and well-being, then you're a douchebag too.

The fact is, circumcision is a sensitive subject, and you're not going to get away with posting about it on the internet, and getting people like us roused up.

If you don't want people "getting in your business," then don't post it on the internet for the whole world to see. 


Related Posts:

The "Mommy Page" Wars

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

GRANOLA BABIES: BIG MISTAKE

GRANOLA BABIES: Responses to "Celebratory" Ad

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

UPDATE: Now with graphical representations (2/24/2013).

I had already published a post titled "Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV." Readers can see to the left, it ranks 5th as one of my most popular posts.

I recently had a conversation with one Juan Pistolas (an online intactivist persona) concerning HIV transmission rates in Mexico. It was touched off by an article I posted on my Facebook wall, titled "Sexually transmitted infection epidemic ravaging the US", to highlight the fact that having a primarily circumcised male population (over 80%, according to Dr. Schoen), most of which are men who are circumcised from birth, has not helped in the US.

It is often touted by circumcision advocates that circumcision reduces the transmission of STDs. The fact is that STD transmission rates are higher here, than in Europe, where circumcision is rare.

Juan wanted to tell me that American intactivists always point to Europe as a prime example, but that we always seem to forget our Mexican brother to the south.

I couldn't understand what he was talking about. I had always assumed that Mexico would be a poor example, with a high HIV transmission rate, being a third world country.

He replied:

"That's the problem with the majority of persons that believes that just because a third world country is cataloged as such, in this case Mexico, then they automatically assume the country lacks of everything. Hollywood movies have created false stereotypes of many cultures and countries in the world that people adopt as truth, when many times is quite the contrary.

In Mexico we may not have a super infrastructure like the US or Europe has, but despite that, we have a much more less rate of HIV. Much less.

Also, in Mexico you can have access to free condoms if any person goes to any government health clinic and request a few. Of course they aren't Trojans or Sico's, but free condoms are given. We also have free access to sex education in these same health clinics. Just go, see schedules or make an appointment."

I couldn't believe what he was saying.

I wanted numbers.

Enter the CIA World Factbook.

The intactivist organization Saving Our Sons had also just recently published an article titled "HIV in the Circumcised U.S. Up to 500% Higher than Intact Nations," which was no surprise to me, as I had already known for the longest time that the US had the highest rate of HIV transmission in the industrialized world, despite its high prevalence of male circumcision. I had already known that knowing the truth was simply a matter of looking at HIV transmission rates around the world, but I had never actually sat down to look through them. I saw in this article, for the first time, where exactly the US stood as compared to other nations in terms of HIV transmission.

So touched off by Juan's comments, and remembering that I had just recently read the Saving Our Son's article referencing the CIA World Factbook, I decided to look through it to see where Mexico stood.

Sure enough, while America hovers at No. 64, Mexico is way below at No. 79.

I couldn't believe it.

Mexico?

Really?

But I started seeing other countries which also fell well below America, countries that I would expect to have terrible HIV transmission rates, and I was floored.

Juan provided his own source IndexMundi.

Juan's source, though, does not list countries by percentage of HIV prevalence, but by actual numbers of people living with AIDS. Doing this shifts the order around quite a bit.

For example, reporting Swaziland's HIV prevalence rate by percentage (25.90%) puts it at No.1 in the CIA Factbook. But looking at the actual number of people living with HIV puts it way below. In fact, many African countries fall below the US when actual numbers of people living with HIV are compared.

I began to make observations that I thought should be posted in this blog.

HIV prevalence rates and circumcision rates in other countries
I started talking to another online intactivist acquaintance to whom I shall refer using his online persona, "dreamer," about what I saw in the CIA factbook. He suggested we look up the rate of circumcision prevalence of these countries, to see what countries with a lower HIV transmission rate than the US have high and/or low circumcision prevalence rates.

He suggested we look at the Wikipedia page on world circumcision prevalence, a suggestion with which I was rather hesitant, because Wikipedia users with a pro-circumcision bias have made circumcision-related pages at Wikipedia unreliable. I went along because I couldn't think of a better source.

Even going with Wikipedia numbers, what we found kept blowing our minds.

Using adult HIV prevalence rates from the CIA Factbook, and circumcision prevalence rates in Wikipedia, dreamer created a spreadsheet that maps out countries by circumcision and HIV prevalence rates.

We were able to see what countries had higher and lower HIV prevalence rates than the US, and which of those had high and low circumcision prevalence rates.

Why the US?
Why should the US be used as any sort of benchmark?

Because America is the driving force behind the resolve to circumcise Africa, and the drive to circumcise boys and men in cultures within its own population that do not practice circumcision. American doctors, "researchers," medical organizations and charity funds are currently placing much time, effort and precious funds in trying to make circumcision prevalence levels as high as ours.

With an adult circumcision prevalence rate of 80% or greater, the United States should serve as a prime example of the "benefits" of circumcision, or lack thereof.

As highlighted on Saving Our Sons, American circumcision "researchers" keep trying to use fear-mongering tactics to shore up support for circumcision, and to get administrators of state Medicaid programs who have stopped paying for routine male infant circumcision to change their minds.

In a recent "study," it was claimed by "researchers" at Johns Hopkins that if circumcision rates drop to the level seen in Europe, that there would be a 12% increase in HIV cases in men.

Comparing HIV/circumcision statistics between the United States and Europe, one must wonder how exactly did the "researchers" arrive at their conclusion.

Researchers claim that that circumcision cuts HIV transmission rates by 55 to 65 percent, based on three African trials. Promoters of circumcision in Swalizand (with funding from PEFPAR and others) seek to circumcise 80% of the male population as a step towards the United Nations goal of zero new HIV infections by 2020. Similarly, the W.H.O. in concert with the U.N., the World Bank, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and several other very well funded and influential N.G.Os (including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), with visible leadership from Hillary Clinton, are funding, supporting and administering a multinational effort to circumcise over 28 million men in Sub Saharan Africa by 2015.

An increased rate of HIV transmission and/or prevalence should be expected in non-circumcising countries, and a decreased rate in circumcising countries, but this is simply not observed.

The following are observations from the CIA World Factbook, and circumcision prevalence rates as found in Wikipedia.


How many countries have a higher HIV prevalence than the US? What are the circumcision rates in these countries?
There are 63 countries with a higher HIV rate than the US. Of these, 26 countries are primarily circumcising countries (e.g., have a circumcision rate over 80%). 26 countries have a low circumcision rate (eg, have a circumcision rate under 20%).

Observation: The number of primarily circumcising countries, and countries with a low circumcision rate, that have a higher HIV prevalence than the US, is about the same. (26 vs. 26)

How many countries have a lower HIV prevalence than the US? What are the circumcision rates in these countries?
There are 102 countries with a lower HIV rate than the US. Of these, 30 countries are primarily circumcising countries (e.g. have a circumcision rate over 80%). 53 countries have a low circumcision rate (have a circumcision rate under 20%).

Observation: The number of countries with a circumcision rate under 20%, and a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US, is greater than the number of circumcising countries with a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US. The number of circumcising countries with a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US, is lesser than the number of intact countries with a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US. (53 vs 30)

HIV prevalence is lower in the US, where 80% of the adult male population is circumcised from birth, than 26 countries where circumcision is rare (circumcision rate is under 20%), but higher than 56 countries where circumcision is rare.

How many other countries in the world have a high circumcision rate? Is HIV prevalence higher, or lower than the US, where circumcision prevalence is high?

56 countries other than the United States have circumcision rates greater than 80%; HIV is more prevalent than the US in 26 of these countries, while less prevalent in 30 of them.

Observation: Of the countries where the circumcision rate exceeds 80%, the number of countries where HIV prevalence is lower than that of the US, is in fact greater than the number of countries  where HIV prevalence is higher than the US.

In other words, there are more circumcising countries with a HIV prevalence rate lower than the US, than there are circumcising countries with a higher HIV prevalence rate. (30 to 26)

The US does better than 26 circumcising countries, but worse than 30.

How many countries in the world have a low circumcision rate? Is HIV prevalence higher, or lower than the US, where circumcision prevalence is high?
79 countries in the world have circumcision rates under 20%. Of these, 26 have a higher HIV prevalence rate than the US, and 56 have a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US.

Observation: Of the countries where the circumcision rate falls below 20%, the number of countries where with a lower prevalence rate than the US is greater than the number of countries with a higher prevalence rate than the US.

The number of countries where the circumcision rate falls below 20% and the HIV prevalence rates are lower than the US, far exceeds the number of countries where the circumcision rate is greater than 80% and HIV prevalence rates are lower than the US. (53 to 30)

In other words, there are more countries where circumcision is rare, and have a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US, than there are circumcising countries with a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US.

Countries where circumcision rates exceed 80%, and HIV is more prevalent than the United States (By rank in HIV prevalence)

Kenya, Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, The Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Chad, Togo, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, The Gambia, Angola, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Benin

Observation: These are all African countries.

Countries where circumcision rates exceed 80%, and HIV is less prevalent than the United States (By rank in HIV prevalence)

Libya, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Israel, Bahrain, Iran, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Quatar, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan

Observation: Many of these countries are countries in the Middle East, where Islam is prevalent and children are circumcised as a matter of religious practice.

Countries where circumcision rates fall below 20%, and HIV is more prevalent than the United States (By rank in HIV prevalence)

Swaziland, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Namibia, Malawi, Burundi, Rwanda, Belize, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand, Estonia, Guyana, Ukraine, Russia, Papua New Guinea, Dominican Republic, Panama, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Latvia, Burma, Portugal

Observation: The majority of countries in the first row are African countries. A good number of these countries lie along the Caribbean Sea. European countries are rare and appear sporadically.

Countries where circumcision fall below 20%, and HIV is less prevalent than the United States (By rank in HIV prevalence)

Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Cambodia, Peru, Nepal, Switzerland, Vietnam, Ecuador, France, Chile, Spain, Moldova, Mexico, Italy, India, Iceland, Costa Rica, Canada, Belarus, Austria, Paraguay, Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Bolivia, Bhutan, United Kingdom, Belgium, Nicaragua, Laos, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Japan, Lithuania, Mongolia, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Sweden

Observation: There is a prevalence of European, South American and Asian countries. Countries where one might expect a higher HIV prevalence rate have a surprisingly low prevalence rate. Colombia and Costa Rica border Panama, which falls above the US in HIV prevalence, yet, they have a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US. Similarly, Nicaragua borders both Honduras and El Salvador, where HIV prevalence rates are higher than the US.

I expected countries to the south of the United States, have a high prevalence of HIV. I was surprised to find Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, and Bolivia in this number.

Observe how low many of these countries fall along the list as well.

Problems With This Analysis
One of the problems with this analysis is the way circumcision percentages are reported on Wikipedia. They are reported on three major ranges, which are "less than 20%," "between 20 and 80%," and "above 80%." The problem with a range between 20% and 80% is that a country may have a circumcision rate of 21% or 79%. Additionally, percentages could hide relevant numbers.

In Lesotho, for example, 23% of adult men are circumcised, so it falls within that "between 20 and 80%" range. Promoters of circumcision may try to make an example of Lesotho, because it ranks number 3 in the CIA fact book, with an HIV prevalence rate of 23.6%. Closer analysis, however, reveals that, actually, HIV  is more prevalent among the circumcised. (The ratio of circumcised men vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 22.8 vs 15.2, according to the latest demographic health survey.)

Malawi is yet another country circumcision promoters might try to make an example of, with its rank of No. 9 in the CIA fact book (11% HIV prevalence rate), and its circumcision rate below 20%. Here too, HIV is more prevalent amongst the circumcised. (The ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 13.2 vs 9.5, according to this demographic health survey.)

Rwanda is further down on the CIA fact book at No. 25, with an HIV prevalence rate of 2.9%. The low circumcision rate (less than 20%) makes Rwanda fodder for circumcision advocates, however here too, HIV  is actually more prevalent among the circumcised. (The ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 3.8 vs 2.1, according to this demographic health survey.)

Circumcision advocates are trying to make Swaziland their ultimate example, ranking No. 1 in the CIA fact book, with an HIV prevalence rate of 25.9%, and a circumcision rate that falls below 20%. What they fail to report is the fact that, yet again, HIV was actually found to be more prevalent among the circumcised. (See this demographic health survey.)

Tanzania’s circumcision rate is listed as being “between 20 and 80,” but this hides a circumcision rate of 69%. It ranks No. 12 in the CIA fact book, with an HIV transmission rate of 5.3%. And here again, HIV was more prevalent among the circumcised. (See chart here.)

Malaysia’s circumcision rate is listed as being “between 20 and 80.” However, it is a known fact that approximately 60% of the Malaysian population is Muslim, where close to 100% of the men are circumcised (circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community). According to MalaysianAIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan, more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims, which 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.

It would appear that The Philippines is a model country for promoters of circumcision. It ranks No. 147 in the CIA fact book, and a circumcision rate of over 80%. (The majority of the male population is circumcised, as it is seen as an important rite of passage.) In the 2010 GlobalAIDS report released by UNAIDS, 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 (another circumcising country, No. 112 in the CIA Factbook) are reporting increases in HIV cases, with others either stable or decreasing.

Conclusion

Researchers in Africa claim that circumcision reduces the transmission of HIV by 60%. They purport to have discovered a lower rate of HIV transmission in the circumcised men in their "studies." These studies were used by the WHO to endorse circumcision as a prevention measure for HIV, and are currently being used to instate "mass circumcision campaigns" in different countries in Africa, where HIV transmission rates are high, but circumcision rates are low.

These include countries where HIV is more prevalent among the circumcised!

Real world data reveals, however, that results from studies do not necessarily correlate with reality.

An analysis of data from the CIA Factbook, and circumcision rates as reported on Wikipedia reveals that a population where the majority of males are circumcised does not necessarily translate to a lowered rate of HIV transmission. A circumcision rate of 80% or greater does not necessarily equate to a lowered rate of HIV transmission, and a low circumcision rate does not necessarily mean that HIV will run rampant.

Further analysis reveals that just because a nation has both a low circumcision, and a high HIV transmission rate, this doesn't necessarily mean more men with foreskins have HIV; the majority of men with HIV may in fact be circumcised.

If circumcision is such a great way to prevent HIV, why isn't it obvious in this country? Why does America have an HIV transmission rate that is far greater than a good number of nations where circumcision prevalence is low? Why is it at the top of a list of 30 countries where circumcision prevalence high? What about all these other countries that are supposed to be "inferior" to us, and have both low circumcision AND an HIV prevalence rates? And why aren't "researchers" interested in what's happening there? Perhaps such countries are doing something that we aren't to keep HIV transmission low, but it seems "researchers" aren't that interested.

It needs to be explained how something that never worked in this country, is going to suddenly start working miracles in Africa. America should start fixing its own HIV problem before pretending like they can go to other countries and try to solve theirs.

My thanks to  Juan Pistolas and dreamer for their great help and inspiration for this blog post.