Clinton determined to push 28 million circumcisions

Secretary of State’s Africa tour to promote male genital mutilation; U.S. news media is silent

(AVFM News Sunday August 19, Washington D.C.) – On Wednesday, August 15th,at 11:00am U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, Counselor Sheryl Mills, United States Global AIDS Coordinator Ambassador Eric Goosby, and Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Thomas Frieden, at the Department of State.  The meeting was closed to the press and the assortment of individuals representing this combination of agencies is unusual for a State Department hearing as the CDC normally does not  concern itself with international political affairs.  However, given the recent activities of the Secretary Clinton in the past several weeks opponents of Male Genital Mutilation would have reason to be concerned with developments that could result from this meeting.

Last Friday, August 10th, Secretary Clinton wrapped up a tour of Sub Saharan Africa in Ghana which began on the 31st of last month in Senegal traveling through South Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa and Malawi.  The State Departments Press release only mentioned U.S. efforts to deal with the AIDS epidemic in Africa once and never mentioned Male Circumcision.  The trip was not extensively covered by the national media with the Washington Post releasing only one article  outlining her journey and providing whimsical reports of dancing with native women, dodging swarms of bees and braving a deadly outbreak of Ebola.  As in the State departments press release, male circumcision as a means to stop the spread of AIDS was never once mentioned.

Indeed, not one major U.S. news source has covered what is perhaps the biggest initiative ever to halt the spread of HIV AIDS; an initiative being spearheaded by the World Health Organization, the U.N. and the U.S. government.

As reported previously by AVFM News (see previous articles listed below) 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 are funding, supporting and administering a multinational effort to circumcise over 28 million men in Sub Saharan Africa by 2015.  This initiative has gained the overwhelming support of the State Department as well as the U.N. in spite of  mounting evidence that the RCTs (randomized controlled trials) performed in 2005 in Africa, which concluded that men who underwent circumcision were 60% less likely to contract HIV, were seriously flawed and administered largely by unqualified individuals with both financial and ideological conflicts of interest.

Since AVFM last reported on this topic there has been even more outrage coming not only from anti circumcision activists but from the medical community at large.  In a recent opinion piece in Open Salon penned by Judy Mandelbaum entitled “Africa’s male circumcision crusade: Boon or boondoggle?” an interview with a Dr. Ronald Goldman of the Circumcision Resource Center in Boston was featured giving a critique of the campaign currently underway in Africa.


Mandelbaum: Dr. Goldman, a number of sub-Saharan African nations have begun a crash adult circumcision program aimed at drastically reducing the incidence of HIV/AIDS among their populations. Their leaders, encouraged by foreign governments and NGOs, have apparently convinced themselves that a circumcised penis is practically immune to the virus. What effect do you think the mass circumcision of African men will actually have on suppressing the illness?

Dr. Goldman: Many professionals have questioned the reliability and validity of studies claiming that circumcision reduces HIV transmission. African national population surveys in eight countries found a higher rate of HIV infection among circumcised men compared to men who were not circumcised. There are at least 17 observational studies that have not found any benefit from male circumcision in reducing HIV transmission. Therefore, I do not expect a reduction in HIV transmission. It’s even possible that the incidence of HIV transmission will increase because the mistaken belief of protection from circumcision will result in more risk-taking sexual behavior.

The article also provides links to two studies from Pandos Eastern Africa, an NGO operating in the region promoting various forms of development, and the Australian Journal of Law and Medicine questioning not only the effectiveness of circumcision as a tool to prevent the spread of HIV but also warning that compensatory behavior by  circumcised men would be a matter of grave concern.  “In the Ugandan male-to-female trial, there appears to have been a 61% relative increase in HIV infection among female partners of HIV-positive circumcised men. Since male circumcision diverts resources from known preventive measures and increases risk-taking behaviors, any long-term benefit in reducing HIV transmission remains uncertain.”  the authors concluded.  Also featured in Open Salon article are the Ugandan male circumcision promotional posters showing an attractive woman locked in an astonished downward gaze  clasping her face in her palms with the title “You mean your not circumcised!”  and subtitle: “Stand proud get circumcised.”

While news outlets in the U.S. have been eerily quiet concerning both the circumcision drive in and Secretary Clinton’s recent visit news sources in Africa have been afire with increasingly strong criticism along with macabre tales of forced circumcision conducted by angry street mobs.

On July 8th Peter Nyoni of  Zimdiaspora, a news source in Zimbabwe, reported that HIV infections were up among circumcised participants of the ZHDS (Zimbabwe Health Demographic Survey)  and strongly implied that the current drive for male circumcision was a factor.


“The HIV prevalence rate among circumcised males between the ages of 15 and 49 in Zimbabwe is higher than that of the uncircumcised males owing to the misconception that circumcision completely shields people from HIV infection.

According to the latest Zimbabwe Health Demographic Survey (ZHDS 2010/2011), the prevalence rate among the circumcised is 14 percent while that of the uncircumcised is 12 percent.

The circumcision status of participants was established during pre-test counseling.

However, the country’s overall prevalence rate for the same age group declined to 15 from 18 percent, according to the same survey.

National Aids Council (Nac) public health officer Dr Blessing Mutede said authorities were concerned about the high rate of infection among the circumcised.

He said it was largely a result of “risk compensation behaviors”.

Most men, after circumcision, harbor the false impression that they have been equipped with an invisible condom, he added.

“It is a worrying development that at a time when we are promoting male circumcision as a preventive measure to combat HIV, we are recording a high prevalence rate amongst the group that has been circumcised largely due to uninformed risky compensation behaviors,” he said.”

Just a six weeks earlier in Zimeye, a publication much more critical of the W.H.O.’s circumcision and Zimbabwe’s acceptance of it, published an article named “Zimbabwe still falsely claiming that circumcision defeats HIV/AIDS” by an unnamed correspondent.


“Zimbabwe is still falsely claiming that the surgical circumcision operation defeats the deadly HIV/AIDS virus.

This comes after more than 5 months of media coverage exposing the method’s weakness as a competent measure.

Several US medical practitioners have in the past few months warned third world countries upon whom the United Nations suggested the method, that they should not have their citizens deceive on circumcision and its supposed benefits.

The ministry of health is deceiving people by announcing to them that once they are circumcised, they become immune to HIV/AIDS effectively encouraging them to engage in promiscuity. Instead of reducing the risk, circumcision has been tested through behavior change to actually be a protagonist of HIV transmission, critics state.

One recent randomized controlled trial carried out in South Africa into male-to-female transmission actually demonstrated a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised.”

The article does not cite the source of the “recent study” , however, there is a clear suggestion that empirical evidence shows the program to circumcise a large proportion of men in Sub Saharan Africa has already resulted in the unnecessary infection of HIV in circumcised individuals.

Most disturbing are reports from Uganda where hysterical mobs are performing crude circumcisions upon unwilling random men in the streets in order to quell fears of HIV infection among their womenfolk.  On June 20, The Africa Report published an article by Godfrey Olukya titled “Storm Brews over Forced Circumcision in Uganda” which  documented an incident in which an angry group of men chased down a man  in order to forcibly remove his foreskin simply because he was suspected of having sex with a female member of their tribe.


“The Ugandan town of Mbale was brought to a standstill on Tuesday afternoon, as a naked man ran through the streets, with more than 50 men in pursuit. He was fleeing a forced circumcision.

Only identified as Deo, the man sought sanctuary from the Resident District Administrator, as the men and a local scalpel-wielding surgeon gave chase.

Deo survived the forced circumcision after guards at the administrator’s office were able to disperse his assailants, but that was not before other men had fallen victim to the enforced surgical operation.

More than 40 men of various ages have been subjected to the cut in the last two days, as the town goes through a general circumcision programme, but this has faced widespread protests.”

Even more disturbing is a June 20 report by Paul Watala from News Vision, claimed to be Uganda’s leading news daily news source, which describes scenes of police having to use teargas in order to disperse angry mobs who are carrying out forced circumcisions.  A photograph in the article shows a man undergoing such a procedure being videotaped by a participant in the mutilation.



“Police in Mbale have fired teargas and deployed heavily to disperse hooligans forcefully circumcising people on the streets including non-Bamasaba.

The District Police Commander, Michael Angucia Wednesday vowed to crack down the hooligans who are causing insecurity in the town.

“I am not trying to fight the culture of the Bamasaba but the way the practice is handled may cause tribal conflicts. Several people have fled the town, property robbed and business is being paralyzed,” Angucia said.

“We have deployed on the streets to arrest the hooligans,” Angucia added.

He said that several groups of such people have taken advantage of the cultural festival of the Bamasaba to force whoever they suspect to have not been circumcised.

Angucia said that due to public outcry from the people and local leaders, police had no alternative but to provide security on the streets to restore serenity in town, adding that some people have fled town and abandoned business in Mbale main garage.

It is estimated that a total number of about 220 people have been circumcised from the time the exercise began date.”

As mentioned above not one major U.S news source has bothered to mention the growing criticism of circumcision as a tool to prevent the spread of HIV or the State Department’s gusto in supporting such efforts.  The only U.S. based news organization that covered Secretary Clinton’s efforts to support the drive for Male Genital Mutilation in Africa was  All Africa, a Washington D.C. news source that covers African news exclusively.

A July 25 article by Roselyne Sachiti (published shortly before her African trip)  entitled “Clinton Hails Legislators’ Circumcision” covers Clinton’s speech at the 19th annual international AIDS Conference held in Washington with 20,000 attending. In the speech she praised 40 parliamentarians in Zibabwe who underwent circumcision in order to promote the WHO.’s  circumcision drive.


“She described the team as true leaders who should be applauded for their role in the HIV and Aids fight.

Addressing 20 000 delegates gathered here for the XIX International Aids Conference, Mrs. Clinton said Zimbabwean lawmakers were a good example of political leadership’s commitment in the HIV and Aids management.

She said they supported more than 400 000 male circumcision procedures since last December alone and hoped to do more through different grants.

“. . .We want the world to know that this procedure reduces the risk of female-to-male transmission by more than 60 percent and for the rest of the man’s life, so the impact can be phenomenal.

“In Zimbabwe, some male lawmakers wanted to show their constituents how safe and virtually painless the procedure is, so they went to a mobile clinic and got circumcised.

“That’s the kind of leadership we welcome. And we are also seeing the development of new tools that would allow people to perform the procedure with less training and equipment than they need today without compromising safety,” he said.

Mrs. Clinton challenged other countries to support the Global Fund in the fight against HIV and Aids, TB and malaria. She announced an additional US$80 million to support innovative approaches that ensure HIV positive pregnant women get treatment they need to protect themselves, their babies and partners.

“An additional US$15 million for implementation research to identify the specific interventions that are most effective for key populations, US$20 million to launch a challenge fund that will support country-led plans to expand services for their key populations and US$2 million investment in the Robert Carr Society Service Network Funds to bolster the efforts of civil society groups in addressing key populations,” she said.”

The money that Secretary Clinton has pledged is in addition to the already estimated half billion that the WHO and other organizations have already dedicated to the circumcision drive.

A man is forcibly circumcised in Mbale, Uganda Photo by Paul Watala

On a stop to Uganda during her African trip the Independent, another Ugandan News source, covered an August 3 stop to Reach Out Mbuya Parish HIV/AIDS Initiative (ROM), a center for AIDS outreach in that country in an article entitled “Tackling HIV diferently”.  Her apearence followed a visit with President Yoweri Museveni in which she presented the UPDF Special Forces with 12 Raven unmanned aircraft for use in Somalia where Uganda is participating in an effort to pacify that country.  The article describes a crowd of people waiting to listen to Clinton address the clinic where she talked about retro-viral therapy and other methods to stop the spread of AIDS .  Also waiting in line were a group of young men who were there to undergo circumcision.


“Another client, Jasper Magezi, had come for something else. Magezi had been told that circumcision could save him from contracting HIV. On the day of Clinton’s visit, he was among those lined up for circumcision. During the pre-circumcision counseling session, Magezi said, he was told that in case he were to be exposed to HIV during sex after circumcision, he stood chances of escaping getting infecting. He was also told, however, that he would still need to continue using condoms and stick to one sexual partner. But one thing kept nagging him; was the pain he was about to suffer worth it?”

A ROM official identified only as “Talisuna” spoke of a program funded by the CDC named the “Discordant Couples Intervention.”  A program mentioned by recipients of circumcision funding all over Africa which encourages the circumcision of married men in order to curb the spread of HIV and bring men into a so called clinical setting so they can be “educated” about domestic violence.  The rational behind the program ties the prevalence of HIV to male perpetrated domestic violence and the supposed out of control infidelity of African men.  No scientific studies have been conducted to support such an association between male perpetrated domestic violence and HIV infection and there are no studies that quantify the supposed infidelity of African husbands.

AVFM will be covering developments at the  State Department and the CDC in regards to any developments concerning circumcision as a means to prevent the spread of HIV both in Africa and the U.S.



About Robert O'Hara

Bob O'Hara is the U.S. News Director for A Voice for Men. He is a men's rights activist living in the Washington, D. C. area who has done work with S.A.V.E. and is the host of a weekly radio show with news and analysis on men's and boys' issues.

View All Posts
  • Christian “xXToYeDXx” Chiasson

    A bit of skin is what transmits HIV? I had no idea. I’ve been needlessly susceptible this whole time.

    Seriously, whoever thinks that removing skin from any part of the body will help prevent infection or disease in any way needs to have their head examined. It’s ridiculous that in this day in age, with all our breakthroughs in medical research, some among us still consider procedures on par with blood letting to be effective.

    What about the potential for infection during the healing process when the wound is still open and exposed?

    What about the increase in transmission caused by an increase in promiscuous sexual activity under the false assumption that one is now immune?

    The thought that an extra bit of skin at the end of the penis is what increases transmission is asinine and delusional. And yet we can’t simply say that these are just ramblings by fringe extremists. This is Hillary Clinton, the W.H.O, the CDC and others with just as much swaying power in the political and medical arenas. Humanity is fucked.

  • MrStodern

    I have one thing to say about this:

    Even if there was a literal mountain of evidence that mutilating a woman’s genitals made her completely and utterly immune to HIV infection, not one person in the U.S. government would publicly support widespread female genital mutilation in any country. Ever.

    This isn’t about what will work and what won’t. It’s about what people are willing to do to men that they’re not willing to do to women. Period.

  • MrStodern

    I do not support such an action whatsoever.

    And besides that, it wouldn’t affect her stance on male genital mutilation one bit. She’d just get on a soapbox and talk about FEMALE genital mutilation, and how horrible it is.

    • MrStodern

      I suggest you get lost, actually.

      • Raven01

        Femmie troll?
        I’d ignore him/her. It isn’t like he/she is bringing any value to the discussion.

      • Raven01

        First off princess it is “wit” not “whit”.
        And, “You were” not, “You was”, so I don’t think the issue of incoherent responses lies with either myself or MrStodern.
        Also asshat, check the ToS here in regard to espousing violence as a solution. It is unacceptable and repugnant.
        Being mad, Irate and angry are perfectly understandable and, acceptable. Your contribution is neither understandable or acceptable from anyone over the age of 6.

      • MrStodern

        @king1: I have no tolerance for those who advocate violence. Coherent enough for you?

        Relying on a retroactive tongue-in-cheek claim isn’t going to work.

      • Raven01

        Since you STILL missed it king1.
        “We support and endorse only non-violent reactions to feminist governance and in fact are trying to head off future acts of violence that feminist governance is sure to foment.”
        “9. Anti-violent- AVfM supports only peaceful change on all levels of human interaction; social, political and otherwise.”
        “10. Pro Free Speech- In this, there is a distinction between editorial and commenting policies. All manner of dissent and expression, with the sole exception of violence, or the ideation of violence, will be tolerated. Some conditions on this will be explained in the comments policy.”

        End of discussion, further trolling will be ignored. I’ve done my bit in warning you of the consequences of continuing to be an asshat.

  • Arvy

    It’s an integral and essential part of the sponsor’s self-appointed mission of spreading “freedom and democracy” amongst the less civilised peoples of the planet whether they want that particular version of it or not. If you don’t like it and won’t accept it peaceably, we have plenty of (circumcised) armed men whom we can send to back it up.

    It’s all for your own good, don’t your see? Besides, it’s a necessary practice exercise for the next step in sanitizing your male genitals. Now line up all you guys like good little boy slaves. The doctor (witchdoctor?) will be with you shortly.

  • Perseus

    This amounts to one thing. We will gladly sacrifice millions of males, if it has just a remote possibility of benefiting a single female.

    Hillary, mommy has a scalpel and you’ve got some skin hanging in places where it shouldn’t.. come to mommy..

  • Skeptic

    Thanks Robert for a thoroughly researched update.
    Proof, if ever it were needed that Hillary Clinton is literally a Demasculinizing Feminist.
    I wonder if she’s still pissed at Bill for ‘not having sex with that woman’ and acting out.

  • Perseus

    This is unfuckingbelievable. This is a horror beyond horrors. This is the epitome of the Orwellian horrors. Some loudmouth cunt politician on the news directing men in horrified terror to be hunted down with a scalpel. 28 m-i-l-l-i-o-n Men and Boys. I cannot stomach it. When I imagine being that man, those boys, running in terror of being held against my will with a scalpel carving up my genitals……. well, the Feminists have succeeding in bringing the horror films to life.

    No quarter. No relent.

    If there was ever any question as to whether feminists held any empathy for men, lay that to rest right now.

    • MrStodern

      You’re clearly trying to egg us on. Isn’t going to work very well, because unlike the feminists, we actually attempt to weed out those who would advocate what we stand against: violence.

  • rorschach

    A friend of mine is about to become a father. I met up with them recently and the topic of circumcision came up.

    Luckily they are having a girl because his wife was adamant that if they had a son he would be circumcised. She made the usual excuses – hygiene and appearance. According to her it’s cleaner and it “looks better”. She didn’t accept any of my points – washing covers hygiene, and if appearance is a “valid” argument for cutting off body parts … there are plenty of labias around the world that could do with some extensive trimming. Of course that wasn’t “the same thing at all”. She also refused to accept that this kind of thing should be an informed choice – if her son wanted it when he was older then it would be his body, his choice.

    I hope if my friend has more children that they are also daughters. From what I saw in the argument I think she would have no hesitation in arranging it for when my friend was at work so he would come home to find his son mutilated even though his feelings are clear on the subject.

    (The content mentioned in the article above is sickening, more horrors from feminists and far too many women in general – it’s just like the laughing and gloating over men who have had their penises cut off)

    • MrStodern

      “there are plenty of labias around the world that could do with some extensive trimming.”

      There’s women who actually have such procedures done. Of course they get to volunteer for it, since they’re women.

    • The Real Peterman

      Okay a mother shouldn’t be so concerned with the appearance of her son’s penis. That’s a little weird to me. “Hey son, penis is lookin’ good there!”

      • MrStodern

        I don’t think the intent is so that her son can feel good about having a better looking penis. I think any mother who would do such a thing to her son harbors some hatred for men.

        And as a man who is uncircumcised, I can tell you that having a foreskin does not instantly turn a penis into the ugliest thing you’ve ever seen. Especially since the foreskin can pull itself back once the penis is erect.

        • orry

          “I don’t think the intent is so that her son can feel good about having a better looking penis.”

          You’re right. It’s not about her son’s feelings at all. It’s about her feeling good, not her son. It’s all about appearance, looks, and image. Functionality, empathy, and most importantly, choice, doesn’t even enter her mind.

      • John A

        I know plenty of mothers that were obsessed with their infant sons penises. If a man carried on like they did he would have supervised visits only, if at all.

    • JGteMolder

      Make her watch the circumcision videos, and others. Perhaps hearing the screams of horrific pain coming from the boy and imagining her son going through such horror might just hopefully reignite her turned off maternal instincts.

  • Raven01

    28 million mostly adult circumcisions.
    How many jars of old hag pretending to still be young and a high demand sexual commodity does that translate into I wonder?

    • MrStodern

      Wait, what? Are you saying various skin creams use material from severed foreskins?

      That would help explain MGM remaining so common…

    • J3DIforce1

      Make no mistake. There will probably be a lot of female facial cream coming out of this.

      • MrStodern

        Maybe after MGM finally gets outlawed in the U.S., I can start up a business where I help women fight the effects of aging by charging them to rub my penis on their face. Why severe the foreskin and grind it up when you experience the potency of it in tact, as nature intended?

  • Bombay

    It is appropriate that Hillary is presented with a lamp having a shade made out of African foreskins in recognition of her contributions. This would be a good political cartoon……..

  • John the Other


    Your username, email, and IP address have been blocked from further comment on this site. NO advocation of violence is tolerated here. Thank you for your kind attention, you fuckwit.

  • The Real Peterman

    A politician just said that a woman who is raped can’t get pregnant and was thoroughly mocked. He should have said that a circumcised man can’t contract AIDS; he would have been given billions of dollars.

  • Dean Esmay

    This subject makes me so sick I couldn’t read it. (And no, I don’t mean the flipping out dork who doesn’t understand what “non-violent” means, I mean the actual topic at hand.)

    I guess I’m too sensitive a soul, but some things that appear here, I look at them and I just have to stop reading before I get sick. The casual way the culture endorses this mutilation is beyond belief. The words “it’s just a flap of skin” make me want to punch a wall and/or vomit.

    When my ex- and I were still together, one thing I will always, always credit her for (and actually, despite past acrimony, there’s more than one thing to credit her for) were both totally in agreement on this subject when it came to our sons. And what amazed was how bullied and harassed we were by the hospital staff, most particularly the nurses, to get it done. Do you know how many times we had to say “no?” It was sick. And do you know how many snarky comments we still got about it? At one point, after I had said “no” I about four times and my ex- had said “no” I don’t even know how many times (she reported multiple instances of being pestered about it even after we had signed papers that clearly said NO CIRCUMCISION), I actually had another nurse ask me and I said “if you chop my son’s dick we’ll fucking sue you into the stone age.” She got a scared-rabbit look and scurried off. Good. They didn’t ask again.

    We currently know a woman who had repeatedly said no but while in a drugged stupor and tired soon after giving birth got bullied into saying “yes.” Fucking assholes.

    • MrStodern

      Does the procedure cost like $400 or something? Because that would help explain why they’d pester you about it so much. If it’s cheap, then they’re just a bunch of misandric douchebags, pure and simple.

      Actually, they’re misandric douchebags anyway.

    • Elizabeth Hayes

      I’ve found a story that got to me so much that I was a wreck for days, the situation is horrific enough but the way it was reported and the people justifying it, it’s the closest I’ve come to just giving up, there’s nothing I can do about it. You can’t just press the X and it goes away, this shit is everywhere. And feminists have the nerve to sit there all smug on national telly, claiming to be oppressed by a bloody word while smiling in that “I have no real problems and I’m getting paid to tell you I’m a second class citizen” way.

  • Kimski

    There’s no difference between this and the trading of smallpox ridden clothing to the native americans.
    It serves one purpose, and one purpose only: Genocide.

    This is just another way of effectively reducing a population, and it has been done throughout history, in more or less insidious ways.

    Hillary Clinton is or were a proven member of the Skull and Bones, and this fact rises some very legitimate questions about the purpose of the continuing media support of feminism.

    Now, imagine this woman as head of state in the US.

    • Sting Chameleon

      Secret societies or not, the intent of these maniacs is pretty transparent for anyone with a functioning brain: If African men become convinced they’ll be immune against HIV by getting circumcised, they’ll ramp up the fucking and contract it en-masse. Which is great for population control and boosting the profits of the pharmaceutical companies.

      • Kimski

        This should be listed under ‘Genocidal Profiteering’.

  • J3DIforce1

    Check this video out fellas. Its pure satire but you can tell by the comments section and down votes people are not making the conection of its message. Look at the reasons the video gives for female circumcision. Look familiar? All the statements, quotes and reasons for male circumcision are used in this video and reversed to see how people would react if it was coming the other way. And as you can see, the attitude is VERY different. Males do not matter in the west.

  • jms5762

    What’s really fucking funny is the number of politicos and intellectuals participating in this “debate”. Just reading it and I can psyhosomaticly smell the bullshit. Hillary sold her soul for that job.

    • MrStodern

      “Hillary sold her soul for that job.”

      Possibly. I would say she sucked cock for it, but I doubt she’s gotten anywhere near her husband since he got caught getting his cock sucked by an intern.

      • jms5762

        Her ambition is probably one reason she didn’t file for divource from him.

  • GE

    This is my canned response to the topic :-

    The foreskin of the penis and the hood of the clitoris are both called the prepuce and are the anatomically equivalent body parts that exist in most primates, and hence exist in humans.

    Because they are anatomically equivalent, I (naively) expect relative comparisons between the 2 genders in discussions around hygiene concerns, increased likelihood of disease and social attitudes to its removal. However this is not the case.

    Hygiene Concerns
    Many byproducts build up under both the male and female prepuce to produce smegma. This is a continuous process, regardless of the frequency of prepuce retraction and cleaning and it affects both male and female prepuces.

    From my readings I see there are 2 main reasons for the increase in disease. The first is that the folds of skin hold the disease carrying substance closer, allowing more opportunity for the disease to enter the body. The other is that prepuce is rich in nerve cells (for sexual stimulation) and these nerve cells are pathways for the disease to enter the body. Neither reason is gender specific.

    Social Attitudes
    The World Health Organization (WHO) has, as one of the definitions of Type 1 (the most serious form of ) Female Genital Mutilation/ Cutting (FGM/C) as – Excision of the prepuce.

    UNICEF states in their publication on this topic that –

    1. FGM/C is a fundamental violation of human rights.
    2. FGM/C is, further, an extreme example of discrimination based on sex
    3. As stated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, all actions concerning children should be undertaken in the best interests of the child (article 3.1)……. While ‘the best interests of the child’ may be subject to cultural interpretation, FGM/C is an irreparable, irreversible abuse and therefore violates girls’ right to protection.

    The publication then goes on to state –

    1. In the majority of countries that have included questions regarding type of FGM/C, excision of the prepuce (Type 1) is found to be the most common.

    Substituting the collective term for the procedures which are deemed to be FGM/C with the most common procedure (as stated in the report) gives:-
    1. Removal of the prepuce is a fundamental violation of human rights.
    2. Removal of the prepuce is, further, an extreme example of discrimination based on sex
    3. As stated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, all actions concerning children should be undertaken in the best interests of the child (article 3.1)……. While ‘the best interests of the child’ may be subject to cultural interpretation, Removal of the prepuce is an irreparable, irreversible abuse and therefore violates girls’ right to protection.

    So the WHO and UNICEF consider the removal of the female prepuce a violation of human rights, children’s rights and ‘an extreme example of discrimination based on sex’ . The discussion stops at these foundation principles. There is no further comparison about the relative merits (disease prevention, hygiene, sexual performance – all of which seem to be gender independent) of having the female prepuce removed versus having it intact.

    Working under the presumption that males are also human beings and using the precedence set for the female prepuce I conclude that all the same violations of human and children’s rights also applies to the procedure of removing the male prepuce, commonly known as male circumcision.

    • kiwihelen

      GE, great response. I come from a culture with very low rates of MGM. I still react with shock at the idea of cutting off foreskins.
      I wonder if we could get an Freedom of Information done in local health trusts as to the rates of MGM, both just after birth and in young boys who are in the sole care of women. My brother and I had an interesting convo about his teaching his sons to ‘look after their tackle’, because as a doctor he realised that it wasn’t just about saying ‘wash it’. I do wonder how many late circumcisions happen because of no education on hygiene

      • GE

        I have got to question the hygiene sub-topic.

        I have a child of each gender. I do not think I read in any child care literature that my wife and I, while caring for my daughter as an infant/small child, were suppose to retract her prepuce and remove the smegma beneath it.

        Similarly, while I observe my wife in the shower/bath, she does not appear to specifically retract and clean under her prepuce.

        This begs the question – Why is such an issue about hygiene made about males and not females. I also welcome any comments from females regarding their prepuce hygiene regime.

  • John A

    That picture of the African man being publicly mutilated should make its way onto some posters.

    – His crime? Possession of a concealed foreskin in a public place.

    – Punishment? Painful removal and public humiliation.

    It’s a man’s world, right? Men need human rights too…

  • ActaNonVerba

    Women are more apt to catch and spread disease. Women are by far more apt to formally (they all do indirectly) to use their genitals as a compensated occupation (thereby transmitting their diseases far and wide.

    A feminized culture equals HUGE government, ever increasing intrusion into people’s personal space and liberties, and a truckload of misandry. There is very little I would consider “too harsh” in response to these terrible women and their traitorous brainwashed male allies.

  • jms5762

    Why not offer money for harvesting the tissue? Can it be grown from stem cells?

  • DerickBurton

    This is utter insanity. Can anyone think of a genuine reason why they would be doing this? I mean, you would think that common sense would prevail and they would understand that people are going to take this a a license to rawdog. Why on earth would the US spend so much money on this? I just can’t understand it at all.

    • Patricia Robinett

      Derick, do you REALLY want to know? The answer is not pretty.

      • Lawrence Newman

        I’d like to know.

  • outdoors

    Ms. Clinton should lead by example and be first in line.


  • Shrek6

    I have a couple of points to make regarding the hygiene aspect of Circumcision and the reasons it eventuated in the first place.
    And please forgive me for making this a bit too long.

    Let’s go back several thousand years to when a nation was walking across the desert heading for the ‘Promise land’, being guided by Moses after being freed from the Egyptians.

    During that 40 years, there was not a lot of water around and because they were living on the road, so to speak, there were no real bathing facilities available. Which caused problems with being able to wash oneself properly.

    There was a time when many men began to get infections under their foreskin and they were passing these infections on to the women in their lives. So, as was also the case with stopping people from drinking blood and eating Pork because they died from diseases, Moses ordered it to be a ‘Religious’ law, that all men/boys be circumcised, to prevent the cause and spread of infections.
    Back in those days, if you wanted to get the people to do anything that was radical, you had to make it a religious law, otherwise they would refuse to do it.

    Then after time circumcision became a symbol of a kind of baptism or initiation rule into the faith of the Israelites. It was expected of all males to be circumcised, if they were to be seen and respected in the community. This practice was not right, but continued nonetheless.

    Now let’s skip forward a few thousand years.

    We see the time of Our Lord Jesus, who had just recently been crucified and his fledgling church was still trying to find its feet.

    Along comes a hater of the Christian Faith and he set about killing all he could get his hands on. Somewhere on the road to Damascus, this angry Christian hater was knocked off of his horse and blinded. He was given instructions by Jesus, on where to go and who to see to regain his sight. Following these instructions, he not only regained his sight, he was also completely transformed/converted from a hater of Christianity, into possibly the greatest Apostle who ever lived.

    Move forward a little bit more in time. Saint Paul argued with the original Apostles over the law regarding circumcision and said that The Lord’s Church is for ‘All Mankind’ not just those who are circumcised and that being uncircumcised did not mean the men were unclean.

    It was eventually ruled by the head of the church, the first Pope, St. Peter, that what St. Paul had said was correct and anyone circumcised or not, would be welcomed into the Church.

    It was also a given, that in the more modern times of the Apostles, that the question of hygiene was no longer an issue and no diseases were being spread around by those communities who were not Jews.

    In summary, the reasons for circumcision ‘WERE ALL DEALT WITH’ around 2000 years ago and circumcision should NOT HAVE EXISTED since that period.

    To use religion or hygiene as a reason for circumcision today, is not only fallacious, it is intrinsically evil. There is no good in it at all, and all it serves to do is to mutilate and leave the boy and man suffering the loss of a part of their body that WAS MEANT TO BE THERE!

    Furthermore, AIDS is transmitted by bodily fluids, not by germs that live under the foreskin. Or, have we been lied to all these years about AIDS being a blood borne disease??

    Sorry if the lecture went on a little long, but I am no good at precise writing.

    • ricky2B

      Water projects to bring that priceless liquid to far corners of Africa would be an admirable undertaking. Yet the charlatans much prefer a project to impose partial penis amputations on men and even school boys rounded up without parental consent. The RCTs did not prove anything, and are not valid even as “indicators” when it comes to young boys.

  • Bunny

    One quick bit of information, the issue with being uncircumcised is NOT HYGIENE. Researchers have claimed that the skin tissue on the male prepuce is different from the rest of the penis – maybe easier for small abrasions to occur and maybe even able to absorb some viral infections directly through the skin. That being said, some guy up there wondered about women not being told to pull back their prepuce – WELL for one thing it’s a tiny shallow area and when you wash it shouldn’t be necessary to ‘pull back’ and also you can’t really pull it back! There’s a thread of skin in the center that keeps the ‘glans’ of the clitoris from emerging, as the glans of a penis will from a foreskin. Also, there are hundreds of millions of women in the world who HAVE had their prepuce removed, and in most cases their entire clitoris cut off – so don’t complain so much.

    Being circumcised has NOT done anything to stop the spread of in the U.S. – not having unprotected sex with multiple partners does. Not raping half the population, even though you have HIV, does. How would this help WOMEN? The DRC/congo rates #5 on the list of countries with the highest levels of HIV and the MAIN cause of the spread there is rape. In South Africa a woman is more likely to be raped than know how to read. All it takes is a SINGLE man with HIV to infect up to hundreds of women. Rape leads to abrasions on both the victim and the perpetrator making both very likely to be infected with HIV if the other is infected.

    You’re also talking about some groups within Africa who don’t even believe HIV causes AIDS! It’s also highly doubtful they would wait until that wound was fully healed to engage in sex, making them 100% vulnerable to contracting aids.

    • Paul Elam

      “Also, there are hundreds of millions of women in the world who HAVE had their prepuce removed, and in most cases their entire clitoris cut off – so don’t complain so much.”

      FUCK YOU.

      And fuck everyone like you with the incredible arrogance to play zero sum games with peoples lives. If I have a problem with something I am going to make my voice known about it, whether one woman had her clitoris removed, or every last one of them on the planet.

      Get this, men have issues that need discussion. We are not here to wait at the back of your fucking bus for permission to talk about them when you think your needs have been adequately served.

      Now fuck off you arrogant, entitled piece of shit.

    • Suzanne McCarley

      “…so don’t complain so much.”

      Why don’t you just say what you really mean?

      “Genital mutilation is terrible, and you men can tag along if you want but it’s really about the women”

      This is how you SUPPORT the activism against male genital mutilation? You just couldn’t help qualifying your factual statements with that smug little dig at Teh Menz, could you? News flash, Bitch, this is A Voice for MEN, one of the few places on this whole damn planet where men aren’t required to bow down and let the Almighty Vagina move to the front of the line. You can take YOUR skanky ass to the back of the bus, sit the fuck down, and shut the fuck up. Or better yet, get off the bus altogether and walk. You’re Empowered enough to do that, right?

  • TLCTugger

    Foreskin feels REALLY good.

  • Patricia Robinett

    Circumcision is about social control. It’s a way to cow the people into not questioning authority. That is one sick lady who would want to manipulate men into circumcision. Only someone who hates men could do that. Figures.

    • Lawrence Newman

      I think circumcision being legal is simply a result of males not being seen as worthy of protection. It’s always been the case, despite what feminists like to think.

  • Minerverse

    A doctor suggests to a young couple that instead of circumcising their infant girl, perhaps he can just do a ceremonial nick, less invasive than an ear piercing, to satisfy tradition. Feminists go bat shit fucking crazy talking about women’s right to bodily integrity. Even a nick is too much, they say. Yet when a man says that he wishes he had not been circumcised and that he believes male circumcision is wrong, some feminist turns it into an argument about female genital integrity. He gets lambasted and called a whiner. Get over it, they say, it’s just a piece of skin. It’s probably good for you. It looks ugly anyway.

    It’s this kind of shit that make me believe there is little hope for humanity. Even if male circumcision prevented AIDS altogether, you would have NO RIGHT to force a male to be circumcised. And here we are, mutilating a group of men based on wonky “science”. I swear, I want off this stupid rock.

  • Damn-Deal-Done

    The same bat-shit crazy cunt that said Women are the real victims of war because they lose their husbands.

  • Lawrence Newman

    I was circumcised (nice euphemism) at 14 for pseudomedical reasons. It destroys sexual pleasure. Most mutilated men were mutilated at birth or in prepubescence so are ignorant about what they’ve lost. The foreskin has been proven to be where almost all erogenous nerves are located. Taking off the foreskin is disastrous, which is why I now have a numb dildo and erectile dysfunction. Circumcised men are at 4-5 times higher risk of ED.

    Hilary clinton is a cunt. An obvious product of positive discrimination in a gynocentric society.