Quickpost: Rwanda, desperate and vulnerable, succumbs to circumcision hysteria; US promotes genital mutilation

Rwanda is the latest country to succumb to circumcision hysteria in the face of failed efforts at behavior modification, condom distribution, and international indifference to the poor implementation of ARV therapies.

The United States will provide funds to promote the genital mutilation even as its own rates fall.

Comments

[IntactwhitemaleUSA]

"...said the program initially would target the army, police and higher education students (Musoni, New Times/AllAfrica.com, 9/20)."
Read: Men in the Army, Police, and College students will most likely lose their advancement opportunities, or scholarship if they don't submit to be circumcised. This is coersion, something circ promoters supposedly said would be disallowed.
Africa is lost. Circumcision, and new HIV cases, will soar. It didn't have to be this way; we have, however, a President and Congress that practice "Faith-based medicine". From where I sit, we have five goals:

1. Continue to educate the public. This is best done by exposing the wild claims the promoters of circ make in this country and especially abroad. Most of the public won't understand the "science" behind circumcision as an HIV prevention tool, but a couple of outrageous statements tend to get burned into people's minds.
2. Curtail the promotion of circ in countries with low HIV prevalence. A spanish language version of this site and ones like it is needed, pronto!
3. Push for criminal prosecutions of the men promoting this surgery. I have little doubt that false confidence will cause millions to go to an early grave. Make it clear to those charlatans touting circ that there are going to be legal consequences for their actions.
4. All out push to shame big pharma into a vaccine for HIV. They have thousands of ARVs, why no vaccine or cure? Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
5. After the storm: any way we can, help these countries where circ is being done now to NOT pass it on to their boys. Mothers are bring their little sons into clinics to have it done now. What does that say about the fight we are facing?

[J]

It will be difficult, I think, to curtail the barrage and misinformation campaign being directed towards the Africans. Remember that we are dealing, essentially, uneducated people who have little access to factual information. Unfortunately, access to a site like this would be difficult for many Africans and in general they must rely on government propaganda and other forms of hearsay.

Although I can't seem to wrap my head around most of this crap, the most obvious fallacy I see is simply the cost factor. As I've mentioned in previous comments a circumcision will cost enough condoms to last a man about six years how is that good policy? Then it occurred to me that circumcision fits very nicely into the so called 'faith-based' HIV prevention programs currently promoted by the administration. I mean here is a way they can attempt to curtail the spread of HIV, though we know it will have no impact, in such a way that it does not promote sex. I mean if someone comes in asking for a condom I pretty much know what his, or her, next stop will be. Conversely, if a guy comes in for a circumcision well at least we know he may be out of business for at least a month. It's what is known in the business as "plausible deniability". The agencies can look like they are doing something without the appearance of promoting promiscuity, which many constituents believe condoms essentially do. That plus the fact that the those in the US are always looking for a justification to circumcise makes it an easy sell. I know that does sound insane but so does circumcision.

I think others have grudgingly gone along with this in part because the US wields a significant influence on most world organizations and many are frustrated with the HIV problem in Africa and have essentially capitulated to the fact that 'these people can't be educated' and have broken down to grasping at anything. The people of Africa most affected by this are also frustrated and again will grasp at anything. The problem with that is I can't fathom the conversation; don't get circumcised but you need a condom or get circumcised and you need a condom. How does this produce a yes? It only makes sense if a person does not believe they need a condom after the fact because in either state my best, and required, means of self protection simply do not change. It reminds me of a passage I recently read:

"The ultimate factor in choosing is common sense, and it is common sense that men under pressure lose fastest..."