The proponents of male circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV are populated with researchers who hold mixed motives. They are known for intentionally sowing confusion, cherry picking their data, and dismissively waiving off any dissenters. It is pretty well accepted among human rights activists that they are not just behind the promotion of the practice in Africa, but also the attempt to roll back the falling rates of infant circumcision in the United States.
To the unschooled, these people appear objective. They work very hard to come across that way. To many scientists and researchers in the field, they are creepily overly enthusiastic for what appear to be half measures, and one half measure in particular.
It is hard to divine their motives. However, it is likely a combination of sexual and cultural attachment. Like a child molester who becomes a school teacher of children, these men, and a few women, have become proponents of their particular fetish in the fuzzy science of epidemiologists.
Two videos illustrate this point. The first is a critique of Stephen Lewis's passionate praise of forced male circumcision for helpless infants who cannot consent or even understand what's happening to them. You'll have to judge for yourself which makes you cringe more, creepy Mr. McCreepy himself, Stephen Lewis, who is not a scientist, but a politician and former diplomat, or the strong language at the end.
The next video is an unexpected and telling revelation from Stephen Lewis. He describes his "orgy of male bonding" experience over a discussion of his own circumcision with a group of circumcised Zambians. Need we anymore proof that Lewis is less than dispassionate and clearly biased? It starts at approximately the 1:55 mark although I recommend you watch the whole video to fully appreciate Lewis's lack of dispassion and objectivity, appropriate to public health policy.
