“Intactivist” Group Lobbies CDC Against Circumcision
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is preparing to issue new recommendations regarding circumcision and its supposed ability to low the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.
One new group hopes to have a big voice in the circumcision debate. Intact America is based in New York and backed by a pro-intact Texas millionaire.
Circumcision rates are currently at about 50 percent in the States, with rates varying dependent on region. Intactivists worry that if government officials choose to rely on select African studies, the circumcision rate will again begin to rise.
- » See also: Fleurville Bags: Eco-friendly, Family-friendly…and Sexy?!
- » Get Eco Child’s Play by RSS or sign up by email.
The main studies in question show that circumcised men in Africa, a continent with a phenomenal AIDs infection rate, have a significantly lower rate of HIV infection than the general population. However, intactivists point out, many men circumcised there are for religious reasons; because they’re Muslim or occasionally Christian. So then, are they contracting fewer STDs because they’re circumcised or because they’re pious?
Indeed, one study shows that the rate of prostitutes in a population is a better indicator of the STD rate than is the rate of circumcision.
Intact America leader Georganne Chapin says circumcision is an issue of integrity,
Circumcision is inhumane - not just for the baby but for the parents and the doctors who do it.
Her group hopes to meet with the CDC in the next month.
Psst: You may remember that I don’t agree with circumcision. Click hear to learn why.
Image: Thanks to Jen on Cake Wrecks.
I agree circumcision is painful and disturbing.
Foreskin isn’t extra skin, it plays many roles and is the most erogenous part of penis.
Ms. Nelson,
I believe you have done this important post a disservice by including an image associating this with issues of religion. For that reason I will not be promoting this post. Including the Intact America symbol, instead, would have made this a great little article.
There is scientifice evidence that circumcised men are less likely to contract HIV/AIDS then those who are uncircumcised and it has nothing to do with being pious. It has to do with the thickness of the skin in circumcised men (its more thick and therefore less pourous than those of circumcised men). I am for keeping babies intact (my own son is intact). However, having worked in Southern Africa where the rate of HIV/AIDS is 40% even after years of condom campaigns, I do think that voluntary surgery of adult men is a perfectly sound intervention to control the spread and morbidity of HIV/AIDS.
It’s illegal to cut off a girl’s prepuce, or to make any incision on a girl’s genitals, even if no tissue is removed. Why don’t boys get the same protection? People should be able to decide for themselves whether they want part of their genitals cut off.
For Juliet:
There are six African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised: Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Cameroon, the HIV rate is 4.1% among circumcised men, but only 1.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn’t happen. We now have people calling circumcision a “vaccine” or “invisible condom”, and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) works against HIV. Circumcision appears not to. Remember that circumcision won’t make any difference unless someone is having unsafe sex with an HIV+ partner.
Latest news is that HIV+ men are more likely to infect women if they’ve been circumcised.
Female circumcision seems to protect against HIV too btw, but we wouldn’t investigate cutting off women’s labia, and then start promoting that.
Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth. Whatever circumcision does, it DOES NOT prevent AIDS. Now that cut men have been shown 50% more likely to infect their partners circumcision is trully ill-advised even for adults.
AIDS and other STDs have no bearing on infant’s right to keep his whole body and make his own choice about how to avoid STDs.
Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body, HIS decision.
Juliet: The claims about the nature of foreskin tissue are based on a few in vitro (in glass) studies of the foreskins of dead old men, made to bolster the circumcision claims. The three trials of circumcision in Africa were cut short, and several times as many circumcised men dropped out, their HIV status unknown, as non-circumcised men were infected.
The latest news, out of Uganda, is that circumcising men offers no protection to women, and may INcrease their risk by as much as 50%. Women are already at greater risk, so that is a big negative for circumcision.
Voluntary, adult circumcision would be acceptable, except for the huge risk that it will make men think they are immune and want sex without condoms, further disempowering women. Few of the circumcision proponents seem inclined to confine it to voluntary or adult.
For Mark Lyndon:
Great to quote statistics the way you have on various African countries. What you don’t realize or probably understand is that in Africa men refuse to wear condoms and when denied sex because of it, they are the first to beat up the woman that denied them what they consider their right and then rape the woman. So your preaching will go nowhere. You are dealing with many cultures that don’t think logically and really don’t care what they do, what diseases they carry and who they infect. Putting it very bluntly, there is little or no value on human life in many parts of Africa. Also many men don’t care how many women they sleep with over there. Any wife that questions her husband’s sexual habits is bound to be beaten, or even worse killed for questioning his habits. So while you make great statements, blaming circumcision for HIV men being more likely to infect women if circumcised, goes to how many women did he have sex with in the last 24 hours. Lets not forget the new South African president, Jacob Zuma, has 3 wives and still finds it necessary to have unprotected sex with a “family friend” who is HIV positive and then takes a shower to clean his penis band claims he cant get HIV from her. He refuses to wear condoms and states that its beneath him to have sex with any woman that insists he wear a condom.
Circumcision has no bearing on that behavior and while you clearly are against it, I have experienced both sides of that debate having been circumcised as an adult. My biggest regret is not being done as an infant where the results are that much better, less pain and emotion involved. Prevention is better than cure. Most intactivists are either circumcised men that feel an injustice has been done to them or the women who have enjoyed a very happy fulfilled sexual life with a circumcised lover and then have to go to the other extreme and preach how wrong it is, yet very few can actually speak from firsthand experience on both sides. Ironically, there are many circumcised men that believe they have been robbed of something. Sure they have. They have been robbed of smegma and the smell it produces. They have been robbed of ever having to deal with foreskin issues (many will never admit that foreskins ever have issues) like phimosis, tearing while having sex and other ongoing and very painful problems. If you had your foreskin prodded and stretched and forced back by a doctor from time you were a toddler into your teens because of real foreskin problems, you may have a different take on it. An intactivist like that doctor would rather abuse that toddler and listen to him scream of pain every time he has a problem as he is trying to “help” him keep his little foreskin intact and ensure that he has genital integrity at any cost. This is not to mention the embarrassment of having to drop your drawers every time you see the doc and have him “work” on your penis. Mark, THAT is child abuse.
Steroid creams for penile skin tears are very dangerous that with constant use will almost guarantee that circumcision has to take place eventually as it has thinned out the skin to where it is paper thin.
Lets not forget about how tears in the foreskin promote the passing of HIV, AIDS and STD’s as they are raw open cuts that offer zero resistance to any of them. Intactivists NEVER bring up the real issues.
You quote latest news. You either forgot or ignored that later news than this is that for women circumcised men are better lovers. That is from the same sources that you used to quote your African statistics. News flash - July 20.
So for you to stand and quote all these quotes is one thing and not believe there is another side, but to have dealt with real foreskin issues is something that gives you a real life view on the situation. I know, because I was that kid that was abused by an Intactivist doctor who’s personal views completely clouded his professional responsibility. As such, I promote circumcision as a preventative measure and while not risk free, it sure beats the psychological pain and suffering I had to endure.
Oh! One other thing, I was born and raised in Africa as well. So being in the trenches and seeing what really happens at the circumcision schools and the deaths that occur (31 in South Africa this year so far and they are still in the season to circumcise) gives you a different perspective as well. Just like using the Star of David on the cake at the beginning of this article, they too have their tribal and religious beliefs that you are trampling on by promoting foreskins. I would like to see the circumcision rate at 100% because that will ensure much less disease. Back when the US circumcision rate was over 90%, sexual transmitted diseases were way less than they are today. That is a fact you cant dispute. Circumcision has been proven for over 2000 years by the Jewish population to have significant health benefits. I happen to be a Christian and believe it. So may not agree with me. The bible is not wrong. Never has been and never will be. Its THE book to live by and I do and will continue to do so!
Intactivists are known to be very radical and push their agenda down people’s throats till they choke them. Listen to how one sided they are and are guaranteed to rant and rave. They also never believe scientific or medical facts and downplay reality to push their agendas. And that is a FACT. You will see their responses…
Thank you, Intactivists. I knew I could count on you.
I could have argued in depth about this subject, but I applaud you for taking up the cause here.
And also for not minding the pic that went with the post. I thought it was pretty hilarious. At least there’s something to laugh at? Because this topic sure as hell isn’t a laughing matter…
My son was circumcised. But, then again, we are practicing Jews. I am indifferent to the cake picture, but wonder why you chose it over anything else?
My stance on anything to do with anyone else’s choices on what to do or not do with their children is simple: to each their own.
I just hope that people feel the same way when they hear that my husband and I chose to circumcise our son. It was NOT done in the hospital (he was born completely natural at a birthing center with a midwife and my husband present), but at the pediatricians office 8 days after he was born, with sufficient pain medication on the circumcision site. We were both present and he was breastfed before and after the procedure. He cried for less than 30 seconds total.
I am not an “advocate” for circumcision, nor am I against it. Like I said.. to each their own. Our was based on a religious factor.. and yes, an ancient one, at that, but we felt it was right for us and our family. That should be sufficient reason enough.
I really not trying to debate here but does a Jewish circumcision “count” if it’s done in the doctors office???
I thought they had to do the whole prayer/family/naming ceremony thing.
I can tell you one thing, circumcision does not prevent HIV. I’m a RN and I’ve taken care of numerous HIV+ patients. As far as I can recall, most (if not all) were circumcised. I’m not sure why the researchers say it’s a cure all in Africa, but in America it’s not stopping any diseases at all!
I think it’s prudent to let the child keep his foreskin and he can always choose a circumcision later in life if he wants. It doesn’t seem like a health care decision a parent should be making, at least in my humble opinion.