or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › The CDC is going to recommend circumcision in the US
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The CDC is going to recommend circumcision in the US - Page 4

post #61 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdx.mothernurture View Post
Playing devil's advocate here, but it also matters how different populations are becoming infected; HIV is also transmitted by IV drug use. It sounds like in Africa, it's being transmitted primarily through heterosexual sex. Is the same true for the U.S.?

Jen
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/res...tsheets/aa.htm

I bet they're going to decide that circumcision would be appropriate for African American males. They're going to go with the "other STDs" increasing the rate of HIV infection 3-fold thing.
post #62 of 90
Being from India as I am I knew nothing of the widespread practice of RIC in the US until a week ago when my sister studying to be a pediatrician in the US told me about it - unbelievable.

What the hell is THIS for example?
http://www.quickmedical.com/olympicm...mobolizer.html
https://secure.posey.com/poseystore/...productid=4749

Is this for real or what?
post #63 of 90
Yes, circumcision is very real in the US. (Only instead of dolls they use real baby boys).

But WE want it to end, and it can't happen quickly enough.

The raw and unfiltered reaction from those from intact-norm countries is an invaluable resource.

Of course YOU are shocked, but the sad truth is that most Americans are so used to it they don't really think, question, or understand the procedure.

Jessica
post #64 of 90
What I'd like to know is, who is behind the wide dissemination of these bogus studies???? The only thing I can think is, there must be some very powerful people in the upper class who are very pro-circ, and who are doing everything within their power to push circumcision on the American people. :
post #65 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessjgh1 View Post
Yes, circumcision is very real in the US. (Only instead of dolls they use real baby boys).

But WE want it to end, and it can't happen quickly enough.

The raw and unfiltered reaction from those from intact-norm countries is an invaluable resource.

Of course YOU are shocked, but the sad truth is that most Americans are so used to it they don't really think, question, or understand the procedure.

Jessica
"Procedure", eh? Some "procedure".
After informing myself on the issue for a bit it seems the whole of the US is totally desensitized to this: circumcision torture is a "procedure", FGM is a " terrible human rights violation". Nobody talks about it or wants to, for whatever reason. People worry about ANIMAL RIGHTS yet this happens in every hospital in your country.
Good luck and best wishes from India - your cause is just.
post #66 of 90
Thread Starter 
Thanks, Raja.
post #67 of 90
Don't despair. Not everyone falls for this. I was on the Walden's Pond radio show for an hour today on WBAI 99.5 FM in NYC (a Pacifica affiliate, I believe). The callers were all respectful and many, if not all, saw thru this latest ridiculous study. One asked about Meissner's corpuscles but sounded like he was asking about Langerhan's cells. I set him straight. Likewise the letters to the editor in the NYT yesterday all pointed out how dangerous it is to circ to prevent AIDS and how effective condoms are. The only effect these studies are likely to have in the US is to let the pro-circ fanatics try to get a new AAP committee or a recommendation from the CDC. Even the press is getting smart. Halperin has been branded as a long time circ pusher in the hispanic press by EFE, the Spanish news service. The U.S. press has indicated similarly. Since the rates in California, Oregon, and Washington are so low, they are unlikely to go up much over this. I think we are at the tipping point nationally, i.e. the point where it goes in our favor. There has been too much talk about circ and the losses caused by it. Keep on educating parents. Emphasize the risks and the losses - particularly that of sensitivity. What do you think keratinization does to the glans? Make if more or less sensitive? The answer is obvious. Less is more only to those who have been clipped.
post #68 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by njeb View Post
What I'd like to know is, who is behind the wide dissemination of these bogus studies???? The only thing I can think is, there must be some very powerful people in the upper class who are very pro-circ, and who are doing everything within their power to push circumcision on the American people. :
Edgar Schoen
post #69 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by njeb View Post
What I'd like to know is, who is behind the wide dissemination of these bogus studies???? The only thing I can think is, there must be some very powerful people in the upper class who are very pro-circ, and who are doing everything within their power to push circumcision on the American people. :
I know I sound like a broken record/Michael Moore-style freak, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of those huge biogenetic tissue engineering companies are helping fund these studies somehow. The $$ they make from foreskins is ASTOUNDING.
post #70 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamohumm6 View Post
I know I sound like a broken record/Michael Moore-style freak, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of those huge biogenetic tissue engineering companies are helping fund these studies somehow. The $$ they make from foreskins is ASTOUNDING.
I was thinking the same thing-- someone has to be making money off of this.
post #71 of 90
I'm inclined to wonder if the inevitable rise in HIV rates from people thinking they don't need condoms if they're circ'ed is an intended result by the people propigating this. Maybe someone somewhere thinks this would be a good population control method. I know, it sounds kinda tin-foil-hattish. Thoughts?
post #72 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdx.mothernurture View Post
Even if circumcision completely eliminated the risk of HIV, I would not subject a non-consenting, non-sexually active minor child to it. Sexual HIV aquisition is still largely dependant on *behavioral factors*. To circumcise my young son presuming he'll be too stupid or lazy to properly protect himself through safer sex practices is just as offensive and insulting as circumcising him because I think he'll be too stupid or lazy to practice good hygiene.

Maybe other <edit: people who blindly follow, like sheep> who don't actually plan on putting the time and effort into raising their children, who are too embarassed to talk about sexual health will jump at the idea of decreasing HIV risk by amputating a large percentage of skin and other unique, nerve-laden structures from their infant son's primary sex organ. Sensible parents, however, aren't that gullible.

Jen
right on!
post #73 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamohumm6 View Post
I know I sound like a broken record/Michael Moore-style freak, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of those huge biogenetic tissue engineering companies are helping fund these studies somehow. The $$ they make from foreskins is ASTOUNDING.

No question in my mind about this either. I still can't work out why national policy is being reavaluated without the peer-reviews..correct me if I'm wrong - but one of the studies was only published in some second rate on line journal and the other two haven't been published at all yet and the NYT is preaching as if the author's word is truth. What is going on with this?

And Dave, I sincerely hope you are correct. Thing is, I know someone who is fighting with her family to save her baby boy's foreskin right now (she's due early next year) - this is very bad timing. I don't know that she will stand strong.:
post #74 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13Sandals View Post
I still can't work out why national policy is being reavaluated without the peer-reviews..correct me if I'm wrong - but one of the studies was only published in some second rate on line journal and the other two haven't been published at all yet and the NYT is preaching as if the author's word is truth. What is going on with this?
They are grasping at straws. That industry stands to lose a ton of money if circumcision drops like it's trending to do, and they're going to push the ever living crap out of anything that might work for them.
Remember, adult foreskin doesn't work....the big deal about neo-nate foreskin and tissue engineering is that it lacks the immunology or something...I forget the correct terminology. basically, it won't be rejected like adult donor tissue. This is a huge, huge deal in their applications.

It's not like it's a cosmetic company - we're talking about skin grafting techniques for burn victims, or other "chronic sores" that would benefit from engineered tissue. Not only is it a huge $$ industry, but it's important in the health care world, too.
I wouldn't be shocked if to a lot of them, the end justifies the means.
post #75 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by paquerette View Post
I'm inclined to wonder if the inevitable rise in HIV rates from people thinking they don't need condoms if they're circ'ed is an intended result by the people propigating this. Maybe someone somewhere thinks this would be a good population control method. I know, it sounds kinda tin-foil-hattish. Thoughts?
I've been thinking the same thing.

Africa is a large, for the most part "underdeveloped" continent with vast natural resources. With no pesky natives to get in the way, all those resources are up for grabs.
post #76 of 90
We should also keep in mind that routine and ritual child genital amputation is, fundamentally, a cultural psychosis, and that the people involved in pushing this are simply not rational about it.

As in craaaaaay-zeee.

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that there is some sick vivisectionist profiteering motive involved in the actions of some, but come on, people -- for the most part, all that is needed to explain this insanity is. . .well, the essential insanity of it all.

As a men's issues advocate and activist, I can assure you from long experience that this sort of deranged denial and distortion of reality is nothing new. I've seen it play out like this where other gender issues are concerned, so it's actually rather familiar to me. It's the same old story as with domestic violence or child custody or dozens of other areas; lies, damn lies, and statistics, simply in order to protect the self-image and revenue streams of academics, the monosource media, and the herds of sheeple they sell to the advertising companies.

I recommend that folks calm down some. Being outraged about the usual lying and deceit and BS is fine, but there's no need to view this as some great and terrible success on the part of the prepucectionists and get all panicky and weirded out. Because it isn't. It's just another desperate old-school attempt at spreading FUAD, and that tactic keep working worse and worse as the new informational networds spread out in competition with the old top-down monosource media model.

The only winning strategy these people have is silence and censorship, because intactivism is one of the few movements in history, such as abolition or general suffragism, that actually DOES have the truth on its side. Not to mention righteousness. The more the subject gets talked about AT ALL, the better it is for intactivism OVER ALL.

Keep that in mind. When this sort of thing comes up, I always remind myself of Gandhi's aphorism (rephrasing Schopenhauer):

First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Stuff like all this foofaraw is clearly in the fighting category. So I'm not going to worry until I see the NYT and CDC and the WHO and the rest of these idiots moving backwards into mockery of intactivism. The very fact that they're so desperate as to resort to this kind of patent and blatant manipulation of public opinion is a GOOD sign for us.

I know all this may appear to be a series of tactical losses, but in fact strategtically speaking we're doing pretty good to make them take us on like this.

If they were smart, they'd be totally clamping down on the subject and not allowing any mention of it through the monosource media whatsoever at all. They'd also be trying to shame and blame normal everyday people who spoke up about it at all, and characterize intactivists as silly trivial meaningless little crackpots.

That's their only hope for maintaining the status quo a little longer. And I ain't seeing it happening.

My advice is to take the wide view -- bigger, longer, and uncut, as Parker and Stone put it . Calm down and look at how far we've already come. This crap isn't really going to undo that. Yes, it's bad and awful and will wastefully hurt a lot of people and, yes, even kill some of them, and make the inevitable victory a little harder and more costly, but come on, people. . .

. . .it's not the Aposthcalypse .
post #77 of 90
Makes me shutter : I hope that the canadian's here don't believe that claptrap.
post #78 of 90
Wow, Andrew. You said it all.
post #79 of 90
Oh, this makes me mad!

I would love to send a simple, coherent, fact-based letter to the editor of the local paper rebutting their recet article on this subject.

I don't believe that I have enough concrete knowledge to write such an article.

Any ideas?
post #80 of 90
Silly CDC. Even if circ lowers the infection rate by 50%, I know something much better: if all boys get their penises chopped off as infants (but leaving the testes intact so they can produce sperm and stuff) I bet the rates would fall by 100%! That would save everyone sooooooooo much money! No more STDs! Why didn't the CDC think of something as simple and effective? [/sarcasm]


Does anyone know the differences in new HIV cases in Europe or Australia or NZ or Canada vs. the USA? Wouldn't that tell us more about circ and HIV transmission? :
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › The CDC is going to recommend circumcision in the US