Thankyou for 100,000 page views of my anti-circumcision blog and Goodbye

Thankyou for 100,000 page views of my anti-circumcision blog.

My working life is about to change, the needs/demands of my profession mean that Iwill expand my Private Consultancy, and my workload will probably double in 2016, so my work in the anti-circumcision campaigns of social media will be severely restricted.  Its now time for others to make their contributions.  I hope that I have made a difference.

Some background information:

My main recent motivation has been to counter the predominant pro-circumcision views in America, while my initial motivation was to counter our own Australian procirc fanatic Brian Morris.

I had been content that routine infant circumcision (RIC) had been overwhelmingly abandoned by both the medical profession and parents of Australia in the 1970's and 80;s, though still stubbornly high with statistics in 2015 showing about 11 to 12% of boys still being circumcised.  In the early to mid 2000's I began to notice the beginning of an incessant media campaign by Brian Morris et al, to reinstate routine infant circumcision in Australia.  I did some research and found that Brian Morris had been a long-term pro-circumcision campaigner who had fought against the abandonment of RIC, he had been condemned for his views, and he had even made dire predictions about the genito-urinary health of Australian males because of the abandonment of circ, which in the end have all proved to be false.  I thought I must add my medico-scientific voice to counter Morris et al.  I initially wrote to the RACP, and was assured by their response about the circumcision of infants, and they informed me that Brian Morris was not a member of the RACP and anything he said in media did not represent the views of the RACP.

I then discovered social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, and found that Americans had a much bigger problem than Australians.  I found myself puzzled by America's high infant circumcision rates, and wanted to understand why, and also help support the American anti-circumcision movement. Further research helped me to understand that circumcision had infiltrated the American psyche and was part of their cultural identity and that they would fight very hard to retain the practice.  I was amazed but not really surprised that even the American Academy of Pediatrics was willing to subject themselves to international shame and ridicule to defend the right of their practitioners to continue the practice (What a shame they didn;t put the same effort into defending the rights of their real patients "infant boys").

I can proudly say that most page reads have come from America (52,306), so I have had some influence in the USA even if only small.

I have spent a lot of my very limited spare time in this endeavour, though my writings have predominantly been rushed, and were not for academic publishing or peer review.  When I re-read them, most of my blog posts do read rushed, and are not fit for scientific publishing.  However, that was never my intent, my intent was for these blogs to be read by ordinary people, and to be motivating pieces which would encourage further reading. 

There are many great academic/scientific writers in this field who are worth reading, and a good follow on from my works, such as:

Dr Robert Darby of Circinfo.org http://www.circinfo.org/index.php 
Dr Brian Earp Brian Earp, Proposed CDC guidelines on male circumcision: A critique (at Academia.edu) 
Morten Frisch. Time for U.S. parents to reconsider the acceptability of infant male circumcision.   Prof David Forbes. Circumcision and the best interests of the child. Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health 51 (March 2015): 263-265. 
Source: Brian Earp and Robert Darby. Does science support infant circumcision? A skeptical reply to Brian Morris. UK Skeptic, 10 June 2014.

Best of luck to my friends in this endeavour!

Ugly Genitals

How fascinating that in the post modern world we live in, we now have the concept of "ugly genitals" emerging as a social construct. Read = (Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann with their book The Social Construction of Reality which is based on a combination of Alfred Schutz' Sociology of Knowledge and Durkheim's concept of institution, developed a theory that aims at answering the question of how subjective meaning becomes a social fact. "The social construction of reality".)

Now we have cultures presenting subjective meaning as fact when it comes to the attractiveness of genitals. Look at whats happened to the social construction of what constitutes attractiveness in the female genitals.  In Western cultures, now for a vagina to be considered attractive it must be hairless, waxed, shaven, the Brazilian.  Who decided this?  But worse how did we buy into this.  Unintended consequences = Labia size?  Someone socially constructed that large labia are unattractive and small labia attractive.  The consequence of this is that now women are having labiaplasty (labia reduction) done in order to make their vaginas attractive according to this new social construction as if it is a fact??. Who said??  In FGM cultures an uncircumcised vagina is considered ugly, and a mutilated vagina attractive?

Male genitals.  In genital cutting cultures the circumcised penis is considered attractive and the foreskin is considered ugly extra skin.  In intact cultures the natural genitals are considered attractive and the circumcised penis is considered ugly, scarred and dried out.

Genitals are just genitals, their purpose is to provide pleasure which ultimately ensures we reproduce our species, to ensure our survival.  The most important aspects of the genitals is the physical feeling and pleasure they provide, and the ability to procreate.  Along with the hormonal drive that creates the urge for sex, genitals help create new life, ensuring the human race survives.  How they look is really of minor importance, and only a modern phenomenon.  Is a persons, integrity, personality, commitment, love, intelligence, and facial features (also socially constructed ) not much more important than genital appearance.  If we were to rate in order of importance the most valued aspects of a human being, where does genital attractiveness rate (remembering it is a social construct) among the human attributes?  Not that highly surely?

How has this come about?  Is it an increasing narcissism among modern humans?  Is it the digital photography age, and manipulation of photos to change the way the human body looks (Study found editors digitally reduce labia size).  Is it the culture wars around circumcision and all forms of genital cutting done on children that leads to social constructs to justify ancient tribal customs?  Is it an obsession with the superficial?  Is it an idealisation of the human form?

What do we do about it?  Well it always starts with education, awareness and knowledge, that depending on the culture we live in, that culture is socially constructing concepts about genital attractiveness, and we need to be careful about buying into it.  To challenge these social constructions.  To argue that nature created humans with a large variability in our human features, and encouraging acceptance of how we are made/look as the most valued ideal.

What are your thoughts on this subject I'd like to read what other people think?

Busting Circumcision Culture Myths about Sexual Desirability and Performance

Circumcision cultures develop myths and taboos, and indoctrinate their people to believe that sexual desirability is enhanced by genital cutting.  Enhanced Sexual performance and the ability to be desirable to sex partners are 2 of the circumcision myths that are used in these cultures to persuade mothers and fathers to let their new born babies be circumcised or their girls to have FGM.  Taboos such as sex is better for the man and his partner if circumcised, Your baby boy wont be a desirable sex partner if he;s not circumcised, your daughter won't get married if she's not circumcised.

When you look at the measured statistical facts, you find that men from Intact Cultures are rated the best and most desirable lovers, and American men among the least desirable and worst lovers ("too rough" to describe Americans men undesirability).

Article here: http://www.blisstree.com/2009/09/30/mental-health-well-being/spainish-men-are-the-worlds-best-lovers/

Read here:

Spanish Men Are the World’s Best Lovers 

Have you ever wondered if French men really are better lovers?  Or maybe it’s the Latin man who floats your boat?  Well, a recent survey conducted by OnePoll.com quizzed a group of “well-traveled” ladies to rate men according to location, giving reasons for their preferences or dislikes for each region.
How did Americans rate? Not so great. They are #5 on the Worst list.
Canadian men did a bit better, they showed up as #10 on the Best list.
Where do the best lovers reside?  Spain.
The Daily Mail Online gives the results for the Worst list, including the reason the locals there are lacking…

World’s Worst Lovers
1. Germany – too smelly
2. England – too lazy
3. Sweden – too quick
4. Holland – too dominating
5. America – too rough
6. Greece  – too lovey-dovey
7. Wales – too selfish
8. Scotland – too loud
9. Turkey – too sweaty
10.Russia – too hairy
I don’t know how scientific this poll is. Do you think American men are too rough? It probably depends on the man.
Here’s the good list….
World’s Best Lovers
1. Spain
2. Brazil
3. Italy
4. France
5. Ireland
6. South Africa
7. Australia
8. New Zealand
9. Denmark
10.Canada
This survey leaves me with many questions. How many women were polled?  How many “hook-ups” were used to determine a result?  And why do the English newspapers have so many more interesting stories than the Americans?

Read more: http://www.blisstree.com/2009/09/30/mental-health-well-being/spainish-men-are-the-worlds-best-lovers/#ixzz3rzCz8dpw

Binga Men Refuse Circumcision and have lowest HIV rate but listen to Officials (A Critique)

This is a report from http://www.southerneye.co.zw/2015/05/21/binga-men-resist-circumcision/ but listen to the way Officials interpret the obvious that condoms, behaviour and education is more effective than circumcision:  My comments in bold italics

BINGA men are resisting voluntary male circumcision with no one having been circumcised between January and March, according to statistics provided by the National Aids Council (NAC).
BY BATANAI MUTASA
This was revealed on Monday during a Matabeleland North NAC provincial stakeholders’ meeting in Bulawayo.
According to NAC statistics, while no one was circumcised in Binga between January and March, Bubi, Hwange, Tsholotsho, Umguza, Lupane and Nkayi recorded a combined total of 2 359 operations.
Lupane and Nkayi districts had the highest number of volunteers with 1 131 and 535 cases respectively.
NAC Matabeleland North monitoring and evaluation officer Mthokozisi Moyo attributed the resistance in Binga to entrenched cultural beliefs which were against circumcision.
“There is need to strategise ways to teach and persuade people in the district to embrace this exercise lest we compromise other efforts to prevent the spread of HIV,” Moyo said.  Listen to the insistence that these men choose circumcision even though the statistics show with condoms, behaviour and education these men have lower hiv infections.
Male circumcision is reputed to reduce female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV by 60%.
Despite shunning male circumcision, Binga recorded a high uptake of male condoms and a huge response to other programmes to curb the HIV pandemic. The area recorded the lowest seropositivity rates in the province.  Now why isn't this highlight, as more effective than circumcision and probably the answer?  What they are not saying is that This shows that circumcised men are getting higher infection rates than men who use condoms!!!!!!
Seropositivity is the state of having blood serum that tests positive for a given pathogen, especially HIV.
Binga recorded the lowest seropositivity rate in pregnant women of 3,3% while Bubi, Lupane, Nkayi, Umguza, Hwange and Tsholotsho recorded rates of 7,8%, 8,4%, 9%, 11% and 13 %, respectively.
The provincial rate dropped from 12% in the fourth quarter 2014 to 8% in the first quarter 2015.
However, Moyo indicated figures could be skewed owing to incomplete reports received from health facilities.  So women in these tribes have lower HIV because their men are choosing condoms, why isn't this highlighted?
Binga had low sexually transmitted infections (STI) in Matabeleland North at 9% after Lupane which accounted for 8% of STI cases in Matabeleland North.   More evidence condoms better than circumcision in reducing STI's.
Hwange recorded the highest STI cases accounting for 37% of all cases in the province.
“In male condom distribution, Binga district accounted for 37% of male condoms distributed followed by Hwange (18%) while Umguza had the least (2%),” Moyo said.
“Hwange had the highest number of sexual abuse cases (36%), followed by Tsholotsho (29%) and the least reported cases were recorded in Lupane (1%), Umguza (0%) and Binga (3%).”  Here we have direct evidence that higher condom distribution is directly correlated to lower HIV, STI's and SExual Abuse.
Although Binga recorded positive figures in the province, stakeholders underlined the need to consolidate the gains.  Again ignoring the fact circumcision wasn't required to achieve positive outcomes, but they continue to want to promote circumcision because that is their mindset, they've bought into the propaganda.
Speaking on the sidelines of the meeting, NAC Matabeleland North co-ordinator Dingaan Dube warned that if voluntary male circumcision was not taken up, the risk of new HIV infections would rise in the long run. Totally ignoring and contradicting the facts, that men who refuse circumcision and use condoms end up with better sexual health, lower HIV and STI's.
“We are concerned. Response figures are high from testing and counselling centres and Binga has a lot of people coming forward,” Dube said.   They're concerned?  Concerned that men who use condoms have lower HIV than men who choose circumcision!  Shows the mindset, blind to the facts.
“But the many people in the fishing camps are from different areas and this could worsen the HIV situation in the district.” Totally illogical and opposite to the facts, and obsessed with circumcision.

Near death incident from neonatal circumcision using plastibell

Very interesting how this adverse circumcision event in America is buried in a Korean Journal, tells you a lot about American Medicine and its attitude toward circumcision

Korean J Pediatr. 2015 Apr;58(4):154-7. doi: 10.3345/kjp.2015.58.4.154. Epub 2015 Apr 22.

Urosepsis and postrenal acute renal failure in a neonate following circumcision with Plastibell device.

Kalyanaraman M¹, McQueen D¹, Sykes J¹, Phatak T¹, Malik F¹, Raghava PS¹.

Author information

• ¹Department of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of New Jersey at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, Newark, NJ, USA.

Abstract

Plastibell is one of the three most common devices used for neonatal circumcision in the United States, with a complication rate as low as 1.8%. The Plastibell circumcision device is commonly used under local anesthesia for religious circumcision in male neonates, because of cosmetic reasons and ease of use. Occasionally, instead of falling off, the device may get buried under the skin along the shaft of the penis, thereby obstructing the normal flow of urine. Furthermore, the foreskin of neonates is highly vascularized, and hence, hemorrhage and infection are possible when the skin is cut. Necrosis of penile skin, followed by urethral obstruction and renal failure, is a serious surgical mishap requiring immediate corrective surgery and medical attention. We report a case of fulminant urosepsis, acute renal failure, and pyelonephritis in a 4-day-old male neonate secondary to impaction of a Plastibell circumcision device. Immediate medical management was initiated with fluid resuscitation and mechanical ventilation; thereby correcting life threatening complications. Pediatricians and Emergency Department physicians should be cognizant of the complications from Plastibell circumcision device in order to institute appropriate and timely management in neonates.

My Jewish Wife refused circumcision for her 3 sons

My wife is of Jewish ancestry, she is a descendent of Polish Jews of whom most were murdered by the Nazi's in the World War 2 Holocaust.  It is a very sad and painful fact about her family history & Jewish origins. 

Her Mother a jew of 2 jewish parents told her that when she was expecting her first child that circumcision was not required and that it was too painful for the baby.  Her Aunty tried to persuade her to continue the jewish tradition of circumcision.

My wife, did not like the idea of someone taking a knife to her new baby, and the 1970's in Australia was a time the whole nation was turning against circumcision.  She decided that she would not circumcise any of her babies.

My wife now has 3 sons none of whom were circumcised.  All are now men, and grateful for their foreskins, and glad they weren't circumcised.  None have had their own son;s circumcised.

My Jewish wife has 3 intact sons, and 6 intact grandsons.

It is an injurious insult to claim my wife is anti-Semitic

Issues around calling for infant circumcision to be made illegal

There are a number of issues that need to be considered when calling for infant circumcision to be made illegal =

The reasons for such a call in my opinion are as follows:

• It is the only way to immediately protect babies from circumcsion
• It is a great tactic for getting the subject discussed and into public awareness, and one of the few ways the media will cover the negative aspects of circumcision
• A law banning circumcision would be a recognition of the human rights violations that circumcision actually is
• It would give males the same protection under the law as females

The reasons against such a call are as follows:

• The procircs will fight with every last breath to prevent this, including calling on politicians to protect circumcision under the law,
• Motovate governements and their departments within circumcision cultures to through away science and ethics in order to protect circumcion as the CDC and AAP have recently done
• Timing of such a move.  Realistically The timing is too early in circumcision cultures, Education needs to have the greatest priority for years if not decades first and foremost.
• The fightback by religions, and the power they weild, a more softly approach such as  empowering change from within religions through education, resources and support.

Prof David Forbes Chairman of RACP states circumcision increases morbidity and mortality in children

In a recent editorial, Cooper and colleagues recommend increasing infant circumcision to combat increasing rates of heterosexual transmission of HIV infection, and contend that the major obstacle to increasing male circumcision in Australia is a Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) policy. [1]
In September, after a literature review and analysis, the RACP released a revised policy on infant male circumcision, concluding that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. [2] While evidence of HIV prevention by circumcision is strong in high-prevalence settings with predominantly heterosexual transmission, [3] this is not so in low-prevalence environments where homosexual transmission is more important. [4] Evidence of the protective effect of circumcision against other sexually transmitted infections in Australia is limited. [5]
Cooper et al’s comparison of circumcision with vaccines is misleading. Protection against HIV by circumcision is predominantly for males, and the risk for females may increase. [6] There is minimal protection against homosexual acquisition of HIV. [4]
The RACP acknowledges the strong and differing opinions on this topic, ranging from the strong pro-circumcision views of Cooper et al to the equally strong diametrically opposed views of the Royal Dutch Medical Association, which believes that (for reasons of ethics and medical risks) legal prohibition of infant circumcision is warranted. [7]
The RACP recognises the important role of parents in decision making, and recommends that parents contemplating circumcision of their newborn sons be carefully apprised of the risks and benefits. If they elect to proceed with circumcision, the procedure should be undertaken in a safe child-friendly environment, with appropriate analgesia, and by an appropriately trained, competent practitioner who is capable of dealing with complications. We believe that this approach safeguards the social and community interests of children, and offers protection from unnecessary surgical risks. [2]
The RACP does not accept that its policy on circumcision of infant males represents an obstacle to effective public health policy — it believes that, at present, the evidence does not allow a recommendation for widespread infant male circumcision and that Cooper et al have misrepresented this evidence. In the interests of children, and of public health more generally, it is important that this evidence be kept under review and decisions that could lead to increased morbidity and mortality of children only be made when it is clear that the benefits very clearly outweigh any risks.

David A Forbes, Chair, Policy and Advocacy Committee Paediatrics and Child Health Division, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Sydney.
1. Cooper DA, Wodak AD, Morris BJ. The case for boosting infant male circumcision in the face of rising heterosexual transmission of HIV [editorial]. Med J Aust 2010; 193: 318-319.
2. Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Circumcision of infant males. Sydney: RACP, 2010.
3. Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks JJ, Volmink J. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (2): CD003362.
4. Templeton DJ, Jin F, Mao L, et al. Circumcision and risk of HIV infection in Australian homosexual men. AIDS 2009; 23: 2347-2351.
5. Templeton DJ, Jin F, Prestage GP, et al. Circumcision and risk of sexually transmissible infections in a community-based cohort of HIV-negative homosexual men in Sydney, Australia. J Infect Dis 2009; 200: 1813-1819.
6. Wawer MJ, Makumbi F, Kigozi G, et al. Circumcision in HIV-infected men and its effect on HIV transmission to female partners in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009; 374: 229-237.
7. Royal Dutch Medical Association. Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors. Utrecht: KNMG, 2010.