IAS 2011: Circumcision Satisfaction Survey

Media reports have talked about the post circumcision satisfaction report. I saw the poster presentation which is provided below. My sense was that the report was so skewed towards better everything post-circumcision that it verged on parody. The participants in the Orange Farm area of South Africa were responding to the expectations of the researchers, their community and family. That is to say, having received community and family pressure, and support to be circumcised and knowing this survey sought to provide proof that circumcision is harmless or even improves their sexual well-being, they responded according to the expectations they perceived, which means they were almost universally positive. It’s unclear what other inducements were provided, but it is more than clear that cutting off the most erogenous part of the human penis is not likely to provide the results reported.

Sexual Satisfaction Poster - IAS 2011 - Rome

About David Wilton

fronterizo, public defender, intactivist, gay
This entry was posted in Events and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to IAS 2011: Circumcision Satisfaction Survey

  1. KOTFrank says:

    The cutter$ ending words show their true nature. Call it a Freudian slip.
    “We are grateful to all study participants, research assistants, and the HNHS staff for making this study a success.”
    A success? Studies are NOT successful, but this does show their true intentions.
    If it looks too good to be true, it’s a lie!
    Though 2 years old -still holds true:
    The Politics and Motivation behind the African “Research”
    on Male Circumcision and HIV Infection
    By Dr. Paul Tinari Ph.D.
    horizontal rule
    For more than fifty years, the circumcision industry in North America
    has reaped windfall profits by use of a clever combination of
    disinformation, lies and fear. By carefully targeted lobbying,
    selective funding of political campaigns and by playing the “religious
    freedom” card, the industry assured that laws were passed banning all
    forms of genital mutilation in females (even with consent), but
    shamefully and in blatant violation of both Charter and Constitutional
    guarantees of gender equality, permitted the genital mutilation of
    males (without consent). The sad fact is that while in Canada it is a
    Class D Felony to mutilate a corpse, circumcisors can mutilate living
    children (and even kill them) without fear of criminal prosecution.
    In the last ten years, the pharmaceutical industry has discovered a
    universe of profitable products that can be manufactured from stolen
    foreskins. Even though the trade in human organs and tissues,
    especially those taken without consent, is universally banned as an
    affront to human dignity (starting with the Nuremberg Laws passed in
    the 1940’s), the circumcision industry has once again exempted itself
    from any restrictions that would hinder the profit of its operations.
    As a result, each pilfered foreskin can be worth tens of thousands in
    commercial products – not bad for a product that they get paid to
    steal, despite the protestations of its rightful owner.
    Gandhi once said that the truth can never be suppressed forever, and
    the carefully crafted façade constructed by the circumcision industry
    has begun to crumble in the face of successful assault by scientific
    and ethical facts. Parents are now, in a powerfully rising tide,
    rejecting the lies and deceit of the baby mutilators, and
    increasingly embracing the axiom that if males were meant to have a
    foreskin, then they would be born with one. And as such, it makes
    sense to believe that his creator gave a foreskin to its male owner
    because the intent was for him to keep it.
    As parents are now increasingly responding to scientific fact and
    reason instead of to hysterical claims and superstition, circumcision
    rates have plummeted to single digit percentages in many
    jurisdictions. This is most worrying to the circumcision industry,
    because their profits have begun to suffer. Seeing no hope of
    increasing supplies from North America or Europe, the industry has now
    targeted Africa as a brand new “virgin” source of foreskins to be
    harvested for luxury pharmaceutical products for well heeled consumers
    in the developed world. Let there be no mistake: The circumcision
    industry does not give a damn about the health of African children –
    they are only seen as a new – and more gullible – resource to exploit.
    If the industry truly cared about the health of Africans, then it
    would be funding proper epidemiological studies, not the severely
    flawed, politically motivated “research” that has just been
    selectively made public. Why the obsession with ONLY studying male
    circumcision and HIV infection? Why is it that although female
    circumcision was also found to reduce HIV infection at the same
    conference where Auvert presented his alleged “evidence” that male
    circumcision can help lower HIV rates that absolutely no media
    attention was given to the study involving cutting female genitals?
    After all, the female labia have exactly the same cellular receptors
    as the male foreskin. Since it has now been established that
    circumcised females have a lower risk of HIV infection than intact
    ones, then why are researchers not demanding large scale circumcision
    of females in North America to give women the same alleged protection
    from HIV that men are getting?
    Why has no study been conducted on the link between “dry” intercourse
    and HIV infection? Dry intercourse, popular with many African men,
    consists of drying out the vagina before intercourse by using harsh
    astringents. The dry, irritated and cracked vaginal tissues are far
    more prone to tearing, bleeding and hence, to HIV infection. Why have
    no studies been made on the link between malaria infection and HIV
    susceptibility? Hundreds of millions of Africans are infected by the
    malaria parasite. Certainly it is of interest if this increases a
    person’s risk of HIV infection.
    And what about the known links between the prevalence of other STDs
    and HIV infection? Antibiotic resistant gonorrhoea and syphilis are
    epidemic throughout Africa, and it is well known that their presence
    greatly facilitates HIV transmission to an infected individual. For
    that matter, any systemic infection that compromises the immune system
    including tuberculosis, sleeping sickness and many parasitical worms
    (all of which are endemic throughout Africa), will all greatly
    facilitate HIV infection. It is scientifically criminal that none of
    these factors was controlled for in the recently announced but still
    unpublished “research.” Yet each of these factors is potentially a
    far greater contributor to ease of HIV infection in males than the
    presence or absence of a foreskin. It is also criminally liable as
    well as scientific malpractice that the orchestrators of the study
    choose not to report that female circumcision was also discovered to
    reduce the incidence of HIV infection. The fundamental purpose of
    science is to educate and enlighten – not to deceive and manipulate.
    Because of this, to be blunt, these research results are scientific
    garbage and should be treated as such.
    In conclusion, the sad truth is that these were not professional,
    objective scientific researchers who were conducting an unbiased study
    whose goal was the improvement of human welfare. Rather, these are
    little more than amateur hacks, with at best a poor understanding of
    elementary epidemiological or statistical principles who were willing
    to do anything to prove their presupposed dogma – that male
    circumcision prevents HIV infection. Why is the inconvenient fact
    ignored that the lowest rates of HIV infection in the world are found
    in the Scandinavian nations, countries where circumcision is virtually
    unknown? Why is it ignored that the Western nation with the highest
    circumcision rates, the United States, also has the highest rates of
    HIV infection?
    The truth can be obtained by asking the innocent question: “Who
    sponsored this highly flawed research and for what political purpose?”
    The true intent of the study organizers can be deduced by their
    boastful claim that the results of this research would have all
    African men “lining up” to get circumcised. As usual, the African get
    conned while the Western multinational corporations laugh all the way
    to the bank.
    A little digging will reveal that this research was paid for by the
    same sponsors who soon hope to richly profit from harvesting a huge
    new supply of African foreskins. After all, the same poverty stricken
    Africans were easily conned by Western multinationals into buying
    expensive formula (diluted with contaminated water) for their
    children, instead of using free, healthy and sterile breast milk.
    -Dr. Paul Tinari, Ph.D.

  2. KOTFrank says:

    “Never theorize before you have data. Invariably, you end up twisting facts to suit theories…” -Sherlock Holmes
    Over 10 years ago, I and other restoring men who had been cut later, comparing our experience concluded it is 5-7 years post circ. that keratinization’s threshold really takes notice by loosing sensation. The African HIV/circ. study participants first cut on 2004 would then notice this effect 2009-2011 and 2011-2013, therefor the overlapping years and greatest notice is 2011. Is it possible, this unreported negative effect is really in the mix of Africa’s, recent to this year until now, negative reports on male circumcision?
    Location Participants Report published
    South Africa 3,274 July 2005
    Kenya 2,784 February 2007
    Uganda 4,996 February 2007

Comments are closed.