Now, there's a headline I bet you never though you'd read (h/t: EY):
A Vancouver activist is organizing protests against Oprah Winfrey, who is set to make three appearances in Ottawa, Montreal and Hamilton this week.
The issue: the celebrity’s endorsement of an anti-aging cream called TNS Recovery Complex made by
SkinMedica, which contains skin cells called fibroblast that are derived from male foreskin.
Winfrey endorsed the product on her talk show, which ended in 2011.
“How would Oprah respond if a skin cream for men hit the market that was made using cells from the genitalia of little girls? I think she would be absolutely disgusted and appalled, and rightly so. So it’s crazy that she’s doing the opposite,” said Glen Callender of the pro-foreskin advocacy group the
Canadian Foreskin Awareness Project.
“We think it’s extremely hypocritical and distasteful that Oprah Winfrey — who is herself a survivor of childhood sexual abuse and an outspoken opponent of female genital mutilation — at the same time uses and promotes a product that wouldn’t exist if not for the forcible genital mutilation of boys,” he added...
I could care less about Oprah's foreskin cream. What really bugs me is that idiotic relativist thinks male circumcision (an AIDS preventative, hence my suggested slogan for an anti-AIDS campaign: FORESKINNED IS FOREARMED) is as bad as FGM (a procedure that is inherently misogynistic, and that has no health benefits whatsoever).
3 comments:
A study found that female circumcision was correlated to lower HIV prevalence in Tanzania. This was the contrary of the expected results, so it was attributed to confounding factors.
Rebecca Stallings. Female circumcison and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse. www.circumstitions.com/Docs/FGM&HIV.ppt
http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677
Male and female circumcision associated with prevalent HIV infection in virgins and adolescents in Kenya, Lesotho, and Tanzania.
Brewer DD, Potterat JJ, Roberts JM Jr, Brody S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17320788
Kanki et al. reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes, women who had undergone Female Circumcision had a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not.
Kanki P, M'Boup S, Marlink R, et al. "Prevalence and risk determinants of human immunodeficiency virus type 2 (HIV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in west African female prostitutes
Am. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895-907. PMID
So, does male and/or female circumcision have anything to do with HIV? Some studies show a protective effect (from both male and female circumcision), some studies like the one from Brewer, show that the procedure of circumcision in fact exposes the individual to the risk of HIV.
When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS
Published May 22, 2012 | By Brian D. Earp
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials
into
male circumcision and HIV transmission:
Methodological, ethical and legal concerns
Gregory J Boyle and George Hill
*
http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf
So, to round up, would you forgo safe sex because you are circumcised? NO, you shouldn't. Doing that is playing Russian Roulette. So if circumcision DOES NOT prevent HIV infection, then why is it part of the package? It seems like an empty diversion of resources instead of promoting condon usage, education, safe sex, and focusing on high risk individuals and communities with treatment and testing.
BTW, it is known that North American and European circumstances are different. Even those who accept circumcision as a "preventive" measure (or risk reduction measure) have accepted that:
Circumcision does not affect HIV in gay men in the U.S. http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/04/us-aids-circumcision-idUSN0345545120071204
or in the UK http://www.fridae.asia/newsfeatures/2013/02/18/12240.circumcision-makes-no-difference-to-hiv-infection-in-uk-gay-men
Studies in the U.S. Navy have found no correlation: http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/10/us-navy-finds-that-circumcision-does-not-prevent-hiv-or-stis.html
There was no correlation found in Puerto Rico: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02871.x/abstract
Zimbabwe has reported that the new infections of HIV reported in 2010-2011 were more prevalent among circumcised men. http://www.zimdiaspora.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8811:hiv-infection-rate-higher-on-circumcised-men&catid=96:international&Itemid=342
Real world data comparison between prevalence of circumcision and prevalence of HIV does not support the thesis that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV: http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2013/02/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv-ii.html
So what is more idiotic, to compare forced genital cutting of male babies with forced genital cutting of female babies, or to promote a preventive measure that does not prevent anything, giving people a sense of security over something that just doesn't work?
You're dreaming, "dreamer," if you think obliterating a chick's genitals for misogynistic reasons (i.e. because you find female sexuality terrifying--and terrifyingly powerful)is the same as removing a penis covering.
Okay, so you didn't address anything about the HIV issue, taking instead issues to the comparison between FGM and MC.
Then, let's put things into perspective. Most people assume that there is a single procedure called female genital mutilation. That's false, there are many different kinds identified.
One that the AAP tried to promote in 2010 as an alternative for immigrant families from places where FGM is prevalent, would have been a lot less invasive than male circumcision. It was called the "Ritual Nick" - it would either have been a pinprick in the clitoris to draw a drop of blood, or a tiny scratch either in the surface of the clitoris or the clitoral hood. It wouldn't have removed the clitoris or sewn the labia.
Yet this "simple" and less invasive procedure is still considered FGM and is banned in the United States by federal law.
It doesn't obliterate a chick's genitals, and yet it is morally reprehensible.
BTW, I never advocated FGM. You will never find an intactivist who condones female circumcision - but we definitively find anti-FGM activists all the time who advocate and promote male circumcision, including big organizations such as the WHO, UNAIDS and UNICEF.
So there you go. I'm not a misogynist. I love female sexuality. It's the most beautiful thing ever.
As far as calling the foreskin a "penis covering", you are wrong there too. Are your lips a "mouth covering"?
Could you live without lips? Of course you could. But, do you need a study to prove that the lips produce and feel pleasure during kissing? No, of course not.
It should be as simple as that with the foreskin. I'm sure you enjoy having each part of your genitals touched or played with during sex. Well, if you had one more part, a normal and natural part, do you think you wouldn't enjoy it?
Not having a foreskin damages the mechanics of the penis, because the only moving part has been removed. That skin, during sex, can slide up and down the glans, and in doing that it stimulates the corona (and receives stimulation from the corona as well). This mechanism is damaged by circumcision, and this is what makes lube necessary for masturbation. So there is function. It's more than just a covering.
You should have had your choice to keep all of your parts, and so should I. But perhaps you have accepted the cut as something positive. I don't. I question it.
I believe that all human beings have the right to physical integrity, not just baby girls.
Post a Comment