I have to say the more I read about the horror stories of what can go wrong with circumcision the more I find myself agreeing that circumcision of men and women is completely immoral and unethical.

When I read that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is fast tracking male circumcision in Africa, as a false promise to stop AIDS, I can’t help but wonder about the ethics of all this when everyone knows that circumcision doesn’t stop AIDS, only a condom does. So why not use a condom and put the money spent on unnecessary and costly circumcisions to better use?

A quick read through of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and I came across this passage which says how they are using a barbaric device the PrePex/ Shang Ring to facilitate this surgery in countries with a shortage of trained health professionals, with the WHO justifying the use of this device because it is “easy to use”. To my mind it is a stone age device that has no place in the modern world.

A second approach is male circumcision, which reduces HIV transmission by up to 70 percent. Funding for circumcision is finally being prioritized, since the cost is quite low and the protection is lifelong. Over 1 million men ages 15–49 have been circumcised in 14 Southern and Eastern African countries with large AIDS epidemics, but that is only 5 percent of the total number who could benefit from the procedure. Even in the ancient practice of circumcision, innovation has the potential to make a big difference. The new PrePex and Shang Ring devices simplify the procedure and make surgery unnecessary. The first studies suggest that these devices are both safe and effective. (I will keep this letter G-rated by leaving out the pictures of how the devices work.) Botswana, Kenya, South Africa, and Tanzania are starting to show leadership by getting the message out to all young men that it is important to get circumcised. Kenya has made the most progress, circumcising 70 percent of eligible men. I will be very disappointed if, by 2015, any fewer than 15 million young men have chosen to protect themselves and their partners by getting circumcised.

source http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Media/Annual-Letters-List/Annual-Letter-2012
I find it hard to stomach these kinds of statistics when evidence shows more circumcised men get AIDS than uncircumcised men http://joseph4gi.blogspot.nl/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

I find it distasteful the way they are using the campaign posters of wives to tell guys why they should be circumcised, would the opposite work if we were to implement female circumcision?
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/mass-circumcision-campaigns.html

The whole industry is based around selling as many PrePex devices as possible, with countries embracing the practice and the promise of the lucrative handouts doing so will bring. http://joseph4gi.blogspot.nl/2012/01/nytimes-plugs-prepex-consorts-with.html

I came across this organisation PEPFAR which is using more than $100 million dollars donated to 14 African countries to increase the rate of male circumcision to 80% as a way to prevent HIV.

Male Circumcision (MC)

UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (WHO) have issued normative guidance stating that male circumcision should be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. PEPFAR supports MC as a component of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in sub-Saharan Africa, and is working to scale up quality MC programs as feasible and appropriate to the country context. In its next phase, PEPFAR is transitioning to a two-pronged MC assistance approach. This approach would simultaneously support the immediate demand for MC and allow governments to develop policies and the necessary infrastructure for more sustained service delivery.
The comprehensive MC interventions supported by PEPFAR include not only the MC surgery, but risk reduction counseling, sexually transmitted infection treatment, and HIV testing and counselling.

source http://www.pepfar.gov/press/strategy_briefs/138399.htm

According to the WHO website, they are using the PrePex device to perform adult male circumcision and state that they developed it because of the shortage of surgically trained health workers; so now they are allowing non surgically trained health workers such as nurses to perform the procedure. I can just imagine how many botched MC will occur as a result of this.

allow other types of trained health workers (e.g. nurses) to perform the procedure

source http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/prepex_device_update/en/

Also the WHO website justifies the use of MC to prevent HIV by saying that it is 60% effective in preventing heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. That percentage doesn’t seem very high to me to justify such a extreme procedure, and especially not high enough to normalise such a procedure. Especially when men have available other non surgical options such as condoms which minimize the risk of HIV transmission by 99%. Then the WHO contradicts it’s own argument later on by saying that MC provides only partial protection. So why pursue something that only offers partial protection when you can pursue something that offers 99% of protection. It sounds like WHO don’t have a clue what their talking about.

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.

source http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

The argument for circumcision seems completely devoid of logic. I still can’t believe MC is being justified by governments and WHO, UNAIDS, PEPFAR, Bill and Melinda Gates in 2015, on the false basis it is more hygienic, I never knew any of this was still going on. It just seems so unethical. Women are likely to suffer more urinary tract infections than men, yet nobody is calling for mandatory female circumcision.

I think circumcision is unethical and will be boycotting Microsoft products as a result of their support for it. I thought Bill was a logic based rational person who only took on scientific fact to base his decisions on, he has really let us down here. I won’t purchase Microsoft ever again, even if it means they change their stance on this in the future. Anyone who calls for the mandatory circumcision of 15 million African men by 2015 based on nothing but stone age superstition loses all credibility in my eyes. #BoycottMicrosoft #WHOhasnoclue

This whole argument is about the rights of the child and rights of young boys to be treated with enough respect and dignity not to have parts of their manhood cut off because of irrational superstitions that have no factual evidence to support them.

Why is it only woman can have a monopoly on sexual pleasure. The same argument about reduced sexual enjoyment is used when justifying why we do not practice female circumcision, so why is somehow a man wanting to not be circumcised because he wants to feel pleasure somehow diminishing the legitimacy of his argument. I am tired of this double standard.

I only just discovered this information so my first post is a little long, but I am interested to know what others here think, I hope we can have a constructive discussion.

And they say it’s more hygienic? Well, I still have my hood. Had it for 38 years now. It’s clean as a whistle, and never an infection. Whether you’re circumcised or not, proper personal hygiene procedures are the key to being hygienic.

I am uncircumcised also and that is why I just find the whole argument for circumcision so incredible, I mean I have never had any hygiene problems ever because of my intact foreskin. In fact I could not imagine living without such a core piece of my identity, my masculinity, as my intact genitalia.

To me it seems a lot of the reasons why men are circumcised is because the wife thinks it is more ‘cleaner’ looking, and so the husband goes along with it because he had it happen to him and just thinks it’s normal. To me it seems crazy to be performing what is really just surgery for cosmetic purposes on boys penises like this with no data to support why circumcision is actually medically beneficial. Anyone who supports cutting off a piece of skin that was designed to protect the penis is insane if you ask me.

I think as men we need to change this attitude and take back our masculinity.

Looking around the web and it seems a lot of women are pushing for MC, and feminists are complicit in MC by their silence on this issue, while being overly vocal about FC. It’s just so hypocritical and crazy I had to ask other men what they think about this.

Here is typically how you see this argument played out on TV, juxtaposed against the truth about this practice.

When international bodies such as the UN do not support FM but are happy to support MC you know their is definitely something wrong with our female centric society.

I only hope circumcised men can realize that they are being emasculated by allowing themselves to be circumcised like this, and put a stop to it. As a uncircumcised man I just don’t understand how any man could support MC.

Also the hospitals sell the foreskins on the stock market which I find incredible.

It was watching this last video that really galvanized me against MC. After all the crap the feminists in my life have made me put up with to see a female circumcision doctor who has being practicing MC for 25 years, it just seems so unethical. She doesn’t even know about the male anatomy, and is clueless about the fact the foreskin is fused at birth. Just the thought that a woman can cut into a boy like that and be legal just makes me hope MGTOW can take some kind stand against this. Our future sons will thank us.

It’s a practice based in superstition and the original version of it is nauseating and looks very similar to a form of child molestation. No wonder Jewish people suffer so commonly from neurosis.

Other than PTSD, I find this perhaps one of the most worrying, and also culprit to why circumcised males would try get their own sons circumcised.

Circumcised males often feel great anxiety regarding their circumcision. This manifests itself in a reluctance to talk about circumcision or an assertion that “I’m circumcised and I’m fine.” van der Kolk (1989) reports some traumatized males also have a compulsion to reenact or repeat the trauma.These feelings emerge as the “adamant father” syndrome. Typically, a circumcised father will irrationally and adamantly insist that a son undergo circumcision, although this is contrary to contemporary medical advice.
Some circumcised doctors also exhibit anxiety by pushing medically unnecessary circumcision on their patients or writing medical journal articles to defend the practice. Such articles are “flawed papers that dismiss the harm and exaggerate alleged benefits.” This has caused the medical literature on the subject of male circumcision to become voluminous and polarized because other doctors write letters and articles to refute the false claims of circumcised doctors.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement06.html

Circumcision = genital mutilation = wrong.

Agreed.

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/

The argument that men don’t want to use condoms needs to be addressed with more attractive condom options and further education: [they need to be told] that sex without a condom and without a foreskin is potentially fatal, while sex with a condom and a foreskin is safe. No nuance is needed. Offering less effective alternatives can only lead to higher rates of infection.

One possible outcome is that HIV infections would actually increase—both through the circumcision surgeries themselves performed in unsanitary conditions, and through the mechanism of risk compensation and other complicating factors of real life. The “circumcision solution” is no solution at all. It is a misdirection of resources and may be a threat to public health.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/goldman_1999.pdf

Doctors against circumcision report.^

“Circumsision” is female propaganda? Seriously? Wtf…I dont dance around DICK so I dont have experience here, but I like NOT having that foreskin around my c~~~.

I like having a head on my c~~~.

Dont need women, or anyone else to tell me: the HEAD on my c~~~ is nice. I like it. Thank you.

Terms and jargons are important and they have their own meaning. Calling things in a specific way helps to dispel the illusory bulls~~~.

Secondly, genital mutilation only makes some sense in very extreme cases of penis or clitoral infection. Otherwise, mutilating one’s genitals is extremely stupid, primitive, cruel and barbaric.