Who said that Female Genital Cutting is harmful cultural practice, it as been there in the community since the times of our great grand parents in the name of reducing female sexual appetite, therefore where is culture in practicing Female Genital Mutilation if the women who have under gone the cultural right of passage (FGM) complain of biological life threatening complication of their reproductive organ?
Thanks to the elders who came up with the idea of FGM in the name of reducing female sexual appetite, thanks to the reproductive health service provider who discovered that male circumcision reduces the chances of HIV infection while FGM increases the chances of infection.
Where science meets culture there is usually violent conflict between the two. The introductions of male circumcision as a method of prevention against HIV infection recently come across a cultural barrier from the Luo Council of Elders not because that male circumcision is a method of prevention against HIV infection, but because they feel that they are the most targeted community because they don’t practice male circumcision, the community removes six lower teeth, that is the Luo culture.
The main issue is that at one point in the history of AIDS in Kenya the community registered the highest HIV and AIDS related cases, and now the research is targeting the community because of their culture of not circumcising men and is relating it to the high causes of infection while other communities practicing male circumcision are also facing the same problem of increasing number of new HIV infections. The research may be stigmatizing the community.
Anyway the council concluded that any male in the community can under go circumcision but not because of the HIV prevalence rate in the community, but because of self choice. Then what happens to the condoms, male circumcision my lead to negative attitude towards condoms and may reduce the use of condoms in some communities who practice male circumcision hence increase in the number of new HIV infections.
Thanks to the elders who came up with the idea of FGM in the name of reducing female sexual appetite, thanks to the reproductive health service provider who discovered that male circumcision reduces the chances of HIV infection while FGM increases the chances of infection.
Where science meets culture there is usually violent conflict between the two. The introductions of male circumcision as a method of prevention against HIV infection recently come across a cultural barrier from the Luo Council of Elders not because that male circumcision is a method of prevention against HIV infection, but because they feel that they are the most targeted community because they don’t practice male circumcision, the community removes six lower teeth, that is the Luo culture.
The main issue is that at one point in the history of AIDS in Kenya the community registered the highest HIV and AIDS related cases, and now the research is targeting the community because of their culture of not circumcising men and is relating it to the high causes of infection while other communities practicing male circumcision are also facing the same problem of increasing number of new HIV infections. The research may be stigmatizing the community.
Anyway the council concluded that any male in the community can under go circumcision but not because of the HIV prevalence rate in the community, but because of self choice. Then what happens to the condoms, male circumcision my lead to negative attitude towards condoms and may reduce the use of condoms in some communities who practice male circumcision hence increase in the number of new HIV infections.
