Mothers Say No to Circumcision
In Partnership with Men to Protect Babies
By Cat Saunders
Infant male circumcision is not
only a men's issue. As long as mothers betray their protective maternal
instincts by allowing their sons' genitals to be cut, and as long as women
have relationships—of any kind—with men whose first sexual experience
was violent, circumcision is of paramount importance to women. Therefore,
women have a responsibility to act in partnership with men to protect all babies.
Americans are generally horrified by female genital
mutilation, yet most are still in denial about the physical, psychological,
sexual, and social ramifications of involuntary male circumcision.
Unfortunately,
many Americans have been conditioned to accept male circumcision as normal
and beneficial, when in fact it is unnecessary and detrimental.
Even now, many people don't realize that the American Medical Association
recommends against circumcision.
It's a rare American who knows what happens during
so-called "routine" circumcisions: Helpless baby boys are taken from their
mothers and strapped spread-eagle to a plastic board in four-point restraints,
and then, while these babies are fully conscious and unaesthetized, their
foreskins are crushed, sliced open, amputated, and thrown away.
During
ritual (religious) circumcision, some of the details are different, depending
on the religion. However, the end result of circumcision is always the
same: destruction of the natural integrity of the human genitalia.
The male foreskin—which would become 15 square
inches of tissue in an erect adult penis—is the most sensitive (most
highly enervated) part of the male body. This erogenous tissue has extremely
important protective and immunological functions, in addition to sexual
functions that enhance pleasure for men and their partners during
sex.
The good news is, America's circumcision rate has
dropped dramatically in the last two decades. In 1978, 85% of American
boys were circumcised. As of this interview in 2002, less than 57% of males in the United States
are circumcised.
Even more wonderful is the news that circumcision in
the western United States has now decreased to less than 35%. This means
that west of the Mississippi, more than 65% of American boys are left
intact. The minority has become the majority!
In the following brief interviews, two mothers speak
movingly against circumcision. One is the mother of a circumcised son,
and the other left her son intact. Both women speak straight from the
heart about this unnecessary and inhumane practice.
Lisa Pacot
Lisa Pacot, L.M.P., is a 40-year-old massage practitioner and the mother
of an intact 5-year-old son.
Cat: When did you first start thinking about circumcision?
Lisa: In my college years in the early 1980s, when I was 18 or 19. I
read an article in college which disproved the belief that circumcision
was necessary to prevent infection. It explained that uncircumcised boys
don't get infections, and that circumcision is really unnecessary.
Fortunately for my son, I stumbled upon this information in college. Since
then, I wouldn't think of circumcising a child.
Cat: When you were pregnant, did anyone in your circle try to tell you
that you should circumcise, if you had a boy?
Lisa: No. My friends are very aware, and his father was not circumcised.
Cat: On the flip side, have you ever felt moved to talk about circumcision
with pregnant friends?
Lisa: I didn't need to. No one I know circumcised their son.
Cat: Just for the record, how many infections has your intact son had?
Lisa: Zero!
Cat: What do you think about the idea that circumcised penises "look
better" than intact genitals?
Lisa: I've heard that some women favor the "look" of circumcised penises,
but that reminds me of the argument that I hate most about circumcision:
when fathers who are circumcised want their sons' penises to look like
theirs. I think that's the most egocentric, selfish attitude that any
human being could take.
Because of this selfishness, a father has his baby
boy strapped to a board—and without anesthesia, allows the tip of his
son's penis to be cut off! By the way, this selfish attitude about children's
genitals needing to look like their parents' is one of the main arguments
people use for female genital mutilation, too.
Cat: What do you think it will take to stop circumcision?
Lisa: I think it's important for people to keep talking about circumcision,
and for people like you to keep writing about it. I don't believe that
people want to hurt babies. If it sunk in that circumcision hurts
babies, people wouldn't do it.
Leanne Garn
Leanne Garn, M.A., is a counselor, a doctoral student,
and a fine paper merchandiser. She is 60 and the mother of a 38-year-old
circumcised son.
Cat: Do you recall when you first considered the issue of circumcision?
Leanne: I remember thinking about it and reading different books when
I was pregnant. I read that it was the best thing to do for boy babies,
so they'd be healthy and clean. It didn't occur to me to question what
I read.
Since my son's father was circumcised, I thought that's what
you were supposed to do. I hadn't grown up with brothers, so I didn't
know some boys were circumcised and others were not.
Cat: Were you present during your son's circumcision?
Leanne: They wouldn't let me in the room. They took him in there alone.
I guess they wanted to distract me, because later they said that my son
cried harder when they took off his clothes than when they did the operation.
Cat: Most babies scream during circumcision, but some babies don't make
noise during the operation because they pass out from shock.
Leanne: I didn’t know that. I was too far away to hear him. The
nurse's comment distracted me from my horror at hurting him. I remember
feeling heartbroken that I'd done something that hurt him.
Cat: You realized that the circumcision hurt him?
Leanne: Oh, yes. Physically, it hurt.
Cat: How did you know it hurt?
Leanne: It looked like it hurt, because his penis was bloody,
and it had Vaseline and some gauze wrapped around it. I didn't want that
baby that I loved so much to be wounded.
Cat: Beforehand, you didn't realize that circumcision would wound him?
Leanne: No. I didn't think about it like that, not until I saw it.
Cat: When you heard the word "circumcise," it didn't come together with
the word "cut"?
Leanne: It did, and it didn't.
Cat: Did you ever talk to your son about his circumcision later in life?
Leanne: It wasn't really a conversation, but I did once tell him that
if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have made the same decision.
Cat: Have you ever had occasion to speak with friends about circumcision?
Leanne: Yes. I don't go into any long explanations, because it's not
my business to interfere, but I do ask them if they've thought about their
decision.
Cat: That reminds me of one last question. It's scary to ask, even for
a longtime anti-circumcision activist like me, because I know it will
inflame a lot of people. That is, if your friends were beating their children,
would you think it's not your business to interfere?
Leanne: No. I would think it's my business.
Cat: I think circumcision is everyone's business, too, for the same
reason: because children are helpless to defend themselves. It's scary
to question prevailing attitudes, but someone has to stand up against
the outdated notion that children are the legal property
of parents to do with as they please.
Leanne: Yes. I've let personal fears interfere with the rights of babies.
I can make amends for the harm I've done to my son by speaking for the
children now.
This interview was originally published in Verve
(January 2002).
For more information about
circumcision (including detailed information about the foreskin), visit http://www.nocirc.org,
http://www.noharmm.org,
and http://www.cirp.org.
To read a startling comparison
between female genital mutilation and male circumcision, visit http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html.
|
