Caught in the Net | Caught in the Net | Chicago Reader

News & Politics » Caught in the Net

Caught in the Net


Captured at

Differences Between Male and Female Circumcision

by Sami Aldeeb

You cannot be against female circumcision and in favor of male circumcision at the same time unless you are willing to convince us that

your culture is better than others' cultures

your religion is better than others' religions

your holy book is better than others' holy books

girls have to be protected but not boys

I consider both male circumcision and female circumcision as crimes that should be punished when practiced against a nonconsenting person without an effective and serious medical reason.

For this reason, I consider as immoral the Western (and any other) legislations which condemn female circumcision and accept male circumcision.

I completely agree that there is a difference between male and female circumcision. I also agree that female circumcision makes more harm than male circumcision (if correctly done).

I also agree that to cut a hand or a foot is different from cutting a finger. Cutting a hand or a foot makes more harm than cutting a finger.

These differences do not give the right to cut others' fingers without their consent and without a serious, effective medical reason.

I may agree that male circumcision (as well as cutting a hand or a foot) could be, in very rare cases, practiced for medical reasons.

But it seems to me that the supposed medical benefits aiming to generalize male circumcision are just a posteriori reasons to justify barbaric acts. Although I am not a physician, it seems to be very pretentious to suppose that nature did a mistake necessitating surgical intervention on a large scale.

According to the Bible, Abraham pretends to have received the order from God to be circumcised... when he was 99 years old! For me, a God who demands that his believers be mutilated and branded on their genitals the same as cattle is a God of questionable ethics. Unless we suppose that Abraham was not very sane at that age...and that God never gave such an order to the poor Abraham. In both cases, we can forget Abraham and his strange story.

Those who do not accept this liberal way of interpreting the Bible must nevertheless admit that Abraham circumcised himself when he was 99 years old. He himself took the decision. Why then should we impose our decisions on others? If we respect our children we have to leave them intact until at least the age of 18. Then they will decide themselves if they like to have their penis mutilated or not. They can even have their ears cut if this is their will.

Caught in the Net welcomes interesting flotsam culled by its readers. Send e-mail to netfishing@chireader. com. There's a T-shirt in it for you if we print it.

Support Independent Chicago Journalism: Join the Reader Revolution

We speak Chicago to Chicagoans, but we couldn’t do it without your help. Every dollar you give helps us continue to explore and report on the diverse happenings of our city. Our reporters scour Chicago in search of what’s new, what’s now, and what’s next. Stay connected to our city’s pulse by joining the Reader Revolution.

Are you in?

  Reader Revolutionary $35/month →  
  Rabble Rouser $25/month →  
  Reader Radical $15/month →  
  Reader Rebel  $5/month  → 

Not ready to commit? Send us what you can!

 One-time donation  →