Excuse me, but I stated quite clearly in my post that I am a femile gentile with no sons. So, I know I am no "expert." (And I am amused that, having never prtformed, received or advocatd male circumcision, I am a "fanatic". Tee hee! You're funny)

I was relating a conversation with a person who practices Judiasm (personally a professionally). This was *his* take on the subject. I am wondering who "widely known" is. I noticed you didn't put any links, sources, or quotes to support your statement. And just going on the few textual references of ancient Jewish literature that I am familiar with, there are plenty of references to sex as being a pleasurable act ("Song of Songs" is perhaps my favorite) and none that, say, showcase a conversation where Godsays to Abram "By the way, you're going to *loathe* sex from now on, but get buz-ay and make me some grandkids!"

As I have said (over and over again), male circumcision is a religious practice, generetated by males and practiced by males without the inspiration, input, advice, command or probably desire of woman (I refer you to Jacob's daughter). It had nothing to do with pleasing, serving or punishing women. Female circumcision, while often carried out by women on women, is a *secular*, social practice designed to make women more "marriageable" by making them less likely top fuck around. This is an entirely secular practice, nand it is designed to subjugate women. The *only* religious writing, in any faith, on the subject of female circumcision is one line (perhaps, but open to argument that he never wrote it) from Muhamed, when he says, (basically,) "look, let the girl still be fun in the sack."

I am by no means saying male circumcision is a necessity, or even a desireable state for men. I do understand the Jewish tradition behind it, but I think I'd still debate the necessity of it even if I were a practicing Jew. (The Reform movement swept away many "trivial" laws and customs that, according to them, got in the way of actually communing with God. Seems to me circumcision could be one such practice).

But I am weary unto death hearing men (and women) scream that male circumcision is "just the same" as cutting off a woman'sclitoris, labia minora and scraping te walls of her vagina, forming scar tissue so massive that the only opening to expel urine, blood (and oh yeah *babies*) is the size of a match stick. Never mind thinking of how one allows a penis (circumcised or not) *in*! They are *not* the same procedures! They are not on "the same continum", as the practices have entirely different motives and consequences. Female circumcision is on a par with castration. Were we still creating castrati to sing in operas, I'd be crusading to end it. But we don't, and I'm not. And I am so bored with people saying I am a hypocrite for saying women actually have it worse on this one. Enough!

The most common form (up to 80%) of female circumcision is excision: the removal of the clitoris and the labia minora. The most extreme form (15%, or more than 1 in 6) is infibulation: additionally stitching up the remaining tissue to make a "chastity belt" of sorts.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

So, I take issue with the numerous posters who say "it's just the same". Excision means removal of the whole clitoris, not just the hood.

I'm sorry if you were offended by my comparison to castration. But that's *exactly* how offended I feel when people compare male ccircumcision to female circumcision.

And I don't mean to make this a pissing contest of who has more pain. I typed in sheer frustration. Over and over again, the real, well-documented trauma of women undergoing severe genital mutilation is trivialized by anti-male-circumcision activists.

A look over Broadsheet's comments sections on any article related to circumision will show this hostility. Broadsheet posts an essay on female circumcision, and dozens of letter writers jump in screeching "But what about the men!?" as if the very common, very dramatic complications typical of female circumcision are exactly the same as the comparatively rare complications in male circumcision. (And yeah, I know this Broadsheet post started out as a male circumcision piece, but here we are ...)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000111074855.htm

""We're talking about trade-offs for very rare risks and very rare benefits," Christakis says. "Now, I can tell parents that one in 500 circumcised children may suffer a complication, and one in 100 children may derive a benefit. But people will weigh that differently. However, the vast majority of children will gain no medical benefit nor suffer any complication as a result of circumcision.""

Conflating the 2 issues (male foreskinectomy with female excision or infibulation) dos not help either issue. If every time a woman was raped, people said "Yeah, well, what about the boys who are seduced by their English teachers?" would it help either situation?