So, here are my final thoughts (for real) on this one (after taking some time to calm down and gather my thoughts):

Those that are advocating for male circumcision but against female circumcision are belying a serious case of ethnocentrism. If this were an apples-to-apples comparison-- that is, if both procedures were done in sterile conditions and if neither operation were ever botched-- there can be little doubt that male circumcision, which removes the entire foreskin, decreases sensitivity much more than female circumcision, which is intended to only remove the clitoral hood. Similarly, in developing countries where both sexes are routinely circumcised-- and not in sterile conditions-- male circumcisions are as likely to be botched as female circumcisions and boys have died (routinely) because of this.

You can not have your cake and eat it too on this issue, in my opinion. Yes, female circumcision is abhorrent. Would we support it if it were carried out in the US under similar conditions to male circumcision? Were any of you on this thread that are talking about how much more damaging female circumcision is than male circumcision giddy with support for the APA when they recommended a genital "nick" for newborn girls a few months ago?

My guess is no, even though that genital nick certainly constitutes less damage than the routine male circumcision procedure in this country. So why the double-standard? Why isn't there room to hate both procedures?

My guess is cultural attitudes, and that is very sad. People have defended male circumcision in this country for years, sometimes for reasons as simple as "because the bible tells us so." But usually because "it's more hygenic", or (originally) because it was supposed to prevent masturbation, suppress sexual urges in boys, and keep them "pure." But when another society does it to girls for expressly the same purposes, all of the sudden we all think that it's barbaric?

Come on, guys-- wise up. There is a wealth of anthropological evidence out there indicating that these procedures--for both sexes-- go back to the beginnings of human history, and have played integral roles in the development of societies across the globe. I believe that we've outgrown the (perceived) need to practice either male or female circumcision. Maybe that's why I'm so dumbfounded by people that have not.

But at the end of the day, it really is ethnocentric, isn't it? We're appalled by something because it isn't something that we would ever contemplate doing, but then when the tables are turned around, and somebody points out that we *do* do it, and all of the sudden there's some profound, fundamental difference between the two? No, we continue to support male circumcision because we've done it for generations, and it has historical and religious roots that we're familiar with. If we had been doing the same thing to females for centuries, none of you on here would be complaining!

So that's food for thought. I'm dumbfounded. Truly dumbfounded that in the 21st century, people will hold onto stupid practices like these that have clearly outlived their purposes, and refuse to read the writing on the wall: that they are-- indeed-- outdated, and in fact quite damaging. It's hypocritical, and-- again-- jackassery in the first degree.

That's it. I'm not going to entertain this discussion any further (unless luvmyclit wants to accept my challenge to produce her (non-existent) credentials...)

Can you say mutilation? It is nothing like male circumcision, it destroys the nerve endings and removes all sensation.