Replies

So is male circumsisions.

Oh my God! That is the most stupid statement I have read in quite a while! In fact, I would feel absolutely no guilt in calling you any number of terms describing low intellectual development, but I will refrain.

There is absolutely no equivalence between male circumcision and the procedure euphemistically referred to as female circumcision. Female "circumcision" involves the removal of the clitoris, an organ you may not know exists, unless you are a woman, which I doubt. This is the organ which women experience the pleasure of sex with. Since this organ is not absolutely necessary to reproduce, they don't extinct themselves by the practice. However, if the male penis were removed, which would be the most like a clitorectomy, it would extinct them, so they don't do that. Removing a piece of skin of barely a quarter of an inch on most (other) men causes no significant loss in the ability to experience sexual pleasure. It happened to me when I was a small baby, and I don't think I would know the difference today if it hadn't. However, a woman post-clitorectomy would definitely know the difference if it never happened.

Finally, to make such a comparison between men and women minimizes the harm that is caused to women by the procedure. I hope that, if you are married, which I doubt, that you are put in the position of having to debate with your spouse the equivalence of male circumcision and female "circumcision."

To you and the rest who are indignant as to comparing male and female circumcisions as unfair: you need to ask yourselves if there is an outcry of males and its representatives in Hollywood as far as the brutality, and the barbaric tradition of male circumcision of boys! The answer is no. Since there is no outcry on the male side, then it must be ok for a few days old boy to have some body cut a piece of his sensitive part of his anatomy - just for the heck of it. There has been a report in the American Journal of Medicine about the loss of pleasure the circumcised male suffers versus the uncircumcised men. But hay, Oprah said circumcising women is barbaric, and Oprah don't give a sh*t about males circumcised or not! If their balls fall off because of cancer, it does not matter to Oprah, and her activist feminists. When did you see the buddy system encouraged for guys? Hey Bob, you want to examine my balls for lumps? Or have guys demonstrate on TV how to examine their balls! Of course NEVER! In the case of women, it is a different story, we even show their boobs on the tube, and encourage them to get together and feel each other breasts! Guys don't count.

And, Webheart; I am currently flipping in the current issue of Newsweek, May 10, the cover story THE NEW KEYS TO WOMEN HEALTH...Breast cacer, Sexual desire, drinking, heart disease! Now 50% of the population are males 1) When did you see a cover story on a national magazine specifically talking about male health 2) what is wrong with talking about all people MALES & FEMALES! Guys don't have sexual desire, drinking problem, or even hearts? Give me a break! The femenization of America must have taking over your brain.

Removing a piece of skin of barely a quarter of an inch on most (other) men causes no significant loss in the ability to experience sexual pleasure. It happened to me when I was a small baby, and I don't think I would know the difference today if it hadn't.

How could you know?

BTW, according to the Maimonides one purpose of circimcision is to weaken sexual pleasure. It could make sense for ascetic/religious people. But such weakening could lead non-religious men to excess in search for satisfaction.