[Mulder]

So does Christianity and Jews hate male sexuality since they practice circumcision.

The difference is that circumcision is not an act of barbarism committed by the savages described in this story.

How anyone can support letting the evil barbarians who practice this into our country is beyond me.

[timestax]

bump for the newbies to be shocked by!

[glory]

So does Christianity and Jews hate male sexuality since they practice circumcision>>

Hmmm, well not all Christians do practice it, nor it is "required". My son is not circed.

But the biggest difference I can see is that the equivalent of female circumcision as practice in these countries would be like cutting the male penis completely off. I dare say a folding back or removing of the foreskin under anesthetic(becoming commen place nowadays) on a newborn is quite a cry different than taking all female sexual parts off with a sharp piece of glass at the age of 8 with no anesthetic. And the consequences of the two practices are quite different. Men can go on even with thier foreskin removed to a rich sexual life and comfort with doing basic things like intercourse and urinating, female mutilation victims are not so lucky. And I say this as someone who does not and will not circ my own sons, but I can differentiate the two. The problem is the terms, they are not even equivalent imo.

[Terriergal]

The difference is that in male circumcision only the foreskin is removed. If that were the case in female circumcision (a misnomer if I ever heard one) it would be arguable to let it continue. Female circumcision would be akin to removing the entire penis of a male. Get it now GOVscrewsU?

[honeygrl]

"So does Christianity and Jews hate male sexuality since they practice circumcision. "

male circumcision as far as I know, done the proper way, doesn't cause mental scarring and doesn't cause disease or infection. It also does not prevent the man from achieving orgasm.