I'm with you, Lee!
Most cultures that practice female circumcision do it on older girls, not infants. But there are other differences.
Female circumcision definitely does generally deny girls lifelong sexual pleasure, literally and almost totally -- in fact, that is largely its purpose. It also inhibits all sorts of normal genital functioning. The procedure can cause severe bleeding, shock, death, infection. The consequences can include pain during sexual intercourse, lifelong problems with urination and menstruation, birth complications often leading fatalities. In some cases it leaves an opening the size of a straw; the husband upon marriage is given a knife to cut it open, and the opening is sewn up again if he is going to be away for a while. Female genital cutting is considered a human rights violation, is opposed by Amnesty International and other human-rights groups, is outlawed in many countries including the U.S. as well as some in which it is traditionally practiced, and in the U.S. is considered a valid basis for granting refugee status.
I don't think it's fair to compare female "cirumcision" -- better known as mutilation or female genital cutting -- with male circumcision. Males who are circumcised do not seem to feel similarly sexually deprived, nor are other functions impeded. It has no larger negative health consequences. In fact, whether one believes this is a valid basis for circumcision or not, studies do suggest some health benefits.
Lee, if you compare what was done to your son to female circumcision, I think you may be suffering more than you need to.
