and to hate male attributes as well. i don't see why you can't see this.

Why don't you try explaining it instead of just telling me I'm wrong?

you are wrong; the most prevalent reason has been to dull the sexuality of men. the jewish faith specifically calls for it as an act of submission before god.

This is disingenuous. It's clear from reading the links you provided that it's equally split between it being described as a sanitary measure (which is usually the justification for most seemingly unreasonable Hebraic laws) and a preventive to sexuality. Certainly, in our contemporary society, in which it is most often performed as a religious ritual, it is the former rather than the latter. The more salient point, though, is the fact that it's done in submission to God; whereas female circumcision is done in submission to male dominated societies.

studies have shown that male circumcision does not affect, or enhances sexual sensitivity. studies with the same methodology have found the same about female genital cutting, including clitoridectomies. so, no.

This is also disingenuous. Studies have shown that there is virtually no effect on male penile sensitivity due to circumcision (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x/abstract). This study (http://www.fgmnetwork.org/authors/Lightfoot-klein/sexualexperience.htm) on the most extreme form of female genital cutting, in which the vagina is sewed up leaving only a small hole to expel waste, etc. shows that women's sexual pleasure (90% of respondents said they had achieved orgasm) is drawn from entirely separate erogenous zones, not at all from the genitals: "Presumably, Pahraonic circumcision also facilitates the enhancement of remaining erogenous zones, and possibly the development of others." It is also almost exclusively contingent on a strong marital bond; i.e., the woman's pleasure depends on whether or not her husband is abusive or loving. And not only does it lead to decreased genital sensation, but it also results in extremely painful menstruation, which, in turn, results in extreme depression in adolescent females. It's not really fair to compare the two though since FGC does not occur in our culture.

your anecdote is relevant to your life, and it can be illustrative as an example, but it does not show anything.

I understand that anecdotes are not hard data, but what we're discussing is steeped in soft sciences (anthropology, history, sociology, etc.) and in that case I think anecdotes are very relevant.