But

But it's not just lip-service, especially on the geopolitical level.

Which is why I insist you separate foreign and domestic. I am clearly not speaking about foreign Saudi policies, but domestic.

It's also other Muslim governments.

Like who? Don't confuse demographic and historical majorities with whether a religion is official. You cannot truthfully say Egypt and Turkey are Muslim unless you say that France and the USA are Christian, which is historically and demographically correct, but not legally accurate.

I don't remember more than 13 sharia countries in the world. Really. And I am stretching it.

At any rate if you want to equate arranged child marriages (in which the selection of brides is typically more politically and tribally than sexually driven)

Yeah right, because we know everyone marries people they are not attracted to. News for you: people become unattractive after marriage, not prior to it.

with sexual freedom for pedophiles, go right ahead.

Yes, who could possibly equate same-sex marriage with greater sexual freedom for gays?

you can't even have a beer,

Actually, they do have non-alcoholic beer.

start a very mild child modeling agency over there

At least they're upfront about it, instead of intentionally misleading producers into thinking their sites are always going to be legal then arresting them on trumped up charges, as happened to certain photographers in Utah, Florida and Alabama whose sites will remain unmentioned.

I recall how you blamed male circumcision on Zionists and feminists,

If it were not for Jewish lobbies, it would already be non-existent, possibly banned, in the whole West - as it was in the Soviet bloc, where there were no Jewish lobbies. But try speaking about banning male circumcision without being called an anti-Semite, or worse.

Feminist lobbies only make it harder to deal with male circumcision, by insisting that it is completely different from female circumcision and that it has no effect on function or on pleasure (both of these false assertions) unlike the female version. If they meant it "liberate sex" they would have to have an equal emphasis. Actually, no, they would have to have a larger emphasis on male circumcision in the USA, because American baby boys are cut millions a year, and baby girls are, while uncounted, nowhere close to that number. Obviously, the proportions are different in other countries, there's no denying that either.

Otoh, why should you care? Isn't the children's body the property of Mom to do as she pleases? 'cause Mom has usually a large role in deciding the circumcision of baby girl in Africa and baby boy in America - and not so much that of boys of a higher age in the majority of Dar-al-Islam. How can you defend maternal property AND body integrity simultaneously?

yet the practice is more prevalent among Muslims than anyone else.

who at least are upfront that it is a purely religious rite, instead of citing some witchdoctor benefits to it, as Western apologists do, like saying circumcised men don't have AIDS.

In Saudi Arabia it is actually the most frequently performed of all surgical operations on males.

But not on infants: it is on boys that have reasoning ability. I care about that difference. Same as I do regarding ear piercings on baby girls, for that matter.

It is one thing if my daughter, regrettably, chooses to have a breast enlargement when she's 20 years old, another if I choose for her to have a breast implant when she's 20 days old.