Originally Posted by
grasshopper
I am not trying to defend male circumcision here but I do think it is difficult to compare it the way it is done in western cultures to female circumcision.
Female circumcision is rarely if ever carried out under western conditions so cannot really be compared to male circumcisions carried out under western conditions. If you were comparing the two done as there are under primitive conditions then most definitely both are horrific but still even then there are MAJOR differences between the two.
Female circumcision is generally carried out in cultures where women are considered inferior to men to prevent them from deriving any pleasure from sexual activities. I would say it is rarely if ever done for reasons of hygiene, to look like mum or because it looks better. Also, often the entire clitoris (and sometimes labia) is removed, not just the clitoral hood (also sometimes the girl's vagina is stitched up as well)...the equivalent to this in a male is removal of the penis not just the foreskin. These girls truly are hacked, with whatever instrument can be used, not a surgical procedure.
Honestly I do have a hard time accepting the reasons for male circumcision as well but female circumcision the way it is normally carried out is truly barbaric.