Male circumcision is not designed to stop the man enjoying sexual activity . It is not a mutilation Female circumcision is a mutilation of the female genitalia and is designed purely to stop the female enjoying sexual activity

To me, both should be banned. If a male wants this done later in life, to protect his partner and possibly himself from transmission of diseases, that's fine, but he should make that decision as an adult, without pressure (and WITH anesthesia!) However, the argument that condemns FGM and permits MGM goes something like this: --- FGM is done to attempt to prevent women from feeling sexual pleasure, and thus guarantee they will be faithful. It has higher health risks than MGM. (As AntigoneRising notes, sometimes women who have been mutilated can reach orgasm anyway; and as common sense tells you, the lack of orgasm is no guarantee at all that a woman will be faithful.) ---MGM is done to make a little boy a part of his community (to make him "match" his father, for example, or as a rite of initiation into a particular religion), and not only does it have very little health risk to the male infant, it has health benefits to his female sexual partners later in life. Some male circumcisions go very badly, but this is rare. Most of the difference in health consequences occurs because FGM is almost always performed under septic conditions; and advanced forms of FGM block the vagina so badly that conception and delivery become very difficult and dangerous. Even urination and the menstrual cycle may become very difficult. FGM also contributes strongly to the spread of HIV/AIDS. The argument that MGM is okay because it makes the male "part of the community" is not valid here, because FGM makes the woman a more acceptable part of HER community, too. I think the reality is that MGM is much more acceptable to U.S. culture than FGM, because --- many families have done it out of habit for many generations --- the families who do it for religious reasons are part of a religion which is respected here --- it appears to be a minor mutilation with minor health consequences (and actual health benefits for female partners), especially compared to the major mutilation and short-term and long-term health risks of FGM --- it is usually done to infants, and our culture doesn't understand or sympathize with infant pain in this procedure the way we do with the pain of children in the toddler-to-teen range. --- MGM is perceived as a way of keeping genitals cleaner, and is done in sterile settings, and FGM often makes genitals more difficult (or nearly impossible) to clean, and it is never done legally in a sterile setting. --- the religions/cultures which practice FGM are not part of a tradition which has wide acceptance or respect in the U.S.

neither should be done to children.they are the same.both remove pleasure,both lower the risk of std infection,both are done for religions,and both cut off the prepuce.here are some good links. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/3/prweb512999.htm http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138 Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum.

I think it is important to hear the voices of the women to whom it has happened. Whether or not some women can or cannot experience orgasm afterwards is irrelevant, as the practice was to stop them doing so. That some retained it was an accident. Read the story of Waris Dirie, a top model, born in Somalia. She crusades against the practice, based on her own experiences.: http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Phil110/waris-dirie.html

they are the same.both stop pleasure,and std infection,remove the prepuce,are done for religions,and shouldn't be done to children.here are some good links. http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/3/prweb512999.htm http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138 Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum.

While it is true that the wives of circumcised men have a much lower rate of cervical cancer (and other vaginal diseases, one supposes), the infant is robbed of personal choice. I consider it a form of child abuse. And circumcision reduces sensitivity in the glans of the penis, thus permitting longer intercourse, and consequently, greater female pleasure. FGM IS sometimes done in a sterile setting, since it is now being practised (illegally)in France, Great Britain, and America. http://schoolfile.homestead.com/FGM.html And in some African and Asian countries it is legal. It does more than eliminate female pleasure. In its extreme form the clitoris, the labia minorae, and as much as possible of the labia majorae are cut off, and the wound sewn up, leaving an opening the size of a pencil eraser. Impossible to clean. More than 40% of the girls die within a few weeks. I have no statistic on later mortality from septicemia, uremic poisoning, an other conditions brought on by inability to keep clean. In non-Western countries it is ALWAYS done without anesthesia, and usually with crude hand tools such as broken glass or sharpened stones. The victims are usually between four and ten years old. When the husband wants sex, he cuts her open. After he has had his pleasure, she is sewn up again. One argument in favour of FGM is that it guarantees paternity. The husband KNOWS that his children are his. The other is that the Koran does not prohibit it. You judge for yourself the validity of those two arguments.

If you ever read the comments of women that have suffered thru female circ, you will quickly see that they campaign against circumcision of any kind and see the US and western countries as Hypocrites for justifying multilation on a child just because of gender. Male and female circumcisio are mirror images. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5395565256830319025

both should be banned why did god not do it at conception did he froget ?? well sorry there is not god we are naturrally made that way why mutilate our bodies in hospital as willing adults or for medical reasons ok

People argue over if male genital mutilation is exactly like or comparable to female genital mutilation. the answer? WHO CARES. the point is BOTH of them male and female are being CUT UP without thier consent. period end of story. IF we go as far as to make a FEDERAL LAW BANNING one, for equal protection there should be a FEDERAL BANN ON BOTH. Period. In the USA they make a law then when a issue comes up they dont like they amend or ignore the first law. law 1- EVERY HUMAN shall have equal protection under the law. 2- ONLY FEMALES CAN NOT BE MUTILATED law one is clear, law 2 violates law 1 .... if the usa really wants all their boys mutilated AMEND law one first. dont ignore it. just like the full faith and credit law says that all states must recongize the laws of the other (if i remember correctly) yet when a issue (gay marriage) comes up they ignore the full faith and credit law and say each state shall decide for that state only UNTIL a state allowed it. then they wanted to change it to a federal ban period. What next a FEDERAL LAW saying ALL MEN shall be Mutilated regardless of consent. while females can not even choose to be mutilated? ( term mutilated is only used when the PERSON themself does not choose or consent to any change to their body from the way it was born) (most not all) WOMEN SCREAM at the top of their lungs that their body is theirs and theirs alone but then with the same voice screams that men shall be mutilated without choice.