Because people still have this notion of uncirc'd = unclean. It's a sad double standard for men.

Women can be circumcised too??????? How does that work???? Ok so apparently the amswer is cos women lose the ability to experience sexual pleasure. Men who are circumcized don't.

Maybe because female circumcision takes away some sexual pleasure, and that is the main reason women are circumsized.

Female circumcision often involves drastic mutilation of the vaginal tissue, is practiced in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, can render the woman incapable of sexual pleasure, increases the possibility of urinary tract infection and serves no purpose except tradition/religious reasons.

Because female circumcision isn't the same type of thing at all. Female circumcision is when they cut the womans sensitive parts out where she feels pleasure. If a male was to have a similar circumcision as a woman the head of the penis would be cut off thus keeping the male from any sensual pleasure.

A few reasons; 1-FM is a very dangerous process which often makes women unable to derive any pleasure from sex. 2-There are some good points to male circumcision (though these points are disputed by many scientists). Personally after witnessing MC I find it to be a disgusting and horrible act in and of itself.

Some forms of female circumcision involve actual removal of the clitoris. The comparable operation for a male would be removal of the ENTIRE penis. Male circumcision does not increase the risk of other health problems (for instance, urinary tract infections) the way female circumcision does. The risk of woman who has undergone female circumcision giving birth to a live, healthy baby are FAR less than for an unaltered woman; up to 55% infant mortality for certain types. If you don't call that mutilation, then you have no idea what the word means.

I'd classify male circumcision as "very sketchy" and female circumcision as barbaric. Like people said, the male equivalent of a female circumcision would be lopping off the head, to the the entire thing. The female equivalent of a male circumcision might be cutting off the edges of the lips. Obviously still bad. Not refuting that, but not really in the same district of atrocities. That said, male circumcision is not widely practised. It's really a U.S. thing. (and I'd suppose places that are predominately Jewish.)

It's more accurately called "Female Genital Mutilation (FMG)" and most often not performed in a sterile or medical environment. Here's a description of the practice, all of it is considered barbaric and mutilation by civilized standards. ~~~~~~~~~ From: http://members.tripod.com/~Wolvesdreams/FGM.html "Female Genital Mutilation is the term used for removal of all or just part of the external parts of the female genitalia. There are three varieties to this procedure. 1. Sunna Circumcision - consists of the removal of the prepuce(retractable fold of skin, or hood) and /or the tip of the clitoris. Sunna in Arabic means "tradition". 2. Clitoridectomy - consists of the removal of the entire clitoris (prepuce and glands) and the removal of the adjacent labia. 3. Infibulation(pharonic circumcision)-- consists of performing a clitoridectomy (removal of all or part of the labia minora, the labia majora). This is then stitched up allowing a small hole to remain open to allow for urine and menstrual blood to flow through. The age the procedure is carried out varies from just after birth to some time during the first pregnancy, but most cases occur between the ages of four and eight. Most times this procedure is done with out the care of medically trained people, due to poverty and lack of medical facilities. The use of anesthesia is rare. The girl is held down by older women to prevent the girl from moving around. The instruments used by the mid-wife will vary and could include any of the following items; broken glass, a tin lid, razor blades, knives, scissors or any other sharp object. These items usually are not sterilized before or after usage. Once the genital area for removal is gone, the child is stitched up and her legs are bound for up to 40 days."

They are completely different procedures. Male circumcision is removing the foreskin. THe equivalent of this for a woman would be removing the clitoral hood. FGM on the otherhand removes the clitoris, labia, etc. That would be equivalent to partially or fully castrating a man.

I would assume that it is because it does not cause extensive health problems for men, decrease sexual pleasure, cause severe pain during intercourse, dysmenorrhea, infertility or death for men as it does for women. Some countries, such as the US, recognise forced FGM as a basis for asylum. In 1996, Fauziya Kassindja became the first woman to win asylum in the US on the grounds that she would be subjected to FGM if deported to her native Nigeria. However, a heavy burden of proof is placed on women seeking asylum on the basis of FGM or gender-based persecution. . Type I (commonly referred to as clitoridectomy) Excision (removal) of the clitoral hood, with or without removal of all or part of the clitoris. 2. Type II (commonly referred to as excision) Excision (removal) of the clitoris, together with part or all of the labia minora (the inner vaginal lips). This is the most widely practised form. 3. Type III (commonly referred to as infibulation) Excision (removal) of part or all of the external genitalia (clitoris, labia minora and labia majora), and stitching or narrowing of the vaginal opening, leaving a very small opening, about the size of a matchstick, to allow for the flow of urine and menstrual blood. Also known as pharaonic circumcision. 4. Type IV (Unclassified/Introcision) Pricking, piercing or incision of the clitoris and/or labia: • Stretching the clitoris and/or labia • Cauterisation by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissues • Scraping of the vaginal orifice or cutting of the vagina • Introduction of corrosive substances into the vagina to cause bleeding, or introduction of herbs into the vagina to tighten or narrow it • Any other procedure that falls under the definition of female genital mutilation Type 1 and type 2 operations account for 85 percent of all FGM. Type 3 is common in Djibouti, Somalia, Sudan and parts of Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali , Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, and Senegal. Type 3, also known as pharaonic circumcision, is extremely severe and involves binding a woman's legs for approximately 40 days to allow for the formation of scar tissue. Many of these communities use adhesive substances such as sugar, eggs, and even animal waste on the wound to enable it to heal. The excisor often has to reopen the vagina to allow for easier childbirth, and then re-stitch it after birth, leaving it as small as before, or slightly larger to reduce painful intercourse. Frequently the excisor is called on a girl's wedding night to open her up so she is able to consummate her marriage. Health complications associated with FGM Although it is widely known that FGM can have devastating and harmful consequences for a woman throughout her life, because most communities practising it are very poor and do not have access to modern health facilities, medical emergencies arising from FGM are common, and often lead to death.

Think about it,the difference is that "Cutting" the one is a health plus on the hygiene scale, and the other is.. well.. mutilation!

Circumsicision (spelling) is a surgical proceedure done by a doctor for health reasons. The African practice is usualy done by the father or parents of a little girl. In Atlanta a few years ago, An African Dad took a pair of scissors and cut out his 6 year old daughters clitoris... and under Federal law was sentenced to 40 years in prison. (I THINK it was 40 years) Can you see the difference?

This is done to the little girl so she will not be unfaithful, so she does not derive any pleasure from the act of intercourse. When they are done there is no clitoris at all, and for you that don't know... that is the pleasure center for women. When they "cut" the man/boy the head of your penis is exposed and you receive more pleasure. So I have been told. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

Its because of the procedure in which and why it is done. The practice of a female circumsision is to cut the skin around the clitorus with the intention of killing off any nerve endings in those areas. Thus the women losing all sensation in that are thus loosing any sexual sensation. this is to keep young girls from being permiscuous before they are married. The reason for he out law is because many women have it done at an age where they could conciously say no but are over powered. Also it is usually done in a very unsanitary way and most of the girls run risk of infection and death. Death from blood loss has happened as well because these are usually not performed by a doctor but by family members.

Cutting off a girl's or woman's clitoris clearly is a mutilation, because a functioning organ is excised from the body. That is barbaric. In male circumcision, we are talking about a bit of skin that is taken away. It might not be a clever thing to do, and it is a cultural, semi-religious custom. It has not as grave an effect as female genital mutilation. I am against both, but male circumsion is not as bad as female excision.

http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/2323166

For boys, there is at least some (albeit marginal) hygenic reasons for circumcision. For women, the sole reason for "circumcision" (it's really just cutting off the clitoris) is to reduce sexual sensation so the woman will be less likely to be unfaithful...

just to let you guys know, im not sure if i read it but they cut off the skin and clit. and well....it actually makes intercourse painful for the women. thus being mutilation while guys getting circumcised doesnt cause them pain during intercourse.

WesternHygiene 101 - Moral Hygiene vs physical Hygiene WesternMedical views of circumcision. It was started and recommended as a way of preventing masturbation and bringing sexual pleasure under Victorian-Control (this means destroying sexual pleasure in both males and females). This morphed into a new-idea, as attitudes changed Moral-hygiene was mistaken for Physical-hygiene. Not a surprising Western View, since most people in the West don’t realize that Western Medicine is completely responsible for developing the ideas that Male and Female circumcision have medical reasons, and the Medical-tools used for both were developed in the West… http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=40

“Americans believe that male circumcision is harmless, even beneficial, while female circumcision is harmful and mutilating. Male circumcision is something that "we" do because it's (allegedly) healthier, cleaner, sexier, and normal. Female circumcision is something that "they" do because they want to control sexuality and diminish pleasure. Yet women who circumcise their daughters in other cultures claim it's because circumcision is healther, cleaner, more appealing to men, prevents disease, and is normal....besides, they say, I'm circumcised and I'm normal and enjoy sex! Sound familiar? Both men and women have foreskins. Both originate from the same tissue in the fetus. Both male and female foreskins are full of nerve endings and are necessary to normal sexual functioning. “...(I borrowed this comment from another site, it's accurate and well written)

For the same reason alcohol and tobacco are sold in shops and other drugs are illegal. Social conditioning and cultural habit - it has historically been acceptable. You might well find that in Europe routine circumcision of baby boys for no reason would not be looked on with quite the same tolerance. Male infant circumcision is just as wrong and should be just as illegal as female circumcision is.

There was an old wives' tale that male circumcision prevented infections, it's bullshit. Female circumcision is done for entirely different reasons, it is to limit the amount of pleasure which females can experience during intercourse. I disagree to the utmost extent, with regard to both processes.

Well, probably because "female circumcision" IS barbarous and a mutilation---and more accurately compared to the removal of the glans penis than only the foreskin. Wikipedia sums it up well: Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is the ritual removal of some or all of the external female genitalia. Procedures differ according to the country or ethnic group. They include removal of the clitoral hood and clitoral glans; removal of the inner labia; and removal of the inner and outer labia and closure of the vulva. In this last procedure (known as infibulation), a small hole is left for the passage The health effects depend on the procedure; they can include recurrent infections, difficulty urinating and passing menstrual flow, chronic pain, the development of cysts, an inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth, and fatal bleeding. There are no known health benefits