... Because it's generally done in Africa without the woman's consent? And removes a woman's ability to feel any sexual pleasure. And hurts like a bitch. I mean, hey, if it's their choice then it's their choice, but it's done in Africa to keep women from enjoying sex so they don't become "promiscuous" or some bullshit like that. Male circumcision, while weird and done at birth without their consent, doesn't have any adverse physical side-effects. That's why there's a difference to most people when it comes to the ethical quandary of it all.
Male circumcision can go awfully wrong but the exremer forms of female circumcision are much more invasive, dagerous, even deadly, painful and remove the ability to feel any pleasure at all. Having said that I am against both and it should be the decision of the teen/adult.
The human right ofthe integrityof the own bodyand thusalsohuman dignity is a high value. Both gender circumcisions are absolutely wrong, because they circumcise (literally) this high value. So, the circumcision of male babies or young boys is as an abuse as female circumcision/mutilation, because these children have no possibility to choice if they want this or not and I really compare it with a violation against someone's body. I am actually horrified that there is still a need to discuss this in the 21th century.
Well, it's a hard to discuss, without coming into an emotional debate, which is understandable. Of course, female circumcision is much more horrible as the male one...however, in both cases human rights are abused.