While it may be true that male
circumcision is no more necessary than
female circumcision, there is a fallacy is in equating the two practices.
In a male circumcision the
operation removes a piece of skin surrounding the head of the
penis that is more than likely a vestigial remnant of a
penis sheath, a common accessory among
mammals. The procedure is done to aid in cleanliness, and because many cultures believe it to be the
right thing to do.
Female circumcision is slightly different. Whereas in the male procedure, only a small amount of skin is removed, skin I might add that serves little or no purpose; in the female procedure many
useful parts are removed. There exist several different techniques.
Some people practice the relatively minor procedure that calls for the removal of the outer or minor
labia. A more drastic procedure, used in modern day
Sudan, termed
Pharonic Circumcision calls for the removal of the
clitoris, and both the minor and major labia. The wound is then stitched together leaving only a small opening for the host to pass
urine and
menstrual fluids.
Clearly female genital mutilation is varied in its severity, but some would argue that it is always
severe. This, I believe was
Jasonm's point. Furthermore, male circumcision is almost always performed shortly after
birth, when the host is far too young to be
traumatized by the action.
Conversely, female circumcision is most often performed on hosts when they are between five and eleven years of age, certainly old enough to
feel the pain and remember it well. Additionally, depending on the type of procedure, it may have to be revisited when the host is older and of a marrying age, especially in the case of the
Pharonic Circumcision, where the stitched
wound must be reopened to allow for
intercourse.
The Female procedure is much more
brutal and obviously a method of
male control and perhaps cultural
misogyny. The Male procedure is nothing more than
elective or
cosmetic surgery, it will not hamper the function of the
male organ or impede
pleasure derived from
stimulation.
Towsend, Patricia K. and McElroy, Ann, Medical Anthropology in Ecological Perspective, Third Edition. Westview Press 1996, pages 113 - 115.