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.