I know you are making a point for debate, so I'm just continuing along those lines...cheers! : )
I have read countless documentation to the contrary. Female circumcision is specifically aimed at removed certain "pleasure oriented" sexual organs towards the end of making the women more chaste. By depriving them of the temptation, they are better wives.
We know that women subjected to this practice are losing a major "pleasure receptor" in this case. Absolutely horrid is what it is.
Article Reference follows:
***
Why is female circumcision done?
In many cases, female circumcision is done as an initiation into womanhood. While the age at which the procedure is done varies with the culture, it generally is performed before the girl reaches puberty. Among the reasons for the procedure are to ensure that a female is a virgin when she gets married and to reduce the female’s ability to experience sexual pleasure, which decreases the chance of extra-marital affairs. Some cultures also believe the clitoris (the small mass of highly sensitive tissue located near the opening of the vagina) is dangerous and must be removed for health reasons.
***
Sad is what it is...a tragic mutilation of innocent women.
There is continued debate over male circumcision. There is still discussion of decreased sexual pleasure on the part of circumcised males. It's really still open to debate at this point. The "Masters and Johnson" research was inconclusive. Other research supported a decrease in sexual pleasure due to the loss of "pleasure receptors" within the foreskin.
Really, I don't want to mess up anyone's breakfast so I won't relate to experience. Both practices lead to important questions, with Female circumcision absolutely being the more reprehensible of the two.
In the case of male circumcision, perhaps more questions should be asked before partaking in the process, maybe giving way to the individual's "choice" when they are older. If it's for religious purposes, this would certainly make for a greater sense of devotion and commitment at the "sacrifice", which it was originally supposed to be.
As for Female circumcision, I think the debate boils down to which caliber to use on the perpetrators, and do we go after their families afterwards? Yet this can be pursued in another thread some other time. Suffice to say I don't care for the practice nor the very concept.
I wonder if Mohammed circumsized his child-bride? The 6 year old he married.
The lack of outcry against Islamic hate is a travesty. Just think if Christians practiced Fem-Circ....what the outcry from liberals would be?
Female genital mutilation should be called what it is, and not downplayed by using a term like female circumcision. The two are in no way similar, physiologically.