In all fairness though, these don't really seem comparable considering that FGM is only done to reduce/eliminate sexual pleasure for females and that's not the case for male circumcision.
From Wikipedia’s bios on two of the people responsible for the spread of the practice, Lewis Sayre and John Harvey Kellogg:
> In 1870, Sayre began using circumcision as a purported cure for several cases of young boys diagnosed with paralysis or significant motor problems. He thought the procedure ameliorated such problems based on a "reflex neurosis" theory of disease, which held that excessive stimulation of the genitals (i.e., masturbation) was a disturbance to the equilibrium of the nervous system and a cause of systemic problems.
>Kellogg did promote extensive measures to prevent masturbation addiction. He circumcised himself at age 37. His methods for the "rehabilitation" of masturbation addicts included measures up to the point of cutting off part of the genitals, without anesthetic, on both sexes; he wrote men who did should be circumcised and women that did should have carbolic acid applied to their clitoral glans.
No you can't. Do you think circumcised men don't fully enjoy sex? Where did you get that idea from?
I also don't see your point in being pedantic. Both are procedures which do not benefit the majority and are an active effort to make most lives worse (be it unknowingly or knowingly). The only case for male circumcision, is the extreme minority of men who would suffer otherwise.
Surely you're not going to make your case on this petty a detail.
That would be news to hundreds of millions of men.
>Surely you're not going to make your case on this petty a detail.
I think any sane person would see removal of the clitoris to be quite different.
It's called pilpul and he obviously will.