vs. Female circumcision
Some ignorant liberasts do equate female genital mutilation
with neonatal ritual circumcision of boys (brit milah).
Not only do they attempt to equate dramatically different, incompatible
levels of pain, technique, and timing, but they miss completely the
meaning and goals of male circumcision, which are exactly opposite to
what is "achieved" in the female mutilation.
It is enough to mention at least three such oppositions between male
(a) Improving a harmony in sexual intercourse rather than damaging it;
(b) Discouraging males from rape and perverse sex;
(c) Certain medical and hygienical advantages.
In animals the Creator designed the male organ in order to facilitate
the fastest successful conception: what else? Indeed, the man at birth
inherits this design by default. However the humans are more than
animals, and a boy circumcision obviously serves the goal of elevating
humanity and harmony in his future sexual relationship. The male
circumcision helps him to adjust to female sexuality, while the female
"circumcision" mostly kills her sexuality at all, making her simply an
object of male gratification.
Moreover, the very anatomy of a circumcised male organ is such that it
rather discourages him from approaching a female not wishing the
intercourse. Similarly it discourages him from abominable forms of sex
and from bestiality. (Discourages, but alas, does not exclude it
completely, because circumcised males still can rape).
Oh yes. There is one more huge difference between brit milah and female
genital mutilation. The circumcision is described and prescribed in the
Bible in many places and blessed by G-d (if it matters for you). On the
contrary, the female genital mutilation is not mentioned in the Bible
(nor in Koran, if it matters). It
is just happened to be a Moslem barbaric popular rite.