Male 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 vs. female circumcision:

(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.