I read a book about a tribe in the Amazon- the Hourani. When the author arrived in the jungle- he had tried to pack enough provisions for his adventure. The Hourani, being a tribe who hunted daily and lived hand to mouth from their jungle home- thought this was absurd and did not respect this man at all. after all- all a person needs is a weapon...and even a weapon could be made from the stuff of the jumgle. His big pack of stuff was like a billboard of his helplessness. His preparation for a week ahead was like carrying a sign that said, "I have no faith in my ability to hunt, I am a failure as a man"
In our culture, amassing stuff and wealth is a sign of strength, in their culture- the ability to walk naked with the skills to feed your family is a sign of strength. We look at them and think, "They are poor- they have nothing!" they look at us and think, "They are helpless, they can not even walk."
So- why I mention this is because taking the morality of one culture and comparing it to something going on in another culture is an apples to oranges comparison. "Oh- FGM is done to hurt a woman's sexuality- it's so bad. We do MGM to enhance a man sexually- not to opress him!" Well... is that a fair analysis of what is going on? What if your culture holds you in higher regard for having a supressed sexuality? Our western idea of the importance of sexual pleasure may be the opposite of what their idea of it is. While we may feel the it's a blessing, they may feel it's a burden. So their motivation is not springing from a desire to do harm to a girl- it's entirely plausable that their motivation is to help a girl be free of this awful burden of the untamed sexuality. Let's say that our motivation to do MGM is based on ideas that it enhances male sexuality... "women like it" "he won't ever get a BJ if he's not cut" "It's normal!" "I would never be with an uncut guy- that's gross" "when word got out in school that he wasn't cut the rumors flew" etc. We have heard these things from people in our culture. So- think carefully- it's it any worse a sexual repression if a person has to be sexually uplifted through surgery to be socially acceptable (marriagable or whatever)- as it is that a person has to be sexually toned down to be socially acceptable?
Even if our motivation is entirely to enhance and not to harm- isn't our cultural mindset that enhancing needs to be done- as unethical an imposition on human rights and a harmful belief coming from our society towards males? (by the way- the original intention of medicalized circumcision in the USA was unabashadly to sexually harm and diminish- and at that time in history, as if a time period could be viewed as a different continent from our current time period, that culture valued sexual restraint as a virtue and a health measure for a better life- they were "helping by harming")
If we were to model a version of FGM that mimics what we do to males in the USA, it would not be analogous to any of the common forms of FGM. We would preserve the clitoris entirely, because we think it's important. We would strip away the labia and the clitoral hood because they are ugly and dirty cause infections and problems and a girl would need to be taught to wash there very carefully..and that would be awkward. People who work in nursing homes would tell stories about the horrors they have seen in old women who can no longer care for themselves. We would feel very happy to see a little pink button clitoris exposed in plain sight as soon as we opened a baby girl's diaper- and call it "a good circumcision" and would think that her peers would now accept her and never tease her because they can see that her clitoris is exposed and hygenic and dry just like theirs. Women who had their clitoris exposed since infancy would declare that they were happy they were circumcised and that no sexual harm had been done to them because their clitoris functions just fine, that they are glad they don't have an ugly camel toe down there, and it's cleaner.