Anna is actually correct. There are varying degrees of female circumcision - most of which do NOT involve removal of the entire clitoris, but removal of the clitoral hood, which is the female prepuce (foreskin). Some of the more severe forms of female circumcision involve removal of the clitoris (which is actually called a clitorectomy) and even trimming or removal of labia majora and minora.

Both forms of circumcision date back to ancient Egypt, and both were preformed for similar reasons - right of passage, pleasing the gods, etc. It wasn't until later that BOTH forms of circumcision were practiced to prevent masturbation or sexual promiscuity - yes, both male AND female circumcision were preformed for this reason later on. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X09jPPeogLQ

However, modern circumcision for males and females (where it is practiced) is typically not done for that reason at all, and instead is preformed more as a right of passage. The fact that it was done for sexual reasons at all stands as pretty good evidence that both forms of circumcision have a significant effect on sexual enjoyment - an effect that the owner of the body may not even be aware of because they've never known differently.

In a study conducted recently, a large group of circumcised women - with varying levels of FGM (female genital mutilation), some of which were extremely severe, involving complete clitoral removal - were studied. Their sexual performance and ability to orgasm was reviewed, and almost 100% of these women were able to achieve orgasm just fine. I had a link to the study, but I can't seem to find it. I'll look for it and edit if I do.

There are many reasons for this. First of all, women can orgasm vaginally as well as via clitoral stimulation. If a woman doesn't have an external clitoris (which, as I mentioned above, is a very rare form of FGM), her body doesn't know any different, and she learns to orgasm differently - just as a circumcised man doesn't know that he's missing a very essential part of his sexual anatomy, and he's completely unaware of the sexual pleasure that he could have if he had a prepuce. See this article on why circumcised men are often happy with their penises.Much of it can apply to circumcised women as well: http://www.circumcision.org/satisfied.htm

Secondly, the clitoris is primarily *internal*. Many people believe that the clitoris is a tiny, pea-sized nub that rests a few inches above the vagina, when, in actuality, the entire clitoris is about 3 inches long, and most of that is *beneath* the skin. This internal part of the clitoris is often stimulated through vaginal intercourse and can contribute to orgasm, even if the outer portion has been removed. This study describes the anatomy of the clitoris in a very detailed, medical fashion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16145367

One of the reasons male circumcision was popularized is because doctors started recommending it to prevent masturbation, which was then believed to lead to other health problems. It *was* recommended and preformed to alter a man's sexual performance in the future. See here for a time line showing the history of medical circumcision: http://www.circinfosite.com/2.html

Female circumcision is also believed to have begun in Egypt. It is believed that it was actually not preformed to sexually cripple a female, but to assist her maturation into womanhood: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ehtoddch/politics/histor... Some women were also "sewn up" in an attempt to prevent childbirth by preventing sexual intercourse. It wasn't to prevent cheating or sexual promiscuity, but as a barbaric form of birth control, basically. This came much later.

Bottom line: Every human has the right to decide what is done with their genitals. No one should have those choices taken away from them. Male circumcision and female circumcision are absolutely comparable - neither one should be preformed for any reason, unless it's necessary for lifesaving purposes (which would be *extremely* rare, if even possible). I think it's a huge double standard (specifically in the US) that female circumcision ignites rage in people, while male circumcision is no big deal, and even a good thing to so many people. We have soap and water. We have condoms. Circumcision is not necessary. Period.

Everyone deserves the right to genital integrity.

"Well the argument is that the clitoris has far more nerve endings than the foreskin does. Female circumcision takes away ALL sexual pleasure, while male circumcision does not- men still feel pleasure."

This is untrue. The external clitoris contains roughly 8,000 nerve endings, I believe, while the male prepuce contains over 20,000.

It's also ridiculous to say that female circumcision in any form takes away all sexual pleasure. That's bull. Women can still experience pleasure from intercourse - especially if they've lived their entire lives without a clitoris (which, again, is not how most forms of female circumcision are done). Again, there is a study on this - most women who were circumcised at birth can achieve orgasm just fine.

My point is not to support female circumcision, but to point out its similarities to male circumcision. Both take away a choice from a person that can't give consent.