One of the weirdest things I hear people who don't think MGM and FGM are comparable is they claim that FGM is supposed to give a man more pleasure during sex.

Like, what? If I was to have sex with a woman, I would want her to have the best experience possible. And that requires her entire genitalia to be intact. In fact, I'd rather have sex with an unattractive woman who's intact than a physically attractive woman who has undergone type 1 FGM.

Maybe it's projection? In the sense that they think women would have better sex if her partner had his foreskin amputated than if he had the whole thing?

So in one case, it's rightfully condemned. But if you reverse the sexes, it's somehow a considered a good reason to subject your child to genital mutilation? I can't with these people sometimes.

At least a good portion of them agree that circumcision is bad even if they think it isn't comparable to FGM. So at least their future son will remain intact.