Whenever genital mutilations come up and comparisons are done between genders, we seem to look at equivalency. So prepuce = prepuce logic is used to claim that the removal of the foreskin is as serious as removal of the clitoral hood, or that the removal of the clitoris is as serious as a penectomy...

But is that really the case? I can't help but think this is a concession made for fear of outraging the female. Has that form of equating truly been given fair thought?

When I think of the two comparisons I can't help but think "gosh, the man-parts sure look bigger!"

The surface area of flesh of the foreskin, for example, seems to be a lot bigger than the clitoral hood, in most cases. Penises also sure look a heck of a lot bigger than clitorises.

Obviously size can't be everything when it comes to comparing amputations, otherwise the 6ft man losing a leg would be worse than the 3ft man losing his leg...

But size does play somewhat of a role in terms of quantity of nerve endings, and it is worth a comparison.

One clear comparison I think should be made between penis and clitoris: penectomies involve damage to the urethra (and a shortening) and interference with urination. Clitorectomies do not.

I'm also wondering in terms of sheer quantity of nerve endings, both as a net sum and as a percentage of total erogenous zones: are the foreskin and clit-hood really the same? Is the tiny end of the clitoris really as richly innervated as the penis?

The reason I wonder about this is in reading about female anatomy and stuff, one comes across concepts like 'urethral sponge', 'g-spot', and other alternatives, one can't help but feel a void in terms of male alternatives to penis stimulation for orgasm.

I suppose the whole "well you can get a prostate massage through your pooper" rebuttal is possible, but while true, it's only fair to point out that such alternative means are strongly shamed in men whereas the alternatives for females are not shamed. A woman without an external clit would likely not be thought badly of by a male partner for seeking alternative internal stimulation, but a man without an external penis would likely be thought badly of by female partners for seeking alternative internal stimulation.

I hope that a disclaimer like this isn't necessary, but obviously all genital mutilation's freakin' bad and all that, but I often see comparisons getting made between various male and female formats of it (usually to demean male mutilation) and wonder if we concede too much in these comparisons?

By only claiming equivalency to the more minor forms of FGM (prepuce removal: clitoral hood amputation) I wonder, are we selling ourselves short? Are we afraid to even approach a beginning of a comparison between foreskin amputation and clitorectomies? Do we simply take it for granted and nod when a clitorectomy is equated to the removal of the entire penis?