>>17861719
>>17861722
>Why did Americans draw the line at circumcising women?
Female circumcision isn’t in the Bible, and also, in group-bias is much stronger among women. They advocate for themselves better. Also, female sexuality is respected and appreciated in society, unlike male sexuality, even in societies that pretend they don’t. Making women not like sex is not an idea that’s easy to sell even to devout Puritan freaks who like to pretend that they don’t care about sex (but secretly do obviously). Much like all the dudes on the internet who proudly proclaim they want to ban porn despite watching porn themselves, those anti-sex freaks still like sex, just only for them and “their women.” It’s also important to note that small subsets of America did practice female genital mutilation, but it simply did not take off. It was expensive, risky, and largely inaccessible. Male circumcision didn’t even really take off in the USA until WWII and hospital births becoming mainstream.
>Female circumcision is a far more invasive procedure.
This isn’t true. It’s actually typically less invasive and arguably safer (although still very unsafe) than male circumcision.
>Male circumcision literally just involves clipping off a tiny piece of skin
This also isn’t true. The foreskin is about half of the skin on your penis. It also contains muscle tissue and attaches to your frenulum.

Please do not listen to Americans on this topic. They are the most propagandized people on Earth when it comes to their own bodies.