So there's a post on io9 talking about male circumcision. It's long, and fairly well researched, and since I have my own biases here (I am a circumcised dude who has never had a problem with it) I am hesitant to weigh in to the main body of the argument.

That being said, towards the end of a very long (and largely well cited) article, the author finishes up with this paragraph:

It's disconcerting to think that circumcising infant boys may be a violation of their human rights. We castigate cultures that practise female genital mutilation (FGM). Rightfully so: no one should be coerced into such a violation. But removal of the clitoral hood, one form of FGM, is anatomically analogous to removal of the foreskin. Some forms of FGM, such as nicking or scratching the female genitalia, are unequivocally deemed a human rights violation but are even milder than the foreskin removal done in US hospitals.

Just... no. There are reasons, ethical and medical, to question male circumcision. That is a debate that I'm not sure has been settled. But by and large, these practices have the goal of preventing disease. This is no way analogous to a procedure aimed at enforcing a patriarchal morality by removing a part of a woman's body that relates to pleasure.