I don't think you know much about intact male genitals. As an intact male I don't have to clean under my foresin "daily and thoroughly". Hygeine is a very personal matter and differs according to the individual. Some people need to wash more than others because of diet, lifestyle, genes, etc. You make the foreskin sound like a disease-incubator and if a guy doesn't scrub thoroughly every day then woe be unto him. This is just not true. It takes two seconds to clean an intact dick. And if a man goes for long periods without cleaning it I don't think that anything horrific will happen; at least not in most cases. If the man has a pre-existing health condition then maybe. But otherwise a build up of smegma is not a health hazard.
Smegma is not toxic or carcinogenic. It is a natural bodily secretion with anti-microbial properties. It is produced by men *and* women. And if it is undesirable then it is easily washed away. I have never heard of or had a "smegma infection", whatever that is. As for "torn foreskins", this would only happen if the male has a tight foreskin and is rough with it. There are many cures and treatments for tight foreskins and all physicians should be aware of them.
At least you admit that male circumcision is a mutilation. But the degree of mutilation depends on the individual procedure. There are different kinds of FGM just as there are different kinds of MGM. Many types of FGM remove less tissue and less nerve-endings than male circumcision. Yet they are illegal in your country, as is even a pin prick of a girl's clitoris (and rightly so). The fact that we even need to legislate against such behaviours just shows how primitive and barbaric our society really is.
The clitoris has around 8000 nerve-endings. The glans penis has around 4000. But the male foreskin has around 20000 nerve-endings. In an adult the foreskin has an area of about 15 square inches of erogenous tissue.
Some circumcised women claim to enjoy sex just fine, just as many circumcised men claim. We will never really know what they experience.
Male circumcision can also cause serious health problems and serious sexual and aesthetic problems. Many babies have died and some men have to live with damaged penises and destroyed lives.
In my experience and opinion a circumcised man requires more stimulation to feel good and get off. The originators of secular ("medical") circumcision in the USA during the 1800s knew this which is why they tried to use circumcision to discourage masturbation and "excessive" desire and pleasure.
But secular male circumcision began in the USA during the 1800s for the express purpose of inhibiting sexuality. Additionally, the vast majority of infant circumcisions are done without anaesthetic. In the past all were done without any anaesthetic. Some doctors even said that the pain accompanying the operation had a "salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it is to be connected with the idea of punishment".
I agree with Eric R. To say that there is no legitimate comparison between male and female circumcision just shows your lack of knowledge and understanding on the issue. It is not a completely different issue at all. Both practices involve a violation of human rights and the loss of healthy functional erogenous tissue.
Which socalled scientific studies are you referring to? I'm sure that for whatever study you cite in support of circumcision that I can site one to the contrary. I also believe that the majority if not totality of circumcision studies are done by circumcised men (or their female partners) who are trying to justify their own state, and funded by corporations and institutions that have a big financial or religious investment in continuing the practice. Moreover, proponents of female circumcision also argue that it is more hygenic and healthy.
Scientific studies have also shown that the foreskin is the most sensitive and erogenous part of the penis, and anyone with a brain can see that the foreskin maintains a large part of the penis as pseudo-internal, like all accute sensory organs.