For male circumcision to be comparable to female, it would need to involve removal of the glans.

Though the intent of the two isn't that dissimilar. Female circumcision is intended to remove all sexual pleasure, to deter masturbation and any desire for extramarital sexual activity. Male circumcision, at least in part, is intended to make masturbation much less accessible. Most circumcised men need some form of lubricant in order to self-pleasure. This means that masturbation has to be planned. It isn't something they'll simply find themselves doing while their mind drifts, and they're lying alone in bed.

Of course the male needs sexual pleasure in order to reproduce. He isn't going to achieve orgasm without it, and without orgasm, he isn't going to transfer sufficient sperm to his partner to secure a likely pregnancy.

There are health benefits to being circumcised. The risk of acquiring HIV as the insertive partner is much lower, for starters. I don't think it warrants routine genital mutilation of males, though. As a body modification, with informed consent, when old enough, I fully approve.

@NicoleCadmium I'm not sure how I feel about male circumcision. The whole non-essential surgical procedure performed without consent thing is problematic of course, but most of the men I've known in my life were circumcised when very young and none of them seemed to regret it happening - indeed some of them, having learned later on than many women prefer a circumcised penis, were very glad of it. FGM is, obviously a different matter entirely.

@Jnei That's a cultural norm (particularly in the US) though. Yes, in a culture where circumcision is the norm, you may find a skew in preference towards circumcised and uncircumcised.

Male circumcision does affect sexual function. Sensitive tissue on the inside of the foreskin is removed. The glans can become desensitised from constant exposure and rubbing on clothing. Loss of erectile length is more common than people let on. Of course people who were circumcised shortly after birth have no point of reference to understand how much more stimulating sex might be uncircumcised. Uncircumcised people don't really have a point of reference either. It makes the whole thing very difficult to quantify.

Conversely, overly tight foreskins are very common. There are plenty of men who can't retract theirs fully, or even at all. Being circumcised is definitely preferable to that scenario.

So it certainly isn't as clear cut (no pun intended.) There are pros and cons to male circumcision, even without the consent of the subject. Female circumcision is universally unacceptable.

My personal preference? I like circumcised. I like uncircumcised as long as the foreskin fully retracts, and the owner has taken the time to clean underneath it properly. I'm not keen when it doesn't or when they haven't.

@NicoleCadmium "It makes the whole thing very difficult to quantify." Yep!