redblueamerica.com

You make a good point. Please remember, though, I'm against this. Degrees of badness are still degrees of badness.

Then you must have read, or will soon, that most of the men within her culture would never even THINK about marrying a woman who's father (or closest living male relative) could not provide proof that the bride-to-be did have a circumcision.

On my profile, I recommend the book Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She described this horrific experience in gruesome detail. She was a teenager living in Somalia.
The justification is just as gruesome. Where she came from, men are considered "more pure" than women. If a man is "overcome" with sexual desire for a woman, it's her fault because she didn’t cover enough of her skin or she looked at him in too much of an enticing way. This is why we hear horror stories about women getting raped, and being punished for it.
The circumcision, ultimately, will take sexual desire out of the woman as the article says.
When the article presents the quote: "Two, it will make a woman look more beautiful in the eyes of her husband," I think about the other justification that was given to her not hours after the procedure. The circumcision offers proof to a husband that his new bride is indeed, a virgin. Of course I won't go into detail about how this works but I'm sure the readers will understand. I also don't think I need to say what would happen to the wife is she was discovered not to be a virgin.
Ultimately I can't do her story any justice. I strongly recommend the book.