Why is male genital mutilation recommended?!

I assume by male genital mutilation you're referring to male circumcision.

First, it's not recommended by any medical body in the world. At best, medical bodies (especially those in Canada, Europe, and Australia) oppose it and say it's best not to do it. At worst, medical bodies (such as the US) maintain a neutral stance and emphasize presenting the pros and cons without bias (as if that ever really happens . . .).

Second, it isn't entirely unreasonable to suggest that to protect females but not males under the law from genital surgery (unless necessary) is sexist. There are a lot of sociocultural factors (e.g. Jewish/Muslim culture) in play that would make giving males the same level or protection difficult.

Last, people who say comparing female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision (MC) is like comparing apples and oranges aren't TOO far off. For example, both apples and oranges are sweet, spherical, and fruits. So along this analogy, both FGM and MC remove tissue from the sex organs, are often done on non-consenting minors, are done out for sociocultural reasons and out of "cleanliness," and can have long-lasting consequences/complications.

Where people often differ on FGM and MC is that FGM is thought to be more destructive and removes more tissue than MC. This can be true in some forms of FGM, however, many (if not most?) forms of FGM is just as "benign" as MC. In many cases of FGM, only the clitoral prepuce and maybe the labia majora are removed. In its least extreme form, the clitoris is pricked so only a drop of blood comes out - and this is far less invasive than MC. So yes, the worst forms of FGM can't be compared to MC, but the least extreme forms are nowhere as bad as MC. People need to realize that it's on a spectrum with the extremes as a minority of cases worldwide (tragic though it still occurs at all).

if by genital mutilation you mean circumcision then its a simple religious thing.
yews for example all have to get it because their religion says so, that comes from the middle ages or even further back when people didn't put too much attention on personal hygiene. therefore they would get infections under the foreskin due to lack of washing it adequately.
now a days its just for religious reasons, because i doubt that anyone will be that dirty as not to wash under there.

Male genital mutilation (circumcision I take it?) doesn't generally have the same horrible side affects as female genitalia and it's widely thought that removing the male foreskin helps men to stay clean down there even though boys can be taught how to clean themselves properly it's all based on narrow minded practice.

Get a life dude. Male circumcision is not only normal but a very healthy and beneficial thing for guys. Honestly I think its the best thing a guy can do. No way would I want a nasty, ugly, smelly piece of flabby skin hanging over the end of my penis. Girls dont like them either!

They call it money, pads their pocket with little or nothing as far as doing it. I think it should be baned too. And yes it is a double standard.

Because most women like a circumcised weiner. Easy to keep clean of smegma.

well, NO ONE IS CUTTING OFF MAH BIG PURPLE GRAPES!!