Frankly, your assessment of the arresting officer is pretty much your biased perspective of the person. However, I don't want to get into that debate, nor do I want to speculate as to the circumstances of your arrest.
Having handcuffs on the wrist does exert pressure onto certain nerves and blood vessels that lie near the surface of the wrist itself. If the pressure is sufficient, a sensation of numbness will occur as the nerve is unable to properly relay information to the brain. It's sort of like a kink in a garden hose. However, if the pressure is removed after a short time, say an hour or two, the nerve reverts back to its functional self. Since handcuffs are defined to be short-term restraints, this would be perfectly acceptable. It's not pleasant, but it's not abuse either.
Unfortunately, given that women's hands tend to be smaller, I can see why the handcuffs would need to be applied tightly. Otherwise, the probability of being able to pull a hand free increases. I will say that the handcuffs should be double-locked so that the jaw of the cuff is unable to move.
The standard procedure for arrest dictates that a prisoner be handcuffed behind the back. If they were handcuffed in front, there would still be the risk of the prisoner being dangerous, especially since the handcuffs themselves could be used as a weapon. With the wrists secured behind the back, freedom of motion is severely reduced, making the arrest safer for the officers and ultimately for the prisoner.
It is unfortunate that the handcuffs cut into your wrists. That might indicate that the wrists were not in the cuffs properly. I would suspect that is explainable if you were trying to adjust your wrist position, but that's only one possibility.
In short, it looks like the circumstances of your arrest were more or less normal. However, unless you have permenant damage to your wrist and hands, the actions of the arresting officer seem to have been proper.
Why do you need to know? ;-)