Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to chop the foreskin

File: john harvey kellogg.jpg (100KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 768x1024px

>>2844393

>>2844393
It's probably rooted in dedication to a clan culture or mindset, because it's literally marking someone in their flesh. Having given up something for your tribe is a sign of loyalty.
When it's done to infants, they can't fight back or remember anything before, so they generally gravitate towards defending it and perpetuating it in later life.

Even better, consider how many times they had to try it out, before they worked out exactly how much to remove and in what way, using only bronze tools in a goatskin tent with no running water or disinfectant.

>>2844393

Probably originated as a manhood ritual, then gradually got pushed back to infant circumcision. It was never a "good idea" but it later got picked up on as a way to have a more "hygenic" dick and deter masturbation by folks like >>2844398


That's how I understand it anyway.

>>2844393
>Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to chop the foreskin off?
Jews

>>2844695
I think you meant Africans. It's one those silly rites of passage things. In some African tribes, the foreskin is seen as the feminine part of the body, thus it is removed so that the man may escape his symbolic state of being both man and woman.

I imagine getting sand in your foreskin isn't fun, and such an event may have been rather common when robes and flaxen skirts were the mainstay and you lived in arid conditions.

Egyptians did it too, it was considered good hygiene for them. It was likely practiced long before them too as a tribal ritual.

>>2844393

>Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to chop the foreskin off?

More than one person. It was independently discovered and implemented multiple times in history.

>Ouch this is very sensitive and feels good during sex

There's such a thing as too much sensitivity. It's also a hygiene issue.

>>2844932
>sand in your foreskin isn't fun
Not a problem

>>2844944
>It's also a hygiene issue.
it's not a hygiene issue though

>>2844932
I want this meme to stop. The foreskin is a literal protective barrier against the elements. Unless you got your shit pulled back during a sandstorm, it's a non issue.

>>2844902
It's literally written in the Old Testament that all males should have their foreskin removed.
This shit dates back to 1600 BC.

>>2844393
It's a desert thing. Also >>2844937

>>2844959
I stand corrected. I'm more familiar with the procedure in the context of Africans, and as a previous anon mentioned, it developed independently. The Abos of Australia for example practice it as well,with zero ties to Judaism.

>>2844393
Religious people don't follow logic

Having fun is evil to them

>>2844932
Imagine getting sand directly on your glans cause theres no foreskin protecting.

>>2844944
>too much sensitivity
>hygiene issue

Spotted the salty cutfag. Enjoy your irreparably damaged nerve endings.

I can imagine that if you want to wash of your dickcheese in an arid enviroment and there is only the communal waterpot you rather cut it off then risk that intertribal controversy again.

>>2845076
Thats a non-issue. Circumsized penises have dry glanses

>>2844949

It's definitely a hygiene issue in times before daily bathing was a thing.

>>2845206

I don't know why so many of you believe we all secretly want to not be circumcised. Almost all male children have their first ejaculation hands free in a wet dream, so it's not like feeling extra sensitivity to touch is much of an essential to working sexual function. Also, do you honestly believe all circumcised fathers throughout history were only able to reproduce with the aid of artificial lubricant? It's really not the insanely crippling condition you're making it out to be. Masturbation and sex still feel fine and ejaculation still happens the same way it happens in the uncircumcised.

>>2845302
If it were a hygiene issue,why in God's name would you open a fresh wound? Especially in the case if a baby?

>>2844959

Considering the 'out-of-Africa' theory its not unlikely that the Jews got the ritual from Africans.

>>2845302

While I can imagine it being cleaner when you don't get to bathe that often, I can not imagine someone deciding to mutilate their penis just because its cleaner. It only make sense in some ritualistic sense imo.

>>2845302
>thefoxandthegrapes.jpg

It was a good idea when germ theory, basic hygienic measures, clean water and underwear, etc weren't a thing. It's pointless as a prevention method nowadays because we have figured better ways to prevent infections and cancer without needing to chop a valuable piece of your skin.

>>2845391
A-are you implying that he WANTS his dick cut off?

>>2844932
Do you actually believe that?

>>2845302
Creating an open wound on infant genitalia is probably the stupidest thing you could do if you don't have modern hygiene.

>>2844393
>feels good during sex
Isn't that the point? They would cut it off so sex was less pleasurable due to it being seen as a shameful thing. Also it makes it harder to masturbate so boys couldn't sin all the time.