Banning circumsicion

[FrustratedFool]

All - Thanks again for the great responses. You lot are a bunch of smart people.

I would be interested in a theist's opinion on this but prob mot in this subforum. Particularly how to differentiate absolute morality from cultural morality, given that a church is a culture.

Thump - Aren't we saying the same thing?

I used to be a theist, maybe I can offer a little of how I used to think:

God is a necessary being with a necessary perfect nature, that nature is good, and God's moral character grounds objective morality - good is what God's nature is. His character is the arbiter of all acts. This is the explanation for moral realism and where it comes from.

We as humans have only limited and flawed access to that knowledge, however. There are multiple methods to gain access, imperfect though it is. The more methods, and the more skilled, you used the more likely you were to be accessing an objective moral truth. As a Christian, divine special revelation through the scriptures was the most important method and form of access.

Is that what you were after?

[FrustratedFool]

As one who likes the D, I prefer the aesthetic of the circumcised over uncircumcised.

Are you cut yourself?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As one who likes the D, I prefer the aesthetic of the circumcised over uncircumcised.

I would say it's a matter of taste, but not on THIS forum.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’m wondering if a large part of the opposition to male circumcision is the association with religion.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I’m wondering if a large part of the opposition to male circumcision is the association with religion.

Boru

The association is clear.

[h4ym4n]

I’m wondering if a large part of the opposition to male circumcision is the association with religion.

Boru

It’s a blood and flesh sacrifice to yahwehjesus

[Thumpalumpacus]

I’m wondering if a large part of the opposition to male circumcision is the association with religion.

Boru

Not for me.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’m wondering if a large part of the opposition to male circumcision is the association with religion.

Boru

Not for me.

Clearly, there are other reasons - many of them perfectly valid - to be anti-circumcision.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

Clearly, there are other reasons - many of them perfectly valid - to be anti-circumcision.

Boru

Right. My own is given upthread.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's unlikely that it has anything to do with opposition to the religious aspect. Dick docking has been downtrending since 1980, even among the religious. There's a really simple reason. No national medical association in the western world recommends it. It removes the most import bits..from the users perspective, that is. Thousands of coiled fine touch receptors, branches of the dorsal nerve, 10-20k specialized erotogenic nerves endings of different types. It removes the glide action that benefits both parties during intercourse. This is why the nutball I mentioned earlier thought it would make us masturbate less. It doesn't, ofc, it just makes it less fun.

To put a super funny nail in the coffin, what with all the worries about hygeine...it also removes the apparatus contained in the inner foreskin responsible... in undamaged dicks...for producing antibacterial and antiviral proteins as well as pathogen killing enzymes. Our foreskins are not and never were a liability. It's a critical part of the system and it's loss leads to diminished function.

-and I know, I know, demographics means more than a few of us here are cut - and we all think "nah, my shit works just fine, thanks" - but ofc we would think that - what with having it chopped off at birth and with no frame of reference outside of that. It's not barbaric because of one act of nonconsensual cruelty. It's barbaric because it irreparably damages a person for their entire life. It's the male clitoris equivalent - practically and developmentally.