They did heavily in lots of countries including mine. For decades and decades and decades. It was framed in two ways. You could go to hell if you didn’t or you could get really sick and it could fall off. Wonderful direction from the church. In my specific case Catholic Church.
Uncircumcised is the default and probably has a numerical advantage, but once you get circumcised, you can’t go back. The circumcised can always convert people, and there’s nothing the uncircumcised can do to stop their POWs from being forced to switched sides.
However, what about everyone who doesn’t have a penis? Would their allegiance lie with the uncircumcised? Would people who’ve experienced genital mutilation join the circumcised? Who would formerly circumcised people who now don’t have penises join? Would bottom surgery make someone automatically join team circumcision?
This whole thought experiment begs many questions.
I think we would see an additional category. People that were circumcised against their will, wanting to go back to the side they may have loyalty for.
Someone who was passionate that the uncircumcised side was the only side to be on, the righteous side, but was forced into circumcision.
I think they try to sew back on the foreskin. The thought may begin with some being ashamed that they lost their foreskin and had to “replace it”, but it may quickly become a thing of “who is going to know?”.
Problem is… someone would come up with a way to tell. And the “true foreskiners” do not accept the “sewed on foreskiners”. There is bigotry and divided among their side.
Causing an inner struggle and broken down factions of the same side.
Some “sewed on foreskiners” may feel that the “true foreskiners” aren’t the side they used to be and won’t accept them anyways, so they removed the replaced foreskin to either join the circumcised or possibly start their own, new side.
“The circumcised reborners”
I will go with my original thought then, the Crusades - I think European Christendom had not yet incorporated circumcision at the time, but the Muslim world was practicing circumcision, so that would be a war between the circumcised and the uncircumcised?
I’d honestly love to see a world war between circumcised and uncircumcised folks. I wonder who would win.
Old enough to have no choice in the matter. We should be pissed at the church, backward medicine and our parents, not each other.
Is the church even part of this? In most countries, christians don’t practice circumcision.
They did heavily in lots of countries including mine. For decades and decades and decades. It was framed in two ways. You could go to hell if you didn’t or you could get really sick and it could fall off. Wonderful direction from the church. In my specific case Catholic Church.
That’s wild, I didn’t expect that even the catholic church gets in on this. Where I live, this would sound completely absurd to most christians.
really weird thing to say about genital mutilation
Uncircumcised is the default and probably has a numerical advantage, but once you get circumcised, you can’t go back. The circumcised can always convert people, and there’s nothing the uncircumcised can do to stop their POWs from being forced to switched sides.
However, what about everyone who doesn’t have a penis? Would their allegiance lie with the uncircumcised? Would people who’ve experienced genital mutilation join the circumcised? Who would formerly circumcised people who now don’t have penises join? Would bottom surgery make someone automatically join team circumcision?
This whole thought experiment begs many questions.
The circumcised can learn all the issues with it, then not circumcise their kids.
Oh my, TnJessica, I was not expecting you here :D
I’m a mod here
I meant more the theory than you specifically.
Nonetheless, happy with everything ^ ^
Unexpected mod is unexpected still.
I think we would see an additional category. People that were circumcised against their will, wanting to go back to the side they may have loyalty for. Someone who was passionate that the uncircumcised side was the only side to be on, the righteous side, but was forced into circumcision.
I think they try to sew back on the foreskin. The thought may begin with some being ashamed that they lost their foreskin and had to “replace it”, but it may quickly become a thing of “who is going to know?”.
Problem is… someone would come up with a way to tell. And the “true foreskiners” do not accept the “sewed on foreskiners”. There is bigotry and divided among their side. Causing an inner struggle and broken down factions of the same side. Some “sewed on foreskiners” may feel that the “true foreskiners” aren’t the side they used to be and won’t accept them anyways, so they removed the replaced foreskin to either join the circumcised or possibly start their own, new side. “The circumcised reborners”
Or the men that had a messed up circumcision so it looks uncircumcised when soft and circumcised when erect.
Circumplasty set to be the next big craze. Make it bigger than before so it looks like a JNCO leg. “Oh baby I love the way your shit is so baggy”
Bahahahah jnco leg
Cursed writing prompt or next ya post apocalypse
Asking the real questions
Obviously the circumcised. They would easily convert the captures enemy soldiers to their side but the uncircumcised would not be able to do it.
jokes on you, i wear chainmail
what do you think the Iraq war was, sweaty?ignorant white colonist shows their racismWasn’t the Iraq war mostly between muslim Iraqis, who are almost always circumcised, and US-americans, who are also usually circumcised?
TIL Iraqis circumcise their boys!!
I will go with my original thought then, the Crusades - I think European Christendom had not yet incorporated circumcision at the time, but the Muslim world was practicing circumcision, so that would be a war between the circumcised and the uncircumcised?