tyc
https://dramatica.online/index.php?title=Tyciol
This has to do with the removal of the epithelium, also known as the preputial mucosa or "inner mucosa"
Apparently they argue it's removal stops HIV or something https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/penis-epithelium
However I don't think it would matter whether your cock is keratinized or not, or whether you have Langerhan's cells, if you're wearing a condom?
The "uncovering" (aka PRIAH) aspect of the brit milah apparently was not present in the inception of the practice.
A distinction appears to be that MDs in hospitals remove prepuce+epithelium simultaneously, whereas mohels will consecutively first amputate foreskin and THEN peel pack the epithelium and amputate it.
Modern Mohel emphasis of "low and tight" circumcision seems done with aim to prevent shaft skin movement by maximizing as much removal of inner foreskin as possible.
A hostile response to Hellenistic Jews attempting to restore their foreskins (weights and such to stretch remaining skin) during Hadrianic persecution seems to be at the root of the new practice: apparently the rabbis would rather jews be murdered for their religion than to partially reverse the circumcision and remain alive. BASED.
Jews would also forcibly amputate the foreskins of their slave chattel so I imagine that could also have something to do with it: making it hard for the escaped slaves of jews to restore themselves, like 'unbranding' themselves so it's not obvious they were Jewish property.
Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion made this argument, that the "in periah" removal of foreskin was a later response, and thus not something mandated by God/Yahweh but rather by the priest class to dominate their followers and pressure them via mutilation into staying in the cult.
Jews are barely being persecuted anymore, and when they are, they aren't being identified by circumcision because Jews have pressured non-Jews to engage in circumcision to provide camouflage for them to blend in.
Due to that I think it would be cool if perhaps they left the epithelium alone and dialed back the amount of flesh they cut off dicks a little bit.
Circumcisions would not be so bad if the skin could move a little bit better. Less pain not just for those who own the dicks but also for those who own any holes the dicks go into, as the sliding action reduces painful frictions and moisture-wicking.
Maybe what might be cool is if they only circumsize one side of the dick (opposite the frenulum) and leave the frenulum intact. In case of frenulum breve you can just stretch it over time to fix that so I think that is preferable to frenectomy. I don't think Yahweh ever actually commanded frenectomies, seems like something the Pharisees too it upon themselves to introduce.
Maybe frenulums just taste delicious with red wine. I should try to be more tolerant of mohel's cultural dietary habits. Mohels love babies so much that some of them are even getting hepatisis C checks to make sure that they don't transmit the HepC to the babies when the baby sticks his dick balls-deep into the mohel's mouth. What more could we ask of them?
It seems progressive, but maybe to deal with japanese fixation on phimosis paranoia we should just cut off the ridged band but leave the rest? Japs use "foreskin rings" to non-surgically correct phimosis, but amputating the most sensitive part of the male anatomy is important because male sexuality is evil and Jews know this and correct it for our betterment.
Apparently they argue it's removal stops HIV or something https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/penis-epithelium
However I don't think it would matter whether your cock is keratinized or not, or whether you have Langerhan's cells, if you're wearing a condom?
The "uncovering" (aka PRIAH) aspect of the brit milah apparently was not present in the inception of the practice.
A distinction appears to be that MDs in hospitals remove prepuce+epithelium simultaneously, whereas mohels will consecutively first amputate foreskin and THEN peel pack the epithelium and amputate it.
Modern Mohel emphasis of "low and tight" circumcision seems done with aim to prevent shaft skin movement by maximizing as much removal of inner foreskin as possible.
A hostile response to Hellenistic Jews attempting to restore their foreskins (weights and such to stretch remaining skin) during Hadrianic persecution seems to be at the root of the new practice: apparently the rabbis would rather jews be murdered for their religion than to partially reverse the circumcision and remain alive. BASED.
Jews would also forcibly amputate the foreskins of their slave chattel so I imagine that could also have something to do with it: making it hard for the escaped slaves of jews to restore themselves, like 'unbranding' themselves so it's not obvious they were Jewish property.
Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion made this argument, that the "in periah" removal of foreskin was a later response, and thus not something mandated by God/Yahweh but rather by the priest class to dominate their followers and pressure them via mutilation into staying in the cult.
Jews are barely being persecuted anymore, and when they are, they aren't being identified by circumcision because Jews have pressured non-Jews to engage in circumcision to provide camouflage for them to blend in.
Due to that I think it would be cool if perhaps they left the epithelium alone and dialed back the amount of flesh they cut off dicks a little bit.
Circumcisions would not be so bad if the skin could move a little bit better. Less pain not just for those who own the dicks but also for those who own any holes the dicks go into, as the sliding action reduces painful frictions and moisture-wicking.
Maybe what might be cool is if they only circumsize one side of the dick (opposite the frenulum) and leave the frenulum intact. In case of frenulum breve you can just stretch it over time to fix that so I think that is preferable to frenectomy. I don't think Yahweh ever actually commanded frenectomies, seems like something the Pharisees too it upon themselves to introduce.
Maybe frenulums just taste delicious with red wine. I should try to be more tolerant of mohel's cultural dietary habits. Mohels love babies so much that some of them are even getting hepatisis C checks to make sure that they don't transmit the HepC to the babies when the baby sticks his dick balls-deep into the mohel's mouth. What more could we ask of them?
It seems progressive, but maybe to deal with japanese fixation on phimosis paranoia we should just cut off the ridged band but leave the rest? Japs use "foreskin rings" to non-surgically correct phimosis, but amputating the most sensitive part of the male anatomy is important because male sexuality is evil and Jews know this and correct it for our betterment.
