>>2933951>ancient Egyptians1. they are thought to have practiced an incision of sorts, not thought to be akin to hebrew posthectomy.
2. pharaohs and commoners weren’t subject to the made up rules of priests, only certain priests were, we literally have mummies of the royalty and elite with intact foreskins (if the penis is preserved enough which isn’t always)
3. the maoris have a whole story explaining how they abandoned the custom-whatever form it took-when they landed in new zealand. neighboring aborigines in australia practiced a very old custom of subincision where they slit the underside of the penis like a frankfurter that’s split down the middle. because for supernatural and irrational beliefs humans will do anything including cleave off flesh from or inflict pain to their genitals.
>had they been circumcisedthey weren’t and it’s a counterfactual of no significance. like saying, ‘well had evolution led to a foreskinless penis...’ it didn’t, so the heathen greeks, romans, sikhs and anyone else who esteems the natural law regarded it as an affront to man, a barbarity, a disfigurement, and an ethical woe. i just dropped in to browse and don’t want to pick a fight frankly, just don’t let historical facts and aesthetic philosophy dating centuries back, as well as norms and respected traditions towards the male body, get in the way of a good nut.
