Mars.inDiapers

My best ever orgasms in diapers have been achieved that way. One necessary factor was wearing a bulky diaper, made of a combination of mutiple disposables and cloth diapers on top, that was not only thick, but more importantly wide, forcing me to spread my legs apart, so that I could feel the bulk in all the right places. Second necessary factor was to pee in the diaper, to make it absorb the wetness and expand in volume, and because of the extra diapers worn on top of it would limit the expansion outwards, it would become more snug against my body with every deciliter of liquid absorbed. Third necessary factor was to poop in the diaper. I had to make sure to get my diet right the day prior, in order to get super soft, very voluminous BM that could be pushed out without too much strain into a snugly fitting diaper, and that could spread in all directions; down my crack, up to my nutsack, and wide across my perineum, all the way to the leg cuffs of the diaper. With that, and the right mindset (and for extra stimuli maybe a paci in my mouth), a few good humps would get me to come hard in matter of seconds.

I'm not sure if you are asking me or OP, but in case that question was directed to me, yes I have, I've worn cloth diapers when I was a baby/toddler, and from then on, cloth diapers (the few remaining flats from bygone days and substitutes such as bedsheets, towels or random pieces of clothing not suitable for other use) have been my go-to solution for my weird desires throughout the years, until I finally found the nerve to order disposable diapers online. I'm not going to argue against the fact that cloth diapering is more economical and eco friendly in the long run. After all, a fact is a fact is a fact. I will argue, however, that same as it is in many other aspects of living, having more money will bring you more comfort, and diapers are no different. And as it is a fact that disposable diapers cost more money, it is also a fact that they are more comfortable, both for the wearer, and for the changer. Soaking, washing, drying, ironing, folding, etc. is more of an inconvenience than wrapping up a used diaper, throwing it away and getting a fresh one out of a package. And the comfort for the wearer is also something that has been proven. Babies that wear cloth diapers tend to potty train earlier and easier, simply because the feeling of soaked piece of clothing against one's skin is not a comfortable feeling. For most people, anyway. Disposables that lock wetness away do not cause this same feeling of discomfort. It was quite the revelation to me, when I first tried disposable diapers, how much different it felt to wear and use it. Until then, I thought all the talk in tv commercials for Pampers, Huggies, etc., was all marketing bs, that at the end of a day a wet diaper is a wet diaper and it could not possibly still feel dry after being peeing in. But it does. And I have to say, it is quite something. I do admire people who make the decision to give up some level of comfort in favor of something more economical and/or ecological, whether it's commuting by bike, bus or train instead of a car, or reducing waste by any means, such as using cloth diapers instead of disposables. But that doesn't mean I'm going to shame or judge people who don't make such decision, who go to work by car. Who use disposable diapers for their kids. Who chose to live in a suburban single family home instead of a city apartment building. That judgement should be reserved for people who are wasteful on purpose. Those who know their wasteful behaviour is reckless and unethical, but they do regardless, for no other reason than out of pure spite. Like idiots in lifted trucks that have never hauled any proper cargo other than their fat ass, adorned with bumper stickers with rude messages to Greta Thunberg, coal rolling random people who are just going about their bussiness on foot or bike, just for the "fun" of it.

Good for you I guess. I can't say I can do the same. Well, maybe it depends on what exactly does "all the nappies I want" even mean. Don't I want all of them? Well some makes and models aren't that interesting to me and I can't fit anything smaller than L with reasonable comfort, but if I could, I'd buy all the L and XL sized Little Kings and Alpha Gators and Camelots and Seni Super Quatros and Megamaxes I could get my hands on, but I don't have that kind of money to spare, so I guess that makes me poor too, if that's the perspective. However, what I actually need - or rather, what I'll go through a month (I only do this for pleasure so it's not really the need kind of need) is usually less than 20 Little Kings, 10 Camelots and 10 Seni Quatro, which is well within what my financial situation allows me to do. So if the question relates to being able to sustainably afford the diapers I actually go through, yes, I can do that. There's no need to be bragging about it though. Which is exactly what it sounds like you are doing.

Well, my #1 favorite diapers are ABU Little Kings (I really love that white and turquoise color scheme that's so reminiscent of pampers diapers) and Tykables Camelot come in second (they're nowhere near as cute as Little Kings, but they are of much better quality, thicker, wider and I really like their hook and loop tabs), and since both of them are predominantly white, so I guess white it is. However, that's just because they're my favorite diapers in general; it's not as if their color is important to me specifically for doing the dirty deed in them. They're going to be somewhat discolored by that anyway, so what does it matter, right? ???

It may be helpful if you look on the bright side - from the description of it, your setting was close to ideal to try out this particular activity - you had control of your situation, you had privacy, safety, freedom from any outside pressure, necessary precautions had been taken for case things got the wrong kind of messy, and despite all that, it turned out you didn't like messing at all, possibly even hated it. It seems it wasn't possible for you to predict accurately how would it make you feel, let alone that it would drive you to tears. It's not your fault. Now you know yourself and your dislikes better than before, so even if it was a bad experience, it was good for something after all. If I were in your shoes, I would not be in any hurry to try this again. Especially if, as you say, you have an aversion to sticky and dirty feeling. ' I myslef don't like feeling sticky or dirty, especially when I get sticky with sweat from summer heat, I for example can't even stand the idea of going to bed like that, I have to have a shower first. And when I touch something that I think might be crawling with bad germs - the doorknob from WC, the doorknob on the outside of my apartment door, the bottom hem of my jeans that I wore outside, my shoelaces, ... I have the urge to wash my hands. I don't like the idea of unclean hands - what if I get hungry for something something in next two minutes? I probably take hand hygiene way too seriously, and I actually had to tone it down somewhat because it was causing me skin problems. But I'm going off on a tangent, so back to topic at hand. There's no rule that diapers have to be used for both #1 and #2 (either of these, for that matter) to get the full experience. It's completely subjective. What constitutes the "full experience" is up to you and none other. Should you however ever decide to give it a try again, consider this. When I first experimented with pooping my pants (and diapers later), I felt a rush of the good kind of excitement, increased hartbeat, it felt like doing some kind of mischief that would surely get me in lots of trouble if someone found out, but I knew without doubt I wanted to do it, because it felt right. Any hint of anxiety was associated with the possibility of being caught and getting in trouble, but not the actual act of messing per se. If you set the stage as well as you can, where your mind is clear, nothing is stressing you out and your privacy, safety and relaxation are guaranteed, you are well diapered and protected against leaks or blowouts; and yet, the feeling as I described above what I had, does not come to you, if you are not 100% sure you want to do this, if you feel some kind of anxiety that does not seem to have any rational reason ... .. just stop. Don't do it. There is no pressure. No one is going to call you buzzkill or anything like that, like a group of peers might do if you refused to "just try" weed, or alcohol, or something similar that you, according to peer pressure, are "supposed to" not only try, but also like, in order to "fit in". This community isn't like that. Or at least I strongly hope so.

Grips

Sprite

El Condor Pasa, by Simon & Garfunkel

The song Riders on the Storm (original by The Doors, remixed later by Snoop Dogg, I like both versions), was stuck in my head for some reason back then when I was signing up here, and I figured, Riders rhymes with Diapers, so there's the first clue. Also I like thunderstorms. And I like wearing diapers during thunderstorms. The sounds of raindrops falling, and the thunders and lightnings have this odd relaxing quality that makes me feel at ease. Wearing diapers during one then makes it even better, and the fact that during summer when it's too damn hot for diapers, a thunderstorm will bring about the much needed cooling of the air, also helps. So yeah. It probably sounds silly, but that's what I came up with back then, so here we are.

Lies

Price

Lol, there are people who are into that too. It even has a name, and is its own genre of pornography. Rule 34 ..

Yes to all. Naturally, thickness makes a lot of difference on how much it affects the way I sit/stand/walk/lay. Maybe thin disposable ones would not affect anything in a very significant way, but I don't really wear those, so I guess that's a moot point for me.

Well, I hoped I had made the point of the question, which is the center of the very first paragraph, at least somewhat understandable, the wall of text following it notwithstanding. I guess that was not the case. Anyway, basically the point I was trying to get across is that while using diapers for #1 is cool and all, it is, in my opinion, kind of "vanilla". It can't possibly provide the same level of excitement, naughtiness or babyish feeling, combination of thereof, etc. It doesn't provide the same level excitement because it's easier to do, easier to deal with, it's less objectionable to most people inside and outside the ABDL community, and when it comes to toying with the idea of not having control, genuine #1 accidents are more common (and I'd hazard a guess not as objected to) for people of all ages; more so for people of a specific age that some of us regress to in their ageplay/littlespace. In my case that age being 2-3 years old. Plus simulating (or achieving) loss of control for #1 is easier than doing the same for #2 (emphasis on the easier, I don't claim it's easy). If it's the babyish feeling one is aiming for, again, since (real) accidental peeing yourself is more prevalent even past babyhood, toddler age, potty training (of various levels of success), you're not considered "as much of a baby", so to speak, when you pee in your diaper (or other garment), than you would be if you pooped yourself. (Please note that this is all a part of an imaginary littlespace / ageplay scenario, does not and should not reflect real or appropriate attitude towards people of any age messing their diaper. It is especially not meant as an insult or belittlement to people who suffer bowel incontinence and I hope it will not be taken as such.) Then there's the feeling of "naughtiness". Unless you have some specific health condition (doesn't matter if acute or chronic), then past a certain age, pooping yourself unconsciously is not a thing. Therefore, in an imaginary scenario where you're age regressed to that state, when you poop yourself, you didn't have "an accident". You had control over it, but for whatever reason chose not to use that control to do what you're "supposed to do" - ask to be sat on the potty like a "good kid / big kid", but instead did what you're "not supposed to do", that is poop your diaper (pull-up, pants, ..), like a "naughty kid / little baby". Hence the "naughty" feeling - from doing what you're not supposed to do. And while you may be able to pass off doing the same with #1 as a genuine accident, you're less likely to get away with it the same way if it's #2, since that may not be something "just happens", especially if it requires some kind of active effort, like stopping whatever you're doing momentarily, squatting, pushing, etc. (as opposed to passive effort - just letting go, like you can do with #1). If that's the case, you're definitely not having an accident, you're pooping your diaper intentionally. And if you're expected to ask for potty, but didn't = more naughty. Does that make sense?

Math aside, do you agree that when it comes to using diapers for their designed purpose, there is something little more to pooping diapers, than just peeing? As in, it feels more special, naughtier, more babyish, more ... something. Let's say your littlespace involves regressing to the state of being like a 2-3 year old. You're on the verge of being potty trained, but not quite ready to be out of diapers. And, obviously, you have better things to do than worry about needing to go to the potty. Now, not making it when you have to pee is not that big of a deal, right? The need just comes out of nowhere, they come several times a day, your control of bladder is not quite yet finely honed, and all it takes to have an accident is that you have to just let go a little, or not pay full attention, and your diaper is wet. And while parents might not find it amusing, consensus of medical professionals on this is that to a certain age (what is it now - 4 years during day, 6 at night?), this isn't a cause for concern, right? And even after that age, it's not considered that unuusual; hence the wide slew of products aimed at managing this, all the Drynites and Goodnites, Underjams and Ninjamas and what have you. Point is, we're talking about wetting accidents. As in, not intentional, or voluntary. It "just happens". But pooping? At that age, with normal nutrition, your poops are solid, your sphincter control is good enough, so pooping is no longer just a matter of letting go; you have to actually make some kind of effort to do it. So then, it should be no problem making it to the potty, because you're not a baby anymore, right? Unless, your little consciousness with your 2-3 year-old's logic decides that "Nope! Don't wanna use no potty! I can't be bothered, pooping in diapers was fine, just fine until now, so why all of a sudden it shouldn't be? And if the big ones say it's okay to wear them at night for peeing, why not during the day, and for pooping also? I'm going to continue using my diapers for pooping, ha!" But in that case, when you poop your diaper, that's no accident - you did that willingly! Even though your parents/caregivers might call it an accident, because to them whether you did it willingly or not doesn't make that much of a difference when they have to deal with your stinky bum. That's not to say you should be berated for it. After all, it is in high likelyhood just the matter of you not yet having the capacity to understad the implications of continuing to use diapers (that it costs money, that changing you is quite the chore, that there is social pressure to get you potty trained because the neighbor's kid who's younger than you has already got the hang of it, etc.) But none of these are problems you could or should understand, because you're barely 3 years old and it seems as though the only reason why you should use the potty is because "mommy said so". But you're either stubborn, defiant (hence naughty), or you're simply not quite mature yet to comprehend it (hence babyish). All the same, no potty for you, diapers are here to stay.

I've certainly acquired some tastes that I didn't have and discarded some that I used to have, sometimes the change was almost 180°, for example in my younger days I didn't really like duck meat; I thought it too greasy and the taste too .. bitter, for the lack of a better word (I'm bad at describing taste). Now it's one of my favorite foods. I used to like bananas, sometime during my puberty I started absolutely hating them and I couldn't stand just the smell when someone ate one nearby, now I sort of tolerate the smell and taste, but I never eat them unless I absolutely need to. I used to like dill sauce well enough to eat it when that was the item on the day's menu at school, or elsewhere, now I absolutely despise the taste and won't go near it. I never liked liver and mushrooms. I still don't. I never liked mayonnaise (and it's derivatives such as tartare sauce) as a condiment, and usually it's a total deal breaker for me if I'm looking to buy a sandwich for a quick snack and it has mayo in it. I often joke that if I ever became an autocratic leader, first thing I'd do would be to ban mayonnaise. But, oddly enough, I do like Olivier salad which (usually) contains mayonnaise. So I guess there would be an exemption ? That also happens to be an acquired taste of mine. I disliked it very much in my childhood, and grew to liking it sometime around my teens. For a very long time I thought I didn't like boiled potatoes as a side dish, so at home I'd eat barely any when we had them, and at school I just didn't. I got called wasteful, picky eater, etc. for it, but as it turned out, it was just due to my mom's questionable cooking method that resulted in them tasting kind of like the water they were boiled in, and with a similar texture too, because when I started my working career and tried some at the cafeteria of my first place of employment, they tasted great. I then realized that this is how boiled potatoes are supposed to taste (if they're cooked right), and all the time I was avoiding them (outside home) was unjustified. The root cause was that my mom had once experienced a bad case of food poisoning from boiled potatoes that she boiled unpeeled, but something went wrong and it made her very sick, so since then she decided to "play it safe" and always boil them peeled, sliced and for way too long, which eliminated any remote possibility of that ever happening again to her or anybody else, but unfortunately it also eliminated any taste, texture and nutritional value. I guess I shouldn't have been too disillusioned when I cooked her a rib eye steak medium rare, and she insisted on putting it in the oven for 10 more minutes because it was uncooked. To her, for a beef to be cooked properly it must be brown throughout; if there's even a slight hint of pink it's still raw, and if there's more than a hint of pink, it's still alive going 'moo'. Oh, and I also hate honey. Some say it's better than sugar to put in your coffee or tea. I say nothing at all is best to put in your coffee or tea.

Well, the idea itself isn't completely taboo to me, as long as it wasn't just some random nobody, but rather someone with whom I have some strong bong, so a family member, partner, very good friend, I think I'd do it. Whether it would be someone who pooped their diaper out of necessity (i.e. caused by incontinence) or for fun is secondary. However, I've never done this before, except on myself; I've never even changed a baby's diaper, so this is easier said than done. I hope I wouldn't chicken out when it came to it.

Plain black, no sugar or anything when I'm visiting someone and they offer me one. When I go to a place where they have a fancy expensive espresso machine with all the bells and whistles and a good barista, I'll take something a little more elaborate and less bitter, usually some kind of latté, no sugar.

Totally agree with black, and I would also add red, violet (the latter two especially if it's a saturated color). It just doesn't look right on a diaper. It tries to be two incompatible things at once. And, yellow or brown - these colors are not supposed to be on the outer side of a diaper ...

First thing I'd do, get a mutlimeter (basic cheap one will do, or borrow one if you can), and measure what kind of voltage does the power brick output on the round power connector (minus is outside, plus is inside) and see if it matches the rated output. Also note that the original power supply for this model had 19V rated output voltage, so a compatible 3rd party PSU should match that (with some tolerance, but it shouldn't be way off. I'd say at most about +/- 0.5 volts). If the rated voltage of the non-original PSU you're using is way higher, then I'm afraid that's not a good sign. However the rated voltage is not likely to be higher than 20 volts. Anyway, a measurement is often more reliable than what's printed on the label. If you measure much less than rated voltage, the PSU might be broken, but the laptop might still work with a proper one. The laptop battery is likely dead though (dead enough not to be able to power the laptop). If you measure zero, then there's something wrong with the multimeter, or you're using it incorrectly (it can't possibly be zero since as you say the laptop is reacting to the power brick in some way. If you measure much more than the rated voltage, the power brick failed in the worst possible way, taking the motherboard (and possibly other components) with it. If you measure the correct voltage, the power supply probably sort of works, but the output voltage may have spiked and killed the board (and possibly other components). If it's the worst case scenario (dead motherboard and possibly other components), the only option might be to either 1) replace the motherboard and hope nothing else in it is fried, or 2) salvage whatever replacable components there are in the laptop, which in this case should be the CPU (afaik, this model has a socketed, not soldered CPU), battery, SODIMM stick(s) and HDD or SSD (whichever of the two it has). The rest is e-waste. Well I've got one anecdote about such a thing. My mum's boyfriend had an Asus U36JC, and at some point, for unknown reason, took off the bottom cover, didn't bother to put it back on, lost the screws, and left it in this state our garden house fireplace, where it sat abandoned for more than a year, including a winter (a quite cold one at that). I asked him what's wrong with it and if I can take it. Well it did have some issues, such as the wifi cutting out when the sceen was tilted in a specific angle, and the dedicated GPU (nvidia GT 310M) was causing errors, and the screen had some scuffs, but other than that, it worked fine. It would have probably been completely fine if the previous owner took proper care of it (dust the inside, and reapply fresh thermal paste before it's too late and the graphics chip becomes unstable). But most surprisingly of all, the battery still worked. It survived the year and some of never being recharged and left in cold. Not only did it work, it held proper charge. Not as much as a brand new battery, but maybe about 80% capacity. After some proper care (replacing lost screws, cleaning it thouroughly and repasting the heatsinks, replacing the mechanical drive with an SSD, finding a matching stick of SO-DIMM to the 4GB one that was already in it, it ran like new. Actually better than new, because of the SSD and extra RAM. Well, as long as it was used with the integrated intel GPU and not the nvidia dGPU. Which wasn't that good anyway, although better than the iGPU, but not enough to do any gaming, and not adding any benefit for casual use (browsing, editing documents). I used it for a while and eventually flipped it for a little bit more than the cost of SSD and RAM I put in it. TLDR. Li-ion batteries can be surprisingly tough.

Lots of cities, including the one where I live, have modern trash incineration stations that have very low emissions and have positive net energy output (the trash needs to be burned at very high temperature, which requires forced air induction, and natural gas burners are used to initiate the incineration). It's lot more eco-friendly than a simple landfill, and as for the released CO2, if it's used for electricity and/or heat generation, and when the majority of electricity is generated by burning fossils fuels, it would be released anyway (it's slightly better than brown coal in terms of kg of CO2 per MWh generated, and slightly worse than natural gas). For example, our electrical energy mix is 37.1% brown coal, 36.5% nuclear, 7.8% natural gas, 6.6% bio, 3.2% anthracite, 3% hydro, 3.4% other renewable and 2.4% other fossil. With that mix, incinerating waste for heat/power generation will not make our overall CO2 level per total generated energy any worse. It would make it relatively worse if we had much higher share of nuclear and renewable, but at that point our absolute figures would be so low that we could afford to release the extra CO2, and there would still be the benefit of less trash in landfills.

I'd rather wait for the functionalities of my body to start deteriorating on their own. It'll be a lot cheaper, too. Sure, when it starts happening, I might not have any control over it, but me deciding now to lose control isn't what really I consider having control. I consider having control when I get to retain control.

I'm kind of repeating myself, since there has already been more than one thread about this, but here goes: This way you can effectively double, triple, quadruple ... to your preference. Naturally you will get diminishing returns, as at some point the innermost diaper will be so soaked it will no longer absorb or allow wetness through.

Funny that you should accuse me of lack of maturity, when you're the one who perked up immediately when I stated that I don't accept someone's religious belief as valid reason to mutilate someone else's genitals without their consent, and then got triggered when I dared to criticize the notion that someone should mindlessly follow what their religion tells them to do (mutilate someone else's genitals without their consent), calling it an insult to faith. As for respect to someone's beliefs, faiths, opinions or whatever you call it, I already stated it here in other discussion, and now I'll do it again: I respect your right to have belief, faith or opinion and to express them by words or by actions as long as those actions do not cause harm to others. That does not mean that I will respect the belief, faith or opinion itself. Are you able to discern the difference? Respect for other people's rights is one of the main values of modern western civilization, and I'm all for it, and while you have the right to your beliefs and opionions, what you don't have is a "right" not to have your beliefs or opinions criticized, insulted or even ridiculed. Let alone a right to have other people respect those beliefs and opinions. That would not even be a right, it would be a privilege. So, when it comes to respect, the very basic respect of your rights is all you get from me automatically. You want more respect than that? You'll have to earn it. It's not granted. If you want me to respect not just your right to your beliefs, but your beliefs themselves, then they better be worthy of my respect. And yes, I'll be the one to determine what's worthy of my respect and what isn't, because I don't see how anyone else could be determining it for me. And no, the way I see it, your beliefs you have presented here do not get my respect, because all I've seen so far is a bunch of nonsense, and I can not, and will not respect that. Don't like it? Well, there's about grand total of three things you can do about it. You can ignore it, you can continue being salty about it, or (and this is the one option that will make me give you most respect) you can think about it. Perhaps if you think about it well and hard, you may come up with some better, more reasonable conclusions that just might gain you other people's respect. It absolutely is. It is an unnecessary (unless there is severe health condition that requires it; I've talked about this exception) mutilation of a healthy, functional, non-redundant body part that, even if done in under local or general anaesthesia, in sterile conditions, by medical professionals, using scientifically sound surgical procedures, will cause pain and suffering during recovery (and possibly later on in life), will result in acceleration of gradual loss of sensitivity in one of the most sensitive of all body parts, can result in lowering of sex drive, and will not ever grow back to its original state (and while the advances of modern medicine have made reconstructive surgery of foreskin possible, it is not, and hardly will ever be, the same as an intact foreskin). I very much doubt that, because if they have, they would probably have come to the same conclusion that people have come to in most of the developed world where there's quality healthcare and good hygiene standards - that conclusion being that it is not beneficial and not necessary. And even if they didn't, that still doesn't change the fact that their son's foreskin is not theirs to cut off! And if it's the case that there isn't good healthcare and good hygiene standards where they are, what they should then do is work towards changing that; not just take some a shortcut instead (like cutting your son's foreskin off). So what? That's your personal experience and view, and not some generally applicable data. The fact that you may be fine, content or happy with the fact that you were circumcised as a baby, does not negate the experiences of other men and boys who were circumcised without their consent, and are not fine, content or happy with it. The fact that there's not much that can be done about it after the fact, maybe works more in favor of those who, like you, are okay with it rather than those who aren't okay with it, but that only makes it more of a reason not to do it to your son, because then he won't be forced to either "deal with it and be okay", or be miserable about it. See this is the same kind of fallacy like advocating for beating of children with the arguement that "my parents did beat me and I turned out fine". Maybe you did (did you really though?), but that doesn't make beating children a right thing to do. Or defending smoking tobacco with "I smoke pack a day and I don't have cancer." That does not mean smoking does not cause cancer. Or "I eat three Big Macs every day and I'm in good shape and I don't have high cholesterol". That does not mean three Big Macs a day is a healthy diet. What is or isn't good/healthy/beneficial can only be objectively determined by a scientific review of exhaustive, properly collected data that account for all plausible factors, exceptions, anomalies etc., and are as much detached from personal biases as is possible. And your personal report is not that. Speaking of "being fine, no harm done". It's not like you have a comparison of what it's like to live with a foreskin and without it; all you've ever experienced (consciously enough to remember, anyway) is being without it, so how would you even know that you're not worse off without it, than you might be with it? It has been a strictly secular country from the moment the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and will be till the moment religious nutjobs hijack it and change the Constitution. The Trump crowd was dangerously close, and the current composition of the Supreme Court of the United States (legacy of Trump), is slowly but steadily clawing away legal precedents that were a clear reminder that USA is indeed, a secular country, and not a theocracy, and are replacing them with precedents that suggest the opposite, which is very alarming. Anyway, it looks like there's a problem here with understanding what secular means, so let's clear up some definitions. Whether country is secular or not has no bearing on how many people in that country are religious or not, and what kind of religion they follow. Secular country is the kind of country where there is no official religion (a.k.a established religion or state religion) , and the United States of America are strictly just that, as is clearly defined by the U.S constitution. United Kingdom, for example, is not a secular country, because there is an official religion - the Church of England, despite there being lower ratio of religious people than in the USA. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - First Amendment to the United States Constitution If you have a problem undestanding what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" actually means in practice, like many religious fanatics do, let me explain it to you. In order for a specific religion to be officially prefered over another religion (or lack thereof), that specific religion would have to be established by law, because if it wasn't established by law, such official preference it would be discriminatory and illegal. And that law would have to be made by the Congress. And the first amendment prohibits the Congress to do just that. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States - Article Six of the United States Constitution Freedom of religion must necessarily include freedom from religion, (no one being allowed to force their religion on someone else), otherwise it would be very a half-assed freedom, and not a real freedom. Amazing, you managed to contradict yourself in the very next sentence you wrote. Do you know what atheism is? It is, by definition, a lack of belief in god or gods. Thereby, it is not a religion or faith, and if I can "choose" it (poor choice of words on your part, people don't "choose" what they believe. People are presented with a claim, and based on how gullible or skeptical they are, on how plausible or inplausible the claim is, on how good or bad the evidence is, and other factors, they will either be convinced, or they will not. But it is not a matter of choice; if it was, it would not really be a belief, but rather a make-believe), that has to mean that I not only have a freedom OF religion, but also the freedom FROM religion. At least you got one thing right. Uh huh. So cutting off perfectly healthy foreskin from newborn boys for religious reasons, that's okay with you, but "sacrificing people or some such shit", that's step too far? And If the religion required that instead of foreskin, the sacrificed body part should be a pinky toe, or the middle finger, or maybe the left ear would you defend it just as vehemently as you do now? I bet you probably would. The only reason why in the bible it's the foreskin that you should cut off, and not some other body part, is because the people who came up with it were obsessed with controlling the masses, and a very easy (if not the easiest) way to control the masses was to control people's sexuality - make sex taboo, make non-reproductive sex or just enjoying sex even more taboo, make a bunch of strict rules about it, threaten people into conformity with the usual methods, sanction draconian punishments for disobedience, etc. Firefly 35 hit the nail on the head with this. Also, what does "some such shit" exactly entail? Blood sacrifice? Body mutilation? Circumcision? Not the last one, huh? By what logic does cutting off a healthy piece of someone else's skin (that will not grow back to its original state) and a spilling non-zero amount of blood in the process for religious reasons not belong in the category of "sacrificing people or some such shit" ?? Just because you don't die from it? Or because you can live "fine" without it? Guess what, you can live "fine" without one eye. You can live "fine" without one of your limbs. But the quality of such living will be diminished. Maybe you don't feel like your quality of life has suffered from not having a foreskin since shortly after birth, but that does not make it a valid argument to do it to anyone else. So where then, do you draw the line between what is (sacrificing people) "or some such shit", and what isn't "some such shit"? You don't have to bother answering. I already know the answer. You didn't draw a line. You let someone else draw it for you - that someone being whoever came up with the religion that you follow (christianity) or respect (judaism) - you say, and, apparently also believe, that it was god who came up with it, not a person. Well that's your opinion, and I don't share it, nor respect it, because there's not an shred of evidence, logic or sense backing it up. If you don't see that as a problem, you do you, but do not involve anyone else in it without their consent.