Circumcision illegal in Ireland?

MagicMarker

Javelin77 wrote: »

i searched " circumcision " on the entire site , i read some of the results on the gentlemen club forum . Guys there are talking about getting circumcised now ! I mean grownups deciding to get circumcised now ? What's the story ? Cultural , religious ?

I were circumcised 34 years ago , probably at the age of 10 hours , but if i had my foreskin now i would never amputate it after knowing that it maximise the penis sensitivity . So fellow atheists, what's the story there at the gentlemen club ?

If you read the thread over there then how do you not know the answer to your own question?

al28283

Is tooth extraction assault also?

Javelin77

i see , i really want to know how it feels like to have a foreskin ? Is that possible ? If anyone can help know in details , like heigene , urinating , is there pain at any point , is the tip of the penis over pressured .....

AhSureTisGrand

Javelin77 wrote: »

i see , i really want to know how it feels like to have a foreskin ? Is that possible ? If anyone can help know in details , like heigene , urinating , is there pain at any point , is the tip of the penis over pressured .....

Only when you go at it too hard

strobe

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Hygiene can also be a contributing factor. Men with no foreskin are not prone to smegma (rotten knob cheese)

Same goes for men who shower properly.

Javelin77

i didn't read the whole thing at the gentlemen club thread cos i read like 5 posted and they were all talking about how worried they are and stuff , i'm trying make up my mind about this whole circumcision thing . Should i do it to kid in case i got one in the future .

After reading some articles here and there i think i'm 75% in favour of keeping my kid foreskin .

I'm not convinced with this hiv and heigene issue in uncircumcised men .

If it's true that removing the foreskin reduces the penis' sensitivity of more than 50% ! Why would i remove it

The Mad Hatter

al28283 wrote: »

Is tooth extraction assault also?

If the tooth is removed without the owner's consent, before they're too old to even give their consent, and is not doing any harm to its owner (but in actual fact probably benefiting), then yes, absolutely.

kylith

al28283 wrote: »

Is tooth extraction assault also?

If it's done unnecessarily, and without consent or anaesthetic, yes.

Javelin77 wrote:

i see , i really want to know how it feels like to have a foreskin ? Is that possible ? If anyone can help know in details , like heigene , urinating , is there pain at any point , is the tip of the penis over pressured ..... Yesterday 22:24i see , i really want to know how it feels like to have a foreskin ? Is that possible ? If anyone can help know in details , like heigene , urinating , is there pain at any point , is the tip of the penis over pressured .....

You can regrow your foreskin, if you want. There are numerous articles online. Also, check out Penn & Teller's show about it.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

You can regrow your foreskin, if you want.

In the hope that one wouldn't reconvert, I assume :eek:

Reminds me of a comment by was it Lloyd George? on some political opponent:

Possibly Lloyd George wrote:

When they circumcised him they threw away the wrong bit

strobe

kylith wrote: »

You can regrow your foreskin, if you want. There are numerous articles online.

Jesus... so you can. Learn something new everyday.

Javelin77

can anyone here share his reconstruction story ? Or irish peeps in the majority aren't circumcised ?

kylith

As a rule Irish men aren't circumcised unless there is a medical reason to do so. I do know a guy, with Catholic parents, who was circumcised at birth. He's... angry or upset wouldn't be the right terms... but he's frustrated that part of him was chopped off for no reason, good or bad. He's not bothered enough about it to regrow it, though.

Speaking as a woman there's little difference between cut and uncut, except in what I will refer to as the 'manual handling' phase. Then I find the difference is huge, with the skin of a circumcised penis acting completely differently. I was terrified that I would hurt the guy because there's no give there at all.

Solair

What should matter on this is medical science not personal preference.

Medical science's general view is that it is an absolutely unnecessary procedure in most cases other than where there some kind of an unusual problem. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, even where there is a problem, it can be resolved with steroid creams or far less invasive minor surgical procedures.

Surgery should only be done where it is proven to be necessary. If an adult wants to have an elective procedure which would be basically elective plastic surgery, that's entirely up to them. But, for a minor, the law should be there to protect their right to bodily integrity.

I don't see much difference between parents opting to have this procedure done to them opting to get their kid a nose job or have them tattooed.

The arguments in favour of it simply do not stack up. It's all based on tradition, religious dogma, anachronistic ritual blood sacrifice, cosmetics/aesthetics and a load of nonsense about personal hygiene which anyone in their right mind would realise is a load of horse manure.

To me, it just seems like a weird throwback to a superstitious non-scientific form of medicine and utter quackery.

Incidentally, medicine has had plenty of surgical fads over the centuries. There were plenty of totally unnecessary, highly questionable and even downright immoral and unethical procedures carried out on a routine basis without much science behind them at all. Everything from routine preventative tonsillectomies in the 1950s to the worst and most damaging procedures like frontal lobotomies and various treatments in the area of psychiatric medicine which really had little or no science behind them at all and were just done 'because' or on a kinda of hunch.

My view of these things is to QUESTION EVERYTHING. Nothing should be carried out for the sake of tradition or without very deep scientific evaluation. Medicine should be pure science, not art or some kind of cultural expression.

If it can't be scientifically justified, it should not be done. End of story.

easychair

Solair wrote: »

What should matter on this is medical science not personal preference.

Medical science's general view is that it is an absolutely unnecessary procedure in most cases other than where there some kind of an unusual problem. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, even where there is a problem, it can be resolved with steroid creams or far less invasive minor surgical procedures.

Surgery should only be done where it is proven to be necessary. If an adult wants to have an elective procedure which would be basically elective plastic surgery, that's entirely up to them. But, for a minor, the law should be there to protect their right to bodily integrity.

I don't see much difference between parents opting to have this procedure done to them opting to get their kid a nose job or have them tattooed.

The arguments in favour of it simply do not stack up. It's all based on tradition, religious dogma, anachronistic ritual blood sacrifice, cosmetics/aesthetics and a load of nonsense about personal hygiene which anyone in their right mind would realise is a load of horse manure.

To me, it just seems like a weird throwback to a superstitious non-scientific form of medicine and utter quackery.

Incidentally, medicine has had plenty of surgical fads over the centuries. There were plenty of totally unnecessary, highly questionable and even downright immoral and unethical procedures carried out on a routine basis without much science behind them at all. Everything from routine preventative tonsillectomies in the 1950s to the worst and most damaging procedures like frontal lobotomies and various treatments in the area of psychiatric medicine which really had little or no science behind them at all and were just done 'because' or on a kinda of hunch.

My view of these things is to QUESTION EVERYTHING. Nothing should be carried out for the sake of tradition or without very deep scientific evaluation. Medicine should be pure science, not art or some kind of cultural expression.

If it can't be scientifically justified, it should not be done. End of story.

None if us can decide wha it the end of the story for someone else. While I am against unnecessary circumcision myself, if someone else feels strongly about it then that's up to them. Many millions, if not billions, across the world want their infant children circumcised for a variety of reasons, and for them your reasons are not the end of the story.

A curious observation is that, in Ireland, there is a higher than average number of men with tight non retracting foreskins. This is probably caused by children in schools across much of Europe being checked for this condition, but it seems not to happen or have happened in Ireland. If anyone thinks a woman prefers an uncircumcised penis, ( personally I doubt this), ask women if they prefer a tight non retracting foreskin to a circumcised penis, and most will tell you a non retracting foreskin is very unattractive.


For example, the act of fellatio is not enjoyed by partners of those with tight non retracting foreskins almost universally.

Personally while I don,t advocate routine unnecessary circumcision for male infants, its not something which I can really get too excited about either.

Dades

easychair wrote: »

None if us can decide wha it the end of the story for someone else. While I am against unnecessary circumcision myself, if someone else feels strongly about it then that's up to them.

When you say "them", are you referring to the owner of the foreskin? I don't think you are - which the issue here.

easychair

Dades wrote: »

easychair wrote: »

None if us can decide wha it the end of the story for someone else. While I am against unnecessary circumcision myself, if someone else feels strongly about it then that's up to them.

When you say "them", are you referring to the owner of the foreskin? I don't think you are - which the issue here.

I take your point, but an infant is not legally able to make such decisions so it is up to his legal guardians, usually his parents, to make such decisions on his behalf.

Dades

easychair wrote: »

I take your point, but an infant is not legally able to make such decisions so it is up to his legal guardians, usually his parents, to make such decisions on his behalf.

That begs the question why it's a "decision" in the first place. The whole "decision" thing has been given a false importance on the back of religious tradition.

My son was born in 2010, and no doctor/nurse/midwife even brought up the idea of removing a bit of his manhood.

sensibleken

Is anyone who has been circumcised bothered about it?

easychair

sensibleken wrote: »

Is anyone who has been circumcised bothered about it?

Sure, there are some groups, pretty marginal, who froth at the mouth about it. There are billions of men who are circumcised, its very common around the world, and I don't think many of those men think they are any less a man as a result- I know some refer to their penis as their "manhood", and the foreskin is not part of the penis , but is a shearh to cover the glans.

MagicMarker

easychair wrote: »

ask women if they prefer a tight non retracting foreskin to a circumcised penis, and most will tell you a non retracting foreskin is very unattractive.

I prefer big tits, but it's very low down on my list of priorities.

It's a penis, it's never going to be that attractive, I highly doubt a woman will care all that much so long as things are clean and healthy.

easychair wrote: »

For example, the act of fellatio is not enjoyed by partners of those with tight non retracting foreskins almost universally.

Nonsense.

BTW, none of these are reasons to get a new born circumcised.

Dades

easychair wrote: »

I know some refer to their penis as their "manhood", and the foreskin is not part of the penis , but is a shearh to cover the glans.

Here's me thinking it was called a "man hood" for a reason.

Laisurg

No one should be allowed go at a lads mickey with a scissors!
The idea of circumcision always seemed quite silly to me but i don't think many people get it done here anyway unless they need to for whatever reason.

Edit: just had a look at how it's done, a child seriously should not be put through that unless they need to be...

sensibleken

Dades wrote: »

Here's me thinking it was called a "man hood" for a reason.

I call mine "Lance Terrorhorn"

sensibleken

Laisurg wrote: »

No one should be allowed go at a lads mickey with a scissors!
The idea of circumcision always seemed quite silly to me but i don't think many people get it done here anyway unless they need to for whatever reason.

what about with a needle. ive done that hundreds of times and its much more pleasant if theyve had the snip

easychair

MagicMarker wrote: »

easychair wrote: »

ask women if they prefer a tight non retracting foreskin to a circumcised penis, and most will tell you a non retracting foreskin is very unattractive.

I prefer big tits, but it's very low down on my list of priorities.

It's a penis, it's never going to be that attractive, I highly doubt a woman will care all that much so long as things are clean and healthy.

easychair wrote: »

For example, the act of fellatio is not enjoyed by partners of those with tight non retracting foreskins almost universally.

Nonsense.

BTW, none of these are reasons to get a new born circumcised.

It is said one mans meat is another mans poison. Ask any woman, or gay man, what she or he thinks about being asked to fellate a guy who has a tight non retracting foreskin.

I agree that it's not my choice to circumcise infants as routine, but I can't really get too worked up about it and feel its the parents decision. Which it is now, so really its up to the parents.

MagicMarker

easychair wrote: »

It is said one mans meat is another mans poison. Ask any woman, or gay man, what she or he thinks about being asked to fellate a guy who has a tight non retracting foreskin.

Have you asked them all? You said they almost universally don't enjoy it, what are you basing this on?

easychair wrote: »

I agree that it's not my choice to circumcise infants as routine, but I can't really get too worked up about it and feel its the parents decision. Which it is now, so really its up to the parents.

Can I remove my baby's little toe?

kylith

easychair wrote: »

None if us can decide wha it the end of the story for someone else. While I am against unnecessary circumcision myself, if someone else feels strongly about it then that's up to them. Many millions, if not billions, across the world want their infant children circumcised for a variety of reasons, and for them your reasons are not the end of the story.

Then it should be left until the person who will be having the operation is of an age to make the decision. It's not for anyone else to make that choice for them 'just in case'. If that were good practise then we'd all have our tonsils and appendixes removed at birth 'just in case'.

A curious observation is that, in Ireland, there is a higher than average number of men with tight non retracting foreskins. This is probably caused by children in schools across much of Europe being checked for this condition, but it seems not to happen or have happened in Ireland. If anyone thinks a woman prefers an uncircumcised penis, ( personally I doubt this), ask women if they prefer a tight non retracting foreskin to a circumcised penis, and most will tell you a non retracting foreskin is very unattractive.


For example, the act of fellatio is not enjoyed by partners of those with tight non retracting foreskins almost universally.

I have never come across a man with a non-retracting foreskin, so I couldn't say either way. While I know that this condition does exist I doubt if it's as common as you seem to be making out.

If a man has this problem then it is certainly his perogative to have the condition fixed. Incidentally there are simple, non-surgical, ways to do this should he not want the operation.

muppeteer

Solair wrote: »

What should matter on this is medical science not personal preference
.....
Incidentally, medicine has had plenty of surgical fads over the centuries. There were plenty of totally unnecessary, highly questionable and even downright immoral and unethical procedures carried out on a routine basis without much science behind them at all.
...

I was quite shocked at some of the practices that were carried out up untill reletively recently. Here's a presentation given to a Symposium on Circumcision.
http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html

In the last hundred years, scientific authorities robbed babies of their cries by calling them "random sound;" robbed them of their smiles by calling them "muscle spasms" or "gas;" robbed them of their memories by calling them "fantasies" and robbed them of their pain by calling it a "reflex."

Hospitalized newborns, from preemies to babies up to 18 months of age, have been routinely operated upon without benefit of pain-killing anesthesia. This has been the practice for decades but was unknown to the general public until 1985 when some parents discovered that their seriously ill premature babies had suffered major surgery without benefit of anesthesia.67,68,69,70,71,72 Up to this time, babies were typically given a form of curare to paralyze their muscles for surgery, making it impossible for them to lift a finger or make a sound of protest!

The abouve is one of the most shocking things I've come across, mostly because of how recently it was carried out.
So when doctors were preforming internal surgery on babies without anestesia, you can see how they would be dismissive of a comparatively minor procedure such as circumcision.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

I have never come across a man with a non-retracting foreskin

Neither have I(*)



(*) Probably a good thing too.

Solair

easychair wrote: »

None if us can decide wha it the end of the story for someone else. While I am against unnecessary circumcision myself, if someone else feels strongly about it then that's up to them. Many millions, if not billions, across the world want their infant children circumcised for a variety of reasons, and for them your reasons are not the end of the story.

A curious observation is that, in Ireland, there is a higher than average number of men with tight non retracting foreskins. This is probably caused by children in schools across much of Europe being checked for this condition, but it seems not to happen or have happened in Ireland. If anyone thinks a woman prefers an uncircumcised penis, ( personally I doubt this), ask women if they prefer a tight non retracting foreskin to a circumcised penis, and most will tell you a non retracting foreskin is very unattractive.


For example, the act of fellatio is not enjoyed by partners of those with tight non retracting foreskins almost universally.

Personally while I don,t advocate routine unnecessary circumcision for male infants, its not something which I can really get too excited about either.

Well, just wait until someone decides to sue their parents and or maternity hospitals. I would suspect that there is absolutely logical legal grounds for doing so.

I don't really see it as much different from the symphysiotomy scandal i.e. it's unnecessary surgery carried out for non-medical grounds.