Foreskin appearance

Circumcision sucks, all done on a parents say so, and there say so sucks, they should wait and see what there son wants, as it is his penis.

 

I

In my experience, most people don’t really have a foreskin appearance preference. What’s more common is they either have a preference for foreskin or no foreskin. And even then, most people don’t seem to have a preference either way.

 

It seems you're right. I'll give a bit explanation why I started this survery nevertheless. I started a similar survey on a Dutch Board about ten years ago, with the following background, valid for NL:
- in the previous generation it was in certain, small communities, common to have their boys circumcised, purely for "hygiene" and cosmetics. This was a small population and comparable to what's common in English upper class. This isn't really happening anymore.
- also in the previous generations, it was common practice to cut out everything that was an issue, nuisance, whatever. So a lot of e.g. tonsils where removed even though not strictly necessary (we now think). This also counts for foreskins. Nowadays only in very severe cases a complete circumcision is performed.
- the only place where you commonly see penises is in porn, which is mostly American and until a few years ago, they were all circumcised

So I have been under the impression that a long foreskin was "standard" and the only alternative was being circumcised (as in porn). At some point I had seen some people in the nude in changing rooms, sauna etc. And it struck me that the length of the foreskin can vary a lot. Some of them are so short they almost look like circumcised (although they're clearly not).

Then I wondered if maybe women have a preference. I think as man we also have preferences for various female body parts, so why not. Also in that time (ten years ago) a great deal of American women strongly preferred circumcised penises. So I started the survey and it was suprising how many women do actually have (or had) a preference. Even though circumcision even then was not prevalent in NL, a small group really had a strong preference for a circumcised penis (something like 10%). Another bigger group, like 40%, actually strongly preferred a penis with little foreskin on it, having a completely uncovered glans (with little folds) when hard and also even in flacid state, the glans almost completely bare. The other like 50% did not care or had a preference for a longer foreskin.

I think that is a very interesting result. What's also interesting is that when I repeated the survery ten years later, there was almost nothing left of the preference for a short or absent foreskin. That's particulary interesting because that corresponds to the American trend to stop routinely circumcising their babies. Also if you start a survey now (like this one), most women will answer "don't care" or even "like foreskin", while ten years ago many women had a distinctive opinion on the subject (circumcised).

I am trying to understand what is going on here. Maybe the initial survey drew very specific people to it, that were not a good representation of the whole population? Or maybe the general opinion did change, worldwide. Or else?

Besides that I've been convinced that a circumcised penis (or one with very little foreskin) is "better" for a woman (more friction, better looks, no smelly stuff), but it appears most women don't see it that way, actually.