Yea, the main thing I find attractive about a guy is that he is nice. Sorry all for feeding the off-topic derailment.
You've obviously not read any clinical studies of nearly every neurochemical drug. Nearly all of them say, in slightly more sophisticated language, "We have no idea how this shit works in the brain, We know it operates on this-or-that pathway or channel, and we think it might have to do with so-and-so, but we really aren't sure." No, not really. THe various research methods we have developed are pretty sophisticated, and we have the ability to control for an awful lot of confounding factors if a study is well designed, with a lot of attention to methodology and sampling and controls. Now, that said, there are aspects of science -- some forms of medicine -- that are in part intuition and hunches, but those generally are not used in credible peer reviewed research, more in clinical settings where there's less solid information to go off of. If you understood research methods and statistics, you'd know that there are a whole variety of mathematical tests that are part of any statistical analysis in any credible quantitative study that are there specifically to rule out such things. In fact, they specifically predict the likelihood that the results are due to chance, and if the factors are above an acceptably low number, the data is considered unreliable and is rejected. Which proves absolutely nothing. This is where things like sampling bias, personal habits, ethnic and socioeconimic factors and other things enter into the aanlytical process of developing a good study. Did you actually read the study? Do you have even the slightest understanding of Muslim beliefs and the impact those beliefs have on sexual behavior and decisionmaking? Again, these are potential confounding factors that a well-crafted study accounts for. Probably because (a) it didn;t say what you wanted it to say and (b) you don't understand research methodologies and statistics.
You're right. I don't understand science. I failed science class in sixth grade over a project that involved chewing bubblegum and measuring something about it. This was like, twenty years ago. I've resented science since then. I frankly don't care how science works, just that someone can understand it. But I also care that it makes sense. And this study, like the bubblegum project, didn't make any sense to me. As far as neurochemical drugs go, I've been on a lot over the years. I was a kid when it was popular to say "Oh, you won't sit still? You have ADHD!" And then science pumped me full of amphetamines, which I swear are responsible for my anxiety disorder today. So yeah, I resent science for a number of reasons. Pop-science imbibed in me an ugly spirit that's haunted me all my life.
Aesthetically I don't think penises look particularly good flaccid anyway. Erect is better. But I wouldn't describe them as artistic, too asymmetrical and odd looking. So I don't see foreskin making them much better or worse. I personally would prefer some sort of gential-less appearance if I was going for pure aesthetics - like a classical statue of a female nude. Ethically, male infant circumcision done for non-medically valid reasons is an obviously form of child abuse and permanent mutilation (albeit minor in comparison to most forms of FGM). I would consider it unethical and hopefully culture will move away from this practice. I can understand a current political freedom of religion and parental choice argument to permit it, but hopefully one day it will be so culturally frowned upon that a democracy can viably make it illegal.
Personally I find penises a thing of beauty, either flaccid or erect. I’ve been married to a woman for 30 years and I would rather look at a penis than a vagina, Which helped me come to terms with the fact that I’m gay.
Muslims don't wash all their orifices before prayer. They clean a certain body parts before a prayer. It is called Wudu. Also another important thing, have you ever been to a toilet in Muslim country? Instead of toilet paper they have these short hoses or some kind of jar filled with water and they wash their genitals each time. It is the norm there.
I like both cut and uncut. But an uncut one with an extra long foreskin is fantastic . How much fun. Great to look at.
Completely hopping on the ethical bandwagon, I wholeheartedly agree with @Chip. Being super aggressive - everybody is talking about STIs and cleanliness....If you can't teach your kid to wash themselves and explain safe sex maybe you shouldn't have kids? Rather than inflict unnecessary pain because you're lazy? (EDIT: Or uncomfortable with "taboo" things...I guess)
My preference for a guy close to my age already creates such a heavy filter for me to find a boyfriend in my area, that adding such a trivial filter would make it damn near impossible for me to ever find love.
I'm cut and I prefer cut. I, also, am attracted to other men that look and are built like me. So, maybe some of these preferences are because of what we know. I've never even seen an uncut man. I've always wondered about this loss of sensation that us cut guys are supposed to experience. I could live with less sensation quite honestly. I can't imagine having more! On the argument about keeping things cleaner. I think it is a valid issue...for me. I like to spend a lot of time in the outside and I enjoy spontaneous sex when I am on an outdoor adventure. This was something my wife and I did and something my FWB and I do. Cut is practical for that...only my opinion and preference. And, the preference of both women and men that I have been with. As far as HIV...Condoms and PREP should mitigate any advantages that a cut person might have (as per the CDC numbers). Not sure what I would do if I had to make a decision for my own son. That would be a difficult decision since I haven't had a problem being cut and only see the advantages.