Does foreskin have any actual medical benefits?

It can be used as a bacon substitute or fried like pork rinds.

If you have one it means you’re not a Jew, and the relief which that realisation provides is enough of a benefit.

You did have a problem with it, when the circumcision was happening. Just because you can't remember it now doesn't mean you didn't go through that excruciating pain, when you were a baby no less. You might think it was worth it now, but if it had happened to you when you were old enough to tell them to stop there's no way you would have endured that torture.

As for all the "it's unsanitary, it requires cleaning" nonsense, all it takes it a quick draw back of the foreskin while you're in the shower. Cutting off your foreskin to save a couple seconds in the shower is like pulling your teeth out to avoid having to brush them.

Also I really hate to say this cos I'm basically deriding people who are victims of mutilation (but if it stops them from doing the same to other unconsenting people then it has to be said), but circumcised penises look fucking weird. They look unnatural.

As for benefits, there are nerve endings in the foreskin so that sex feels better. You could be experiencing better sex if it weren't for your parents having you circumcised. Not to mention circumcisions sometimes go wrong, babies die every year from botched circumcisions.

As far as I know protection
Like that small lump of skin on top of the clitoris

I was circumcised shortly after I was born, and I've got through 60+ years without it ever being a problem for me.

From what I understand, the inner surface of the foreskin has a lot of nerve endings, and since there's a distinct difference in the sensitivity of the skin on my penis above and below the (not very obvious) circumcision scar, that seems to be true. I can see how removal of that skin might reduce the intensity of pleasure during sex, but I've always found all sorts of stimulation of my penis very enjoyable and I've never had problems reaching orgasm, so it seems to me that it's one of those cases where never having something means you never miss it.

I'm also sure that the anti-circ campaigners are right that circumcision must decrease the sensitivity of the glans because it's constantly exposed.

It's been a while since I had a look at an anti-circ website, but my recollection is that the language I read there was absurdly emotive. From how they described it, it would be understandable if a woman or an uncircumcised guy came away believing that the glans of a circumcised penis ends up looking like a sun-dried dried prune and as sensitive as a callused foot. That's simply not true in my experience. Like I've said, I've never had any problems reaching orgasm due to lack of sensitivity. Considering how women are much, much slower to reach orgasm through PIV sex (if they can at all), it's ridiculous to suggest that _decreased_ sensitivity for a guy is a huge problem, and what's best is that a guy should be so damn sensitive that he ejaculates in two minutes at most.

Circumcision is surgery (albeit about as minor as can be for an infant), and things do occasionally go very wrong. I have every sympathy for guys who have a mangled penis due to their circumcision. However, my conclusion after reading anti-circ propaganda is that the guys who are truly enraged that they were cut as infants probably have all sorts of issues with their parents and how they were raised. I also suspect that many have sexual issues which are actually nothing at all to do with their circumcision, but it's easier for them to blame nasty doctors or their stupid parents for these than it is for them to address and sort out the problems that are actually in their head.

What the anti-circ nuts don't mention is that it's also possible for foreskins to cause various problems. Phimosis, for example, can be extremely uncomfortable, cause inflammation of the glans that might result in permanent damage if not treated, make it difficult to reach orgasm and even make sex impossible.

For some reason, I've come across a couple of articles in recent months where guys described their experience of being circumcised as an adult. It's clear that it's not a trivial operation and recovery is no fun at all. It seems to me that parents who take the view that it's something that their son should make his own decision about are, while understandably taking the moral high road, basically making it highly unlikely - for good or ill - that their son will ever be circumcised.

I honestly don't know what I'd do if I should have a son (highly unlikely at this point of my life, but speaking hypothetically). I suppose I would leave things natural, just because I think things are generally better left that way unless there's a very good reason not to.

The fact is that you're circumcised, and notwithstanding the peculiar "cures" that I recall seeing which supposedly allow a guy to stretch the skin of the penis enough to recreate a sorta-foreskin, you have little choice but to accept that. Your parents no doubt had this done to you for what they'd been led to believe were good reasons. Hating on them for allowing it to be done to you and getting all wound up about what you've lost due to circumcision is completely pointless.

I honestly have no idea what benefits their could be. But I do know there is people who regret being circumcised so idk.

I mean, forcing someone to be circumcised as a child could be considered child abuse. I personally believe that one should decide whether or not they want to be circumcised. The only benefit of circumcision I've heard of is that circumcised people are less likely to contract STDs. Although, you really shouldn't have sex with people with STDs unless you already have their STD.