Ahh. I have and would have to say that I prefer the circ’d variety. But this is getting into IMHO territory. 
Sure it is. It’s the male version of the prepuce, the human counterpart of other mammals’ penile sheaths:
Whether or not you believe that cutting off the foreskin is “barbaric” or “mutilation”, it doesn’t make sense to describe it as just “excess skin”. It’s a particular anatomical structure with a particular configuration and function; it is not equivalent to, say, just any old loose fold of ordinary skin that forms when a person loses a lot of weight.
If you no longer have “a retractable double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane that covers the glans penis and protects the urinary meatus when the penis is not erect” and “is attached to the glans with a frenulum”, then no, you don’t “still have foreskin”. Sure, you still have skin on your penis, but that’s not anatomically equivalent.
Note that I am not trying to argue that not having a foreskin is a deficiency, or that the foreskin is somehow superior to other kinds of penile skin, or that an uncircumcised penis is “better” than a circumcised one, or anything like that. I’m just pointing out that it is anatomically logical to call the foreskin a body part rather than just “excess skin”.
I would say that I’d have to agree, but again…IMHO. Like that matters.
When I visited Germany 12 years ago, I went with friends to the mineraltherme, and partook of the au naturel bath/sauna/steam facilities there. I’ve since wondered whether my appearance was considered somewhat lewd there, me being circumcised.
Over here, we’re used to the appearance of breasts, as long as the nipple isn’t showing. A string bikini that shows all of the breast except the area right around the nipple is OK, but let a little nipple show and it’s considered lewd. I wondered whether Europeans might have a similar view of the penis, and seeing one with the glans exposed is equivalent to a nipple over here. I don’t have any data, it’s just a thought I had. Anyone?
Remarkably enough this post led me to actually learn the history of circumcision in America, I’m not entirely sure if that’s something I needed to learn to get through the rest of my life, but there it is.
I’ve long been aware that Catholic Europeans by and large did not practice circumcision, and that one of the Popes in the 15th century even went so far as to more or less prohibit it. However, the earliest settlers in the United States (aside from the profiteers) were from non-mainstream Protestant religious groups, so it was my assumption that for whatever reason, they practiced circumcision and the practice spread to the rest of the country.
That’s not the case. Oddly enough circumcision in America had little/nothing to do with religion. It was started on a large scale in the 19th century due to increased awareness about germs, and in the sweeping passions of the day some guy got the idea that circumcision means no smegma and thus leads to a cleaner penis and less unnecessary germ-contact. Once started, the idea caught like a wildfire and by the mid 20th century the overwhelming majority of American male babies were being circumcised. Eventually doctor’s here said that circumcision isn’t actually medically significant or necessary either way, and the practice of circumcision of newborns has since then become less “automatic” throughout the country.
Very interesting; thanks for setting my mind at rest about this. Because I knew that most European Christians in medieval and early modern times didn’t circumcise, and I knew that most European Christians and Christian-descended secular Europeans nowadays don’t circumcise. And if you had really been able to show me that somewhere in between there just happened to be a major but short-lived European Christian pro-circumcision trend that just happened to temporally coincide with the European settlement of North America, I think my head might have asploded. 
Wow, I didn’t know it had become widespread that early. I have seen it claimed that it wasn’t until the 1940’s, when there were lots of new fathers who had been circumcised as adults as part of standard medical procedure during their service in the US military, that infant circumcision gained anything like widespread popularity. But I have not seen a definitive cite for that, and anyway, it still brings us to the same conclusion that infant circumcision was a majority practice in the US by the mid-20th century.
And because there’s just so much of the opposite, for balance, I’d like to note that personally I find circumcised ones ugly and weird-looking.
Never met one I didn’t like, in either category. (Of course, I screened their owners pretty carefully in advance, so I was probably predisposed to like them.)
That was answered a little bit ago.