So from the pictures I've seen...I think it's kinda ugly (not that that is the most "pretty" part of man anyway---well usually).
*grins*... It's what you're used to, really, I think. Had you, say, lived in Europe and slept exclusively with uncircumcised guys, I'd wager that you'd find circumcised cock to look mutilated and strange.
And I always find it interesting that women, generally, don't find penises attractive. As a gay guy, I find penises can be extremely attractive, and the attractiveness of my partner's penis is pretty important to me (if I don't find his hot, I probably wouldn't be able to date a guy).
I love the South Park episode "Eeek! A penis!" where there's a penis on the loose in town and every time it appears in a scene, the women jump up on the nearest table, chair, etc. like they're being confronted by a mouse and they start shrieking, "Eeeek! A penis!"
I find that that's a bit of an exaggeration, but true in the sense that women seem to "tolerate" penises, whereas gay men lust after them. I wonder if this has a lot to do with the fact that men seem to find arousal through visual cues, whereas many women seem instead to find their arousal through emotional ones.
Honestly, concern about cleanliness of uncircumcised penis is just buying into the propaganda: there is no reason to be concerned about cleanliness. It honestly takes no more than thirty seconds in the shower to ensure that everything is completely clean. This idea that cleaning an uncut penis is this laborious process that most men can't handle is completely freaking absurd and insulting, and again, part of the pro-circ propaganda that was really strong back in the 80s and 90s. If a guy has hygiene problems, they would first manifest in ways other than through his uncut dick.
I do disagree with you in that I think the process is cruel: just because a baby doesn't remember it doesn't mean that it isn't cruel. If I was to beat the snot out of someone with the guarantee that they wouldn't remember it, it doesn't void the cruelty of my actions.
There is some debate about the sensitivity issue, but generally I think the consensus is that it does cut down on sensitivity, which makes sense, because there are vast numbers of nerve endings in the foreskin. Most of the guys I know that are cut are less sensitive. For example, you couldn't rub the head of an uncut cock without lubricant, because it would likely be way too sensitive and painful. As an uncut guy, the idea of circumcised guys and their unprotected penis heads rubbing against the fabric of their clothes all day makes me cringe and shudder.
Sorry if I came across as uber serious and didn't laugh at your jokes... no offense intended! It's just that this issue is a sensitive one (LOL... okay... it's my turn for a joke - and a bad pun at that) to me, because before the tides started to turn, I faced a lot of anti-intact sentiment: I actually had a boyfriend tell me, at one point, that if we were to stay together for the long run, we could have my "problem fixed". *rolls eyes* It also gets old hearing all the time how people think it's unhygienic. I am quite clean, as is my penis, thank you very much :D. I am thrilled at being uncircumcised and wouldn't change that for a million dollars.
Thankfully now, opinions are changing, and it seems like gay guys have really started to develop a taste for uncut cock. Ten years ago, some guys wouldn't have touched an uncut dick with a ten foot pole (*resists the urge for another bad pun*), but these days, things have really shifted, and now you'd have a lineup for a chance to play with your uncut cock.
Anyways, regardless, as a surgery, it's unnecessary, and you're making a choice that can't be unmade. If I had a son and he wanted to get circumcised when he reached adulthood, I'd support him fully (provided he made an informed decision). At least then he has a choice in the matter.