Well I'm going to assume you live in America yes? In America the majority of males are circumcised. Due to this many American's seem to think of an uncircumcised penis as disgusting merely because it's different and they've been brought up to think having a piece of your penis sliced off is a good thing. However in Europe the majority of guys are uncut so it's not weird or odd. Also there is no longer any national or international proffesional public health authority in the western world which advocates the routine circumcision of children, which tells you something.
As for: Is there a difference between circumcised and uncircumcised. Well yes there is. Each offers some pros and cons. Circumcised are more hygenic as dirt cannot become trapped under the foreskin, however the same level of hygeine can be achieved by an uncircumcised male simply by washing himself properly in the shower. I think this also another reason people think cuncircumcised guys are disgusting due to an over-exagerted focus on the hygeine when really there is not much issue.
Circumcised guys also have a slightly less chance of getting a UTI, however these are rare anyway and is not a particularly dramatic difference. Circumcised males are more suceptible to some genital infections (Eg Genital Warts) and more resistant to others (Eg HIV), so the pros and cons are pretty much equal in this regard.
If you're circumcised you also have a slightly less chance of getting phimosis or a very very rare form of cancer. These are both uncommon and if your boyfriend was going to have an issue with phimosis it'd already have happened so no issue there.
In terms of use as a sexual organ an uncircumcised penis is arguably better. Removing the foreskin has been shown to decrease sexual pleasure in both males and females. This is because, for the man, the foreskin contains a hell of a lot of nerves which make sex enjoyable. As for the women, when rolled down during sex the foreskin forms a sort of ridge which adds extra stimulation, similar to a ribbed condom. For extra info on this you might look at this quote from a medical study I have posted before:
Quote:
The removal of the prepuce (foreskin) tightens the remaining skin and makes it relatively immobile. Since stimulation of the sex nerves normally occurs by movement of the mobile skin, this further desensitises the penis,17 perhaps even more than the removal of the ridged band of erogenous nerves noted by Taylor.6 Excision of sexual nerve endings necessarily reduces sensory input. A decrease in sensation may therefore decrease the sexual response.
Male circumcision also may adversely affect female sexual response. A survey of women found that they were markedly less likely to have an orgasm with a circumcised partner.
|
Source:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/boyle-sti/
Basically the disgust at a lack of circumcision is mainly based on social norms and reinforced by misinformtaion. There is no such (or at least much less) disgust outside of America. There is very little difference between the two and it seems that, if anything, it is better not to be circumcised.
I hope this helps.