Is it bad not to have foreskin?

Answer 1

By no means. Circumcision has been known to offer virtually complete protection from penile cancer. According to a recent review article in the New England Journal of Medicine, none of the over 1,600 persons studied with this cancer had been circumcised in infancy. In the words of researchers Cochen and McCurdy, the incidence of penile cancer in the U.S. is "essentially zero" among circumcised men.
Also, research at Johns Hopkins University Medical School in Baltimore have shown that circumcised men are six to eight times less likely to become infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Researchers believe that protection is due to the removal of the foreskin, which contains cells that have HIV receptors which scientists suspect are the primary entry point for the HIV virus (Reuters, March 25, 2004).Several studies reported that circumcised boys were between 10 to 39 times less likely to develop urinary tract infections during infancy than uncircumcised boys. In addition, circumcision protects against bacterial, fungal, and parasitic infections and a variety of other conditions related to hygiene. The extremely low rate of Cervical cancer in Jewish women (9 to 22 times less than among non-Jewish women) is thought to be related to the practice of circumcision. As a result of studies like these, a number of prestigious medical organizations such as the California Medical Association have recognized the benefits of circumcision.

Answer 2

It is definitely preferable to have a foreskin. it offers many things that make the penis a more effective instrument. both in health and pleasure.