I'm not concerned about your foreskins themselves. If I were, I would not be unconcerned whether you get circumcised later in life. I'm concerned that you are doing something irreversable to your infants that will affect them the rest of their life with very little to no benefit, and in fact it may be a detriment, even if you ignore that things may go wrong.
I admitted having personal experience with oral sex with an uncircumcised penis and that taste isn't an issue. You put your own interpretation onto that.
Oh? You were uncircumcised and only later were circumsized? If this is not the case then you cannot prefer one way or the other since you have had zero experience with the other.
Since you know no differently, how would you know whether you wouldn't like the other way better?

You could not even imagine what it would be like to get an idea.
Your attitude in this thread speaks to the lie. It is something you cannot change and had no choice in, and claim you like this better. That seems a desire to validate your difference.
That was an example of denial that some men go through. I see the similarity in how you're behaving, even if you do not.
I see. So, then, you have no criteria other than your own bias.
I don't particularly care whether infant piercings and tatooing were done in sterile conditions and have low risks. It is still absurd and it still has risks. Circumcision does have risks and there is little to no reason to do them. To accept these risks and the damage it could do were the risks realized (and I realize the risk is low, but it is not zero) when there is no measurable benefit is absurd. To do so purely for cosmetic reasons is asnine, imo. I would be making this stink for infant tatooing and ear piercings, too. If they wish any of these things for cosmetic reasons later in life, I fully support it.