Tugger, you have almost a mission against circumcision so whatever I say will not convince you. You have a business targeting “restoration” which I think is ridiculous, but hey, if that’s what sells then all power to you.
I’ve laid out what I experienced as a guy who had the procedure done recently. I made my arguments pretty clear. You wait till you circumcise as an adult and you will definitely lose the majority of the sensitivity you’re used to. That’s why doing at birth is better, because it heals and the top 1/4th of the shaft are sensitive nerves.
(Oh, and by the way, has it occurred to you that TLCTugger may have learned about the negative impacts of circumcision and got into the business as a result of that, rather than jumping on restoration as a way of making huge amounts of money and then putting forth information in support of his business point of view?)
Thanks for sharing your experience with adult circumcision, but since you were circumcised as an adult, you cannot report from personal experience that circumcision at birth is better. Both are removing skin and nerves.
In fact, the very point you put forth - that the “top 1/4th of the shaft are sensitive nerves” - works against your preference for infant circumcision. Not all tissues in the penis are equally innervated. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin for more detail on this.
In an adult, with a fully developed penis, it is easier to know just what tissues are being removed. In an infant, with a penis which is much smaller, removing tissues is at least in part a ‘best guess’ as to how the penis is going to develop in the future. That extra millimeter of tissue removed then would grow in the future to be several times that in the adult. An error of one millimeter, thus, is magnified several fold compared to a millimeter, more or less, removed in an adult circumcision.