There really is no purpose to circumcision. Some religions, such as Judaism, encourage parents to remove their child's foreskin at an early age, since they probably would reject doing it when they're older and capable of forming opinions.
Some might say that circumcision improves the sex life of a man, such as the writers of the other entries.
They might go on to say that "sex is 10 times better for uncircumcised men" is a lie, because it's not based on research. They'd probably also overlook their own claims, that a cut penis has a better taste and is more stimulating, when those aren't based on science, either.
Some women may say that a penis looks more aesthetic when cut. But then, if some guys find a circumcised woman to be beautiful, does that mean all women should get their clitoris removed?
A man always has a frenum, and doesn't "gain" one if he gets cut. But if he does, he loses the vast amount of nerves that lay in the foreskin, and won't be able to have an equal sexual experience.
Ideally, a parent should leave a child's genitals alone. It should be their job to teach their kids to responsibly clean their privates, rather than recklessly mutilate their organs for the sake of "hygiene." A man's penis will have the same taste and smell as a half-cocked man, by only spending an extra minute to clean it out everyday.
Afterwards, the penis is much cleaner and most women find it more attractive. Many men think it imasculates them, but that is definatly not the case.
Girl: Are you circumcised?
Boy: Uhmmm yeah.
Girl: Sweet. Oral?
A lot of propaganda surrounds this procedure, such as "circumsized men don't enjoy sex as much" and "sex is 10 times better for uncircumcised men." This propaganda is not borne out by serious scientific research. It's main purpose is to make uncut men feel better about having to clean up after their dick cheese all the time.
Guy to girlfriend: You will never give me AIDS, even if you fool around. You will like my staying power for better orgasms.