I think it is completely wrong, unless there is a medical problem in which only circumcision is the answer for correction.
It is an oppressive, religiously based form of genital mutilation, which, happily for its proponents, happens to have some medical benefits- medical benefits which were not known about when the practice began, or indeed for centuries. Only very recently has it emerged that it may reduce the risk of contracting HIV, though i find the studies dubious. They bang on about it toughening the skin, but the statistics showing this detail might be misleading. As more often than not, circumcision is done for religious reasons by religious families, and said families and their children are less likely, by virtue of religiosity to be promiscuous, or indeed even have sex before marriage, its bloody obvious that these people are less likely to have any STD.
As long as you are hygeinic and shower every day, etc, and use a condom when you shag around, you are gonna be as safe with a foresin as you would be without one. They are unecessary.
And one of my friends who had to have his removed said sex just isn't as goo. I think the only way you would know is if you'd had a removal after already experiencing sex. I just don't see how you could get the same amount of pleasure from sex, which leads me to believe that the process stems from more extremists elements of religion- in the same vein as Catholics who believe sex is only for reproduction and not for pleasure, and more scarily, as female genital mutilation.