It's actually been shown that male circumcision has zero affect on sexual experience/satisfaction:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...udy-issue.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309
It's an ornamental piece of skin that would protect the head of your penis, if you never wore pants. We have pants....
It's been scientifically shown to be cleaner and prevent the spread of STDs. In North America the prevalence of life threatening STDs is low enough and use of condoms is high enough that it does not make it medically necessary. Doctors aren't recommending it anymore, but they aren't pushing for a ban either.
Comparing it to female circumcision (which by the way is not a circumcision), which is the removal of parts of the genitals necessary for sexual experience, is totally different. Female circumcision would be the anatomical equivalent of cutting the head of the penis off.
You can talk about nerve endings...ya da ya da, but the fact is there are billion dollar industries devouted to numbing men's nerve endings during sex (and increasing stamina). The fact of the matter is that men have a vast excess of nerve endings in their junk and the science shows removing some makes no difference whatsoever.
I have a friend who, as an adult, needed the procedure done for medical reasons. He stated there was no difference.
The facts are there are medical benefits, but it's also a medical procedure itself. I'm not advocating everyone have it done, but the anti-circumcision crowd is clearly pushing points they know to be false.