^ I wasn't being argumentative I'm just pointing out exactly what you just now said.
It is without doubt that circumcision has utility unrelated to cosmetics. That's the reason it was started as a practice in the first place (6000 years ago).
When people don't bathe often and are uncircumcised theres a build up of smegma and other shit under there and its unhealthy. It promotes disease and possibly cancers. 6000 years ago and indeed, til rather recently (and still continuing in large parts of the globe), people didn't wash hardly at all. In modern society where people bathe this problem doesn't exist, so the utility is removed.
Similarly, in areas of the world without proper sexual education, absense of protective measures like condoms, a high HIV infection rate, and promiscuity, removing the foreskin likely prevents transmition of HIV by some degree because there is lower surface area to transmit the disease. BUT, again, like the case with cleanliness, in modern society with proper sex education, high protection use, monogomy, wide screening/testing for HIV, and low infection rates, the protection circumcision offers is vastly reduced if not completley nil.
That's what I'm pointing out. Utility is not universal.
Ya I'd promote circumcision in 3rd world countries especially but also areas where poor hygeine and high STD infection rates and promiscuity are a problem, but elsewhere I see no utility aside from cosmetics. And choppin' one of the most sensitive parts of a baby's dick off for cosmetic reasons alone is hardly justified.