Hmn...a similar topic was brought up in another forum not long ago.
I don't buy the "cut is easier to keep clean" argument. Since we're all using computers, I'm going to assume we are all living in the civilized world and all have access to running water and soap. So that argument just doesn't wash (pun intended).
As for the surgery vs. mutilation debate, in the overwhelming majority of cases, circumcision is not done for medical reasons, but for aesthetic and/or religious reasons. As well, in cases involving children or infants, it is tje ONLY elective procedure that I can think of done without the patient's consent. While most cases result in the procedure being "successful" (ie. no infection, no accidental mutilation of the penis) the point still is the option was taken away from the patient. I can also appreciate the customs of various religions, but I am left baffled that legally the desire of the parents override the personal liberties of the child. While you may not miss what you never had, it was still your's to begin with and you should be entitled to have a say what's done with it (short of legitimate medical necessity)
Circumcision began being widespread through the US in the 1800's as it was thought to be a means of staving off the urges to masturbate (HA!) Eventually it just became the cultural norm. It was also popular in Canada, and to a lesser extent in the UK. However, since national health plans won't cover the surgery in Canada (unless deemed medically necessary), the number of uncircumcized men has been on the rise since the 80's.
Recent studies show that African men who are circumcized are at a lower rate of HIV infection. This study doesn't seem to take into account that conditions there may make it unsanitary to have this kind of surgery in the first place, that patients may not wait to fully heal before having sex (leaving themselves open to infection with HIV or other STIs), or what it has to do with men who have sex with other men.
Many uncut men are offended that they are called "unnatural" by cut men(ironic since uncut is the natural state by biological default). Many cut men are offended that they are referred to as mutilated (considering that for most the decision was made for them). What's worse, there are "extremist" camps who are (for lack of a better word) repulsed at men who are one or the other, and won't become involved with them.
In the end, yes it is a matter of personal preference, just like overy body type or personality. However, in the grand scheme of things, it really isn't that important in a partner (unless bad hygiene is involved) and if you make a big deal about it, you can miss out on some really amazing opportunities with some really amazing guy(s).