I always pondered on the need for male circumcision and why the ancient desert peoples would want to carry out this painful procedure on innocent children. There must have been a good reason to get there god to sanction it.
Two possible reasons I've come up with. Firstly as mentioned, the removal of the foreskin makes the forehead less sensitive as it is not as sensitive as one that's always covered. This, in most cases, prolongs the act.
Not an issue in reality. It gets talked about a lot but I don't really think its relevant.
However the main reason I believe this was done was back in those day, especially with such scarcity of water, bathing was not a regular event. Mostly washing would be, as we know, washing the face, hands to the elbow and feet. Guys weren't taking out their penis to wash it on a daily basis. With a foreskin harbouring germs, viruses under its covering providing perfect condition for their growth, men may have had problems with infections in that area and hence the obvious option was to remove the foreskin that enabled germs to breed.
This must have been implemented in law and backed up by God to ensure men of the tribe were virile and healthy, as that determined their strength against competing tribes.
Possible, but as I said it is a universal mammalian trait so if your theory were correct I'd expect all mammals to have problems with infected penises. Since this doesn't seem to be a problem in practice I'm not sure it has any application to humans.
On the other hand humans are capable of dreaming up all sorts of bizarre initiation ceremonies and implementing them even though they provide no tangible benefit and may even result in reduced fitness. The extreme versions of FGM are obvious examples. Don't make the mistake of assuming that male circumcision must have originated because of practical benefits. That isn't necessarily the case.