Whether foreskin or not, hair or not, The problem lies in the head with two ears; not the head with two balls.
As I read the posts on this thread, I think a professional pollster/statistician would find a vast, vast majority of cut males really do prefer being circumcised. Though I doubt that a proper question can be written without bias or prejudice. It truly is amazing how many uncut men think that a foreskin is imbued with some kind of mythological "power" as with the hair of Samson. Cut the foreskin off and they believe that there is a lose of power, virility, sensitivity, length, girth (Brits love this word. Brilliant!! Poor blood circulation, medication side-effects, diabetes, neurological degradation, loss of interrelated hormones (testosterone), electrolyte imbalance (Zinc, Magnesium), brain chemistry imbalance,and/or psychological problems, etc. all can effect sensitivity and even size. Except for the redundant "elephant trunk" prepuce, the size of the penis is not changed by circumcision. Whether with a foreskin or not, hair or not, perceived problems with circumcision originate in the head with two ears; not the head with two balls.