They didn’t say rate, they said that approximately half of US males are circumcised. Where did they get that figure from? Since this is a scholarly work, what is their cite for that claim? I’m curious how honest a trade organization whose profession stands to make money from circumcisions is regarding this and other claims.
Right, because the circumcision debate is about caring about adult dongs.
Hypocrite.
It’s supposed to show that American Exceptionalism is an insufficient reason for assuming that the unnecessary is necessary. Or to put it in terms you might understand:
USA! USA! USA!
It points to the fact that there are hundreds of millions of (by global standards) wealthy and educated men in Europe who find this procedure completely unnecessary. What do those moron Europeans know, anyway? It’s not like they live longer than Americans, or… uh…
What theory, you weirdo? That’s your conspiracy nonsense, not mine.
It’s a bit harder to find European citations about male circumcision, kind of like it’s presumably a bit of a challenge finding a stevedore in Ulaanbaatar. We already know it’s unnecessary - you guys are the ones who have so much invested in this issue.
“Obnoxious”? Being concerned for others welfare = obnoxious, for you, evidently. But somehow insinuating sexual inadequacy and poor hygiene aren’t “obnoxious” at all, eh?
And how the fuck, as an adult, would you even know if it’s a “big deal” or not? You don’t even have the hardware left to make comparative inferences, as opposed to those who are uncut.
If you can’t be bothered to actually click the link and read the piece, there’s not a lot I can do for you.
Thankfully, no one said as much. But in absence of studies and research we have “Hur, hur America!” so I guess we’ve taken this about as far as it’ll go. Great show guys; real convincing stuff 
There is a little something you can do. You can show what the cite is for only half of Americans being circumcised. You thought it was amusing that it was pointed out. Can you show that they have a cite for it?
I haven’t bothered to read many of the comments here, but did note that are some silly arguments back and forth, so I’ll just try to give what I know.
Our family doctor, who is in an office with half a dozen doctors, holds a circumcision clinic once a week. You’ll also find brochures in their waiting room explaining the benefits of circumcision.
I know when he first started practicing about 15 years ago, their were very few circumcisions done by the doctors he is associated with and by other doctors in our city.
I talked to him one day about it as my daughter was inquiring about having her son circumcised. He told me that the instances of penile infections have been increasing over the past decade due mainly to people deciding against circumcision.
Consequently he took it upon himself to offer this procedure to his patients and patients of his colleagues.
His once a week clinic is now full and bookings have to be made a couple of weeks in advance. Usually pregnant women book an appointment a few days after their due date if they know they are having a boy. If they don’t know the sex of the baby, they usually book it and cancel if they have a girl. These cancellations allow for outside patients to book.
I believe what this tells us is that the pendulum is starting to swing in favour of circumcision.
Just my thoughts following an interesting conversation with my doctor.
You believe that based on one doctor’s claims, with a vested interest in promoting circumcisions, regarding his one office in one US city?
I don’t think it’s a vested interest. It’s simply that this procedure is in demand.
At one time it was difficult to find a doctor in our city that would do this procedure, but now the guy is getting swamped.
Btw, I gather from your response that you didn’t like mine. Sucks.
Again, if you can’t be bothered to READ THE LINKED ARTICLE…
Pro-Tip: Their citations are in the article you think you’re being clever by not reading.
Oh, really? So there’s a citation that backs up that claim you think is amusing?
Yeah, I give up. I’ve no idea what you’re trying to accomplish but it’s wasting both our time.
The guy that holds a circumcision clinic once a week doesn’t have a vested inyterest in circumcisions? Okay, as long as you don’t think so.
So you say.
You live in a city. They don’t perform this procedure in the hospitals where the babies are born in this city?
Your belief? There are better ways to conclude whether or not there is a nation wide increase in circumcisions than what you hear about the busyness of one doctor’s office.
You really are in denial, aren’t you. Don’t like hearing news that you disagree with?
I’ve made it very simple to understand what I’m asking for. That’s the second time in this thread you claimed cluelessness as an excuse to give up. Another time your excuse was that I wasn’t sticking to the thread to your satisfaction, and when I showed your hypocrisy a few posts back, you were silent. I don’t blame you.
News? You cited news that circumcision rates are going up?
You asked for their citation for the 50% number:
…I told you where to find it. You refuse to read it so I guess you consider that a win?
I’m not deeply concerned that a guy who refuses to read the citation he asked for is calling me a hypocrite 
My contention is that an accurate citation does not exist. Prove me wrong.
Yes I did, and you obviously have a problem with it. Sucks.
You cited no such thing.
I did. You just feel like you can keep insisting that I didn’t and you win or something. The link was provided to their article, their article is marked with citations and footnotes. You intentionally miring yourself in ignorance just because you were wrong doesn’t actually stop you from being wrong. It just makes you and your position look silly.
Of course you posted a link. I say such a citation doesn’t exist. You say I’m wrong. Prove it. What was I wrong about that is causing me to “mire myself in ignorance”? What position of mine looks silly?