I can only imagine how difficult it must be to be the parent of a new-born child – assuming complete responsiblility for the welfare of an otherwise helpless individual. Naturally some decisions that parents must make on behalf of their child are of little or no consequence – like deciding which clothes your baby will wear for the day – but other decisions, like whether or not to get your baby son circumcised, well, that’s a different matter entirely.

Many of you folks would no doubt have stumbled upon Channel Seven’s creatively titled current affairs programme ‘Sunday Night’ last weekend where you might have seen Monique Wright’s report on the ‘new’ research that has emerged regarding the potential medical benefits of circumcision. If you didn’t get to see the programme or if you are keen to see the segment again, it can be found here – at least until next Sunday.

It’s obviously a contentious issue – parents and people in general are hesitant when knives and genitals are mentioned in the same sentence but at the same time if the evidence suggests that our boys are better off circumcised then not then we obviously have an obligation to at least consider the option. Before we get rational and actually look at the science behind circumcision though, let’s do some history and some cursory glancin’.

Circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years, the earliest recorded cases coming from the ancient Egyptians. Jewish scripture is replete with the mention of the necessity of circumcision and to this day all Jewish boys are required to participate in brit milah in their eighth day of life in order to welcome them into their covenant with God. While it is not mandated by the Qur’an the majority of Muslim boys undergo Khitan as well, the widespread view in the Muslim world being that circumcision serves to introduce boys to Islam and foster a sense of belonging within the Islamic community.

Of course parents throughout the ages have had their boys circumcised for entirely non-religious reason as well – “we want him to look like his Dad”, “it’s better for hygene” and “it prevents disease” are all often cited as justification.
Despite the ongoing debate it seems to be a fairly basic issue to me – in order to get your son circumcised the health benefits must outweigh the ethical and moral considerations. “What considerations?” I hear you ask. Thanks for the lead in.

If you put aside the potential health benefits of circumsion for one second and consider in isolation the process of cutting a portion of a baby boy’s penis off, how is this tradition any different to the phenomenon known as female genital cutting? Both procedures take place on the assumption that it is morally justified for parent(s) to subject an unconsenting minor to an operation which causes significant pain and discomfort on the grounds that such pain is fleeting and that the procedure is of overall benefit. Sure, it might be a strong comparison to make, but it is a valuable one, if only to ensure that parents don’t make lightly the decision to circumcise their sons.

While we are in the business of dissuading parents from cutting chunks off their sons, besides circumcision, since when has preventative surgery been recommended as acceptable medical practice? As one of the doctors in the aforementioned video points out, would we be willing to take a pre-emptive strike against our noses in the fear that we might one day contract a cancer of the nose as a result of over-exposure to UV rays?

If you want the official word on whether or not circumcision is a valuable course of action, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians suggests that there is “no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate”. The American Medical Association similarly reports that “professional societies representing Australian, Canadian and American pediatricians do not recommend circumcision of male newborns”.
However in 2007 the World Health Organisation released a report suggesting that “the research evidence that circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling”. That can’t be a bad thing, I mean, who’s going to argue that we shouldn’t be doing everything in our power to stop the spread of HIV around the world?

The reality is that there are other things we can do to prevent the spread of HIV without having to take a knife to new-born boys in developing countries – things like spending more time teaching people about the need to wear condoms – but wait, I don’t want to steal the WHO’s thunder; “Male circumcision should never replace other known methods of HIV prevention and should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV provention package, which includes: prompting delay in the onset of sexual relations, abstinence from penetrative sex and reduction in the number of sexual partners; providing and promoting correct and consistent use of male and female condoms…”

Before we wrap this bad boy up, let’s glance cursorily at Dr. Brian Morris’ website – he’s the guy in the ‘Sunday Night’ video who is advocating the introduction of mandatory circumcision (good luck with that). In amongst a swathe of generally interesting pro-circumcision propaganda I stumbled upon a provocatively titled brochure – ‘Sex and Circumcision – What every woman needs to know’. You see, not only does Dr. Morris advocate the introduction of mandatory circumcision in new-born boys, he also urges women to encourage circumcision in their sexual partners, for the woman’s own wellbeing.

As far as I can tell, of the seven ways that women benefit from a circumcised partner – according to Dr. Morris – five can be achieved just as well by using a condom, one is a generalisation and over-simplification of the sexual preferences and practices of women and the other is a confusing attempt to justify circumcision as a preventative measure for phimosis. Other than that, I reckon it’s a great idea to try to convince your boyfriend to cut part of his dick off, if only for the reaction that would ensue…

Her: Um, baby. You know how I’m always worried about getting diseases and stuff down there?
Him: Down where?
Her: You know…
Him: Oh. Down there.
Her: Yeah, well, there’s this doctor who reckons he can stop me from getting all sorts of nasties.
Him: Yeah? Sounds like a good idea. What’s involved?
Her: Oh nothing much. They just take you into hospital for the afternoon and cut off a chunk of your junk.
Him: I don’t think we should be together...

Every so often working in the hospitality industry gives you a valuable insight into just how irresponsible some parents actually are. Some days it’s a mother who leaves her two year old bare-foot child to run around the restaurant unsupervised while she cackles away with her friends over a sixth glass of champagne, other days it might be the mother that disappears to the TAB at the other end of the hotel while her four-year old son supervises himself in the play area.

The other night, however, was something truly special. As I headed from the bar to the host stand with a handful of menus, I saw a father pouring beer from his nearly-empty pint glass into the open mouth of his son, who looked no more than two or three years old.

Is it really any surprise that binge drinking among young people – both over and under the legal drinking age – is so prevalent when parents deem this to be acceptable behaviour? After all, if a child’s attitude toward alcohol use is determined largely by their parents’ attitudes then what kind of message does pouring Carlton Draught down a three-year-old’s throat send to that child?

Alcohol use and abuse has been making headlines around the nation a lot recently. Over the last two years alone alcohol-fuelled violence in Melbourne’s QBH nightclub has resulted in the deaths of two young patrons, a 70% increase on the tax on so-called ‘alcopops’ was introduced last year in an attempt to dissuade ‘at risk’ drinkers from purchasing their alcoholic beverage of choice and various AFL and NRL stars have been caught drink-driving and promptly suspended by their clubs. There seems to be little doubt that some young people are drinking too much and too often.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that in 2004 19% of males and 11% of females in the 18-24 age bracket were guilty of ‘binge drinking’ – defined as seven or more standard drinks for males, five or more for females – at least once a week.

The federal and state governments have an unenviable task in this dilemma. To generalise, the public is looking to the governments to provide a solution to the problem, and perhaps rightly enough, but this isn’t a problem that will go away just by throwing tax increases or 2am lock-outs at it. The consumption of alcohol is so deeply embedded in our culture that it is going to take something drastic to alter people’s perception of it.

You see, there is also a bit of vested interest here. While the government has to be seen to be doing something about the problem, they profit massively from it. In the 1997-8 financial year the federal government pocketed over $4 billion in alcohol and tobacco taxes, and the Australian Medical Association estimates that in 2001 that figure was as high as $7 billion. Similarly, the Australian Football League, while trying to make a stand against the alcohol abuse demonstrated by a handful of its players, is enjoying a lucrative sponsorship provided by none other than Carlton Draught.

But the question is, why do young people feel the need to go out and get on the turps every weekend? Sure, I might be one of the aforementioned ‘young people’ and I might be guilty of the occasional spot of overindulgence, but I couldn’t give you a definitive reason for why I did so. Is it that it allows us to overcome certain inhibitions that might plague us in a state of sobriety? Is it a case of ‘well my mates are doing it, so…’? Is it that we like the feeling of losing control? Is it that alcohol provides us with an escape from the monotony and boredom of every day life? Or is it that we are over-privileged first-world kids with too much money to spend?

The reasons really aren’t that clear and most likely vary from person to person. What is clear is that alcohol use and abuse is responsible for massive problems, both for individuals and society. Let’s have a look at some figures;
Around 40% of the traffic fatalities that occured in the USA in 2004 – 16,694 – were the result of alcohol-related motor-vehicle crashes; In 1998 ‘hazardous and harmful’ alcohol consumption contributed to 3,271 deaths in Australia alone; the annual cost of alcohol-related problems to the Australian community is around $5 billion.

All this scare-mongering isn’t to say that I think alcohol should be made illegal, far from it. This is a bigger issue than some dickhead dad pissing-on with his infant son – it’s an issue of personal freedom and the ability to decide what we pump into our bodies. Sure, I might be putting myself at greater risk of various cancers and other medical conditions by ‘getting on it’ of a weekend but that’s my choice as an autonomous adult. Similarly, if I wanted to make the undeniably dumb decision to take up smoking tomorrow – incidentally, tobacco usage contributed to over 19,000 deaths in 1998, six times more than alcohol – then that too is my right. Why stop there?

If I woke up tomorrow morning and decided that I wanted to ‘go green’, if you know what I mean, then I should be allowed to do that. Should the government be allowed to control what I do or don’t put into my own body?

Again, it comes back to a double-standard on the government’s behalf. While the purchase of alcohol or tobacco are perfectly legal, the possession of marijuana in Australia will land you with a nasty fine, the size of which is dependent on the state in which you live and the quantity you possess. This is in spite of the fact that countless studies have proven that marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, as demonstrated, for example, by the research done by the USA’s National Institute on Drug Abuse which has shown that marijuana is less addictive than both nicotine and alcohol.

Furthermore marijuana does not cause or exarcerbate violent tendencies among young people in the same way that alcohol does, and compared with the thousands of deaths attributed to tobacco and alcohol usage, marijuana usage has not been responsible for a single death, ever. Sure, there a major health risks associated with marijuana usage, but then check out the list of stuff you put yourself at risk of by smoking, a perfectly legal activity.

Let’s be clear about one thing here – I’ve never smoked a single joint or taken a single hit from a bong – and I don’t intend to – but it’s not about me. It’s about people having the freedom to decide what they want to do with their bodies without having the government impose restrictions on them.

You see, I reckon the people in the weed legalisation movement have missed out on a great business opportunity here – that is, wouldn’t the government be far more willing to legalise marijuana if they could benefit financially from it’s distribution? Hmm, I feel a business venture coming on…

Aaah yes, Easter. That confusing time of year when we all benefit from a day off work while trying to remember just what or who we have to thank. But really, it’s simple isn’t it? Jesus took one for the team on Good Friday, found himself entombed for a couple of nights before deciding on Sunday that the lack of sunlight wasn’t doing his tan any good. Well, not quite.

You see, the period that we refer to as Easter is in fact an old pagan celebration that dates back well before the supposed time of Jesus’ death and resurrection. In fact, the name ‘Easter’ is a derivative of the name ‘Eostre’ – Anglo-Saxon paganism’s ‘goddess of dawn’ – whose existence symbolised the increased fertility of the land at the turn of spring. Ever wondered why the date of Easter Sunday changes every year? Or put a different way, does it seem a little strange that the date of Jesus’ death and resurrection varies from year to year?

Easter Sunday is defined as the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox – the period in March wherein the length of day and night are equal. Long before the advent of Christianity the vernal equinox was seen as the time in which the sun found itself in a fierce battle with darkness to see which would gain ultimate supremacy. After a couple of days the sun would emerge victorious with the days becoming longer in the lead-up to the summer solstice.

In Greek mythology this period was symbolised by the plight of Persephone whose abduction by Hades – the God of the Underworld – led to the earth becoming barren of life – winter – and whose rescue by her father Zeus at the time of the vernal equinox led to the Earth’s rebirth into prosperity and fertility – spring. In Egyptian mythology this transition was represented by the life of Osiris whose death and consequential rebirth led to the reawakening of life on Earth following the vernal equinox.

In fact history is littered with examples of the death-resurrection myth being used to represent the transition from winter to spring, Christianity’s appropriation of earlier customs being the most recent case. That’s right, the Jesus resurrection story is a centuries old myth plagiarised and repackaged by early Christians.

That’s all very interesting, I hear you say, but where do easter eggs fit into the equation? Well, according to the New International Encyclopaedia, the use of eggs at Easter “is of the highest antiquity, the egg having been considered in widely separated pre-Christian mythologies as a symbol of resurrection”. The use of chocolate easter eggs apparently began in Europe in the 1800s following the Industrial Revolution and this practice has continued unabated since then. Cadbury allegedly sells around 240 million chocolate easter eggs in Australia every year – around 12 per person – and with business like that, is it any wonder that ads for Easter eggs come out the week after Christmas?

The prevalent rabbit symbology associated with the Easter period, as demonstrated in the ever popular Easter Bunny, is also a remnant of ancient pagan tradition. Giving birth to huge litters in the early weeks of spring, the rabbit was a symbol of the increased fertility of the earth in the weeks following the vernal equinox. For us Aussies though, the rabbit is revered to a far lesser extent, having been introduced to our great land with the First Fleet in 1788 and subsequently breeding out of control. Hence, the Easter Bilby. How’s that for putting an Aussie spin on things?

In all seriousness though, why, as an apparently secular nation, do we still cling to Easter and Christmas so fervently? Is it because the majority of our population truly respects the religious significance of the periods which these holidays cover? I suspect not. Is it because both periods have been so corrupted by commercial interests that we don’t have a choice in the matter? Sounds a bit more like it. Whatever though. Just give me my double-time and a half and a truckload of chocolate and I’ll celebrate anyone’s resurrection…

I was lucky enough to spend last week enjoying the beautiful weather that NSW’s Bateman’s Bay had to offer. It was a great week of relaxing, swimming, cycling, walking, eating, and generally having a chance to recharge the batteries. Later in the week I happened to be lying on the beach watching Dad and the Bro boogie-boarding when I overheard a nearby conversation;

Daughter: What do you shoot Mummy?
Mother: We shoot all sorts of things. Rabbits, foxes, pheasants, quail, deer…

Now at this point you might be excused for thinking that Sarah Palin had put aside her vice-presidential campaign in order to head to a small coastal town in Eastern Australia for a holiday but alas, it was not the case. To resume;

Daughter: Do you shoot Bambi?
Mother: No we try not to shoot Bambi.
Daughter: Do you shoot Bambi’s mummy?
Mother: No we try not to shoot Bambi’s mother, but we do shoot Bambi’s daddy.
Daughter: Why do you shoot Bambi’s daddy?
Mother: When male deers (sic.) get older they grow antlers and try to hurt each other, so it’s ok to shoot them.

Now I’m no cervine expert, but I’m pretty sure that the fighting of adult male deer is hardcoded into their brains as a sort of ‘survival of the fittest’ mechanism. Furthermore, the suggestion that by shooting male deer we are somehow helping to control the deer population just makes me angry. I mean, its not like deer have survived all this time without our ‘help’ is it?

But most worrying about the mother’s response is that the children will now believe what she says. Now let me get one thing straight, I don’t really care what deluded beliefs you hold, or how you justify your actions to yourself, just don’t lie to your children.

In my anger I started thinking about the lies that parents routinely tell their children, in particular the lies that are the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and Santa. Now don’t get me wrong, like any other kid I enjoyed and looked forward to Easter, Christmas and losing teeth but surely there has to be some negative impacts as a result of lying to your children. How can you expect your children to grow up believing that it isn’t a great idea to tell lies if the things from which they generate the most happiness are, at their most fundamental level, lies?
Having said all that, what parent is going to deny their children the joys of Easter and Christmas for the sake of morality?

At the end of the day, parents will always act in accordance with what they think is best for their children and I suspect that a couple of lies are always going to be more popular in the long run than adhering to a strict moral code. Just don’t try to tell your kids that it’s ok to kill male deer just because they fight each other. Unless of course you are willing to kill your own children when they start to fight over who will sit in the front seat…