It's the question on everyone's lips

If you are the sort of person that enjoys the British TV show Skins or the musical stylings of Britney Spears then you’ll be wanting to spend a bit of time at this here website. At least, that’s what my search engine traffic seems to suggest.

Well over 2,000 visitors have found themselves at this blog after typing the word ‘skins’ into their search engine of choice and well over a 1,000 more have stopped by after searching for ‘britney spears’.

In reality, if you were in search of meaningful material about either subject you would be sorely disappointed.

My only mention of E4’s Skins was a short review of the show, republished here after appearing as a Daily Proposition in Crikey’s Daily Mail. Similarly, my only substantial mention of Britney Spears was a less-than-flattering examination of her on-stage antics some years ago.

So why is this happening and why should you care?

In answer to the former, well, it’s just the way search engines work. To simplify the process somewhat, search engines trawl through websites like this, compile a list of keywords that are attached to pages and articles and then add this information to a whopping great big database. Then, when a user searches for their favourite pop star, the search engine checks to see which sites mention the entertainer in question and suggests those sites to the searcher.

For over 2,000 people that searched for Skins and over 1,000 that searched for Britney Spears, this site would have been listed as a potentially relevant source of information.

Google’s folly aside, why should you care?

Well, let’s just say that search engine traffic can be a pretty hilarious beast.

As well as attracting readers who happen to be searching for a pop star or TV show I’ve mentioned at one point or another, there are some, shall we say, more unexpected search results driving traffic toward A Cursory Glance…

The phrase ‘hermaphrodite images genitalia’ is not one that I tend to make frequent use of in casual conversation and it’s certainly not one that I remember publishing. But while this particular phrase never appeared on the site in its entirety, it’s certainly true that I’ve used all three of those words before, albeit in completely different contexts.

It would seem that the unrelated use of the words ‘hermaphrodite’, ‘images’ and ‘genitalia’ were enough to drive at least one curious reader to this site. One can only assume they would have been rather disappointed.

In a similar vein, the search term ‘stephanie bendixsen lesbian’ has driven a number of ambitious readers this way and, as with the previous example, I suspect the result would have been rather underwhelming. I’ve certainly mentioned Good Game‘s Hex before and the word ‘lesbian’ has also been used but the combination of both is not something I’ve ever had reason to publish.

But perhaps the most entertaining search term to have deposited someone on my digital doorstep was: ‘Is Karl Stefanovic circumcised?’

The thing I like most about this particular search is that it’s clear someone actually wants to know whether or not Karl Stefanovic is circumcised. If the search had been ‘karl stefanovic circumcised’ you could argue they were searching for a video of Mr Stefanovic talking about circumcision, or something similar, but the way the search term is phrased – as a simple yes/no question – seems to leave little doubt.

For those that aren’t familiar with Channel Nine’s International Man of Misery©, Mr Stefanovic is the network’s go-to guy when it comes to on-the-ground ‘reporting’ of natural disasters. As Perth Now points out, Mr Stefanovic seems to have an unhealthy penchant for lobbing into disaster zones: he was there when Cyclone Yasi was wreaking havoc up north, he was on the ground when Christchurch was being torn apart, and he was doing his thing over in Japan after the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear-threat triple-header.

Again, there is a clear reason why a search term like ‘Is Karl Stefanovic circumcised’ takes readers to my blog. In one particular post I happened to mention Mr Stefanovic in passing and in a separate article I argued that women should probably avoid asking their male partners to get circumcised. The combination of these two articles (and their relevant keywords) provided a curious reader with a brief moment of hope.

Honestly though, did this curious individual actually expect to find an answer to their question? Were they hoping to stumble upon something like www.cgradecelebritycircumcisions.com? Or perhaps they were hoping for www.foreskinfinder.com.au?

In any event, it’s good to know that readers can find my site with a simple Google search. Now all I need to do is start saying something worth reading about…

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...