and
doh doh doh doh I’m an ultra-elite-orthodox rabbi with some mouth herpes and I just circumcised an infant.
“There’s a lot of blood down there. What should I do?”
a. clean it up with some gauze.
b. go to … “oh I’ll just suck it off”
…What is this I don’t even
May I humbly request that this standard be applied to all lips, herpes laden or otherwise?
Bah. Any minute now, I’m sure Starving Artist will be in to demonstrate how this couldn’t possibly have happened.
I was debating whether or not to say anything here, because the OP’s language doesn’t explicitly suggest this has any sexual overtones. But El Kabong’s invocation of the Starving Artist business makes a fairly strong allusion that this is sexual abuse is some way.
It’s not.
True, perhaps, we hear about lips and penis in close proximity and it’s difficult to not draw that inference, but this is not remotely a sexual thing, and the oral genital contact here is not done for the purpose of sexual gratification.
There are plenty of reasons to condemn the practice. Sexual perversion isn’t on the list.
A 60 year old rabbi is not physically able to bend at the waist to get his lips to that position. Just try it at home on a baby carrot.
In other news, paper towel and baby carrot sales to internet shut ins have sky-rocketed over the last month.
I’m so torn. Do we continue to ruthlessly hand out the total scathing mockery he so richly deserves in the hope that his recent absence never stops or are we running the risk of goading him out from under his rock?
Yeah, because sexual perversion never happens between church officials and children.
Believe me, the one thing you should have learned about Starving for Attention after all these years is that you could sooner get rid of herpes than him. What you do is irrelevant.
Okay. I will Pit the fifties after all.
Dreadful decade. Cause of all our ills. 
The Middle called, said it’s feeling kind of excluded.
Er… no. That’s not the reason.
I assume you understand that it’s equally incorrect to say, “Sexual perversion always happens between church officials and children.”
If not, then this will be an excellent opportunity for instruction.
Neither guiding principle (“Sexual perversion always happens between church officials and children,” and “Sexual perversion never happens between church officials and children,”) was used to reach the conclusion I offered here.
If you don’t understand why neither is applicable, please ask. I’m here to help.
Sorry, but that’s some sick shit to still be doing in the year 2012, whether or not the mohel gets wood.
It is sick, in the sense that it’s medically unsound and obviously unhygienic. But it’s not sexually perverse.
Not inherently, no - but that’s not to say that there cannot be rabbis who find it sexually gratifying.
Quite. WTF is wrong with people?
One article I read said that some rabbis use a glass pipette to remove the blood but I couldn’t tell if that meant in this case too. Still weird but not as weird as actual mouth to penis contact.
I concede the possibility, of course, but absent any evidence that this is so, we certainly can’t conclude it. Under other circumstances, oral-genital contact would allow the strong presumption that the motive was sexual, and it would be up to the actor to deny it with convincing evidence. Here we have the odd situation that oral-genital contact does not give rise to that inference.
I first heard about this in a SNL Weekend Update bit from a couple years ago. The punchline was something like, “Authorities say they will investigate, as soon as they finish saying ‘ew.’”