How about…and I know this is a radical notion here, but just hang with me for a moment…you not put your mouth on an infant’s wounds?
I know, I know, it’s wacky. But see, we have all this gauze and band-aids and stuff. It’d be a shame to waste it all.
I’d suggest maybe not cutting an infant’s genitals in the first place, but that might cause some heads to explode, it’s so out there.
(And yes, I know you’re not personally part of this cult, but…c’mon, now.)
Does the perpetrator have to find it gratifying for it to qualify as “sexual abuse”? I’d call a clitoridectomy “sexual abuse” but I presume the African and Arab groups who practice it don’t do it because it’s fun.
I just hope the Aztec religion doesn’t enjoy a resurgence, or we’ll be debating the place of ritual disemboweling in today’s society.
“It isn’t done in ANGER, so it’s not really a crime…”
I don’t expect the ultra Orthodox to stop using oral suction. I do expect (Judaism placing a high value on knowledge and all that) that they use common sense when doing so.
It also ain’t gonna happen. We’ve been resisting pressure (sometimes very serious pressure. OTTOMH the Tsars were very anti-circ) to stop circumcising since at least ancient Greece. Circumcision is the mark of the Covenant between us and G-d. It is a massively big deal. So long as there are Jews with penises, we wil circumcise.
The relationship between knowledge and common sense is always tenuous, and frequently tense.
In Virginia:
And so on. In Virginia, “…with lascivious intent…” is part of the law concerning this kind of touching.
You said, “Our society generally prohibits adult/child genital contact regardless of intent, except under clearly defined circumstances (medical professionals, parents, maybe caregivers in the context of a bath)…”
I’m not sure I agree. At least as far as the law goes, I think the general approach is to forbid contact when the motive is sexually motivated and thus improper, and allow a fact finder to reach the ordinary inferences that the facts support. Were you thinking of a particular law that laid out acceptable circumstances, such as you describe, and forbid all others? If so, I’d like to see that law.
Correct, and I doubt it would qualify as “sexual abuse” under any state law I know of. Again, though, if you have an example to the contrary, I’d be interested in hearing of it. The statutes that criminalize this practice don’t lump it under “sexual abuse;” they cull it out as a sui generis crime. (See, e.g., 18 USC § 116 (Female genital mutilation)). In this case, since motive is unimportant, the state simply requires a knowing, intentional act.
No mention of arousal or gratification.
That Virginia statute is kind of circular:
How does one define whether an act is committed “with intent to molest”?
In this case, by its ceremonial context. Clearly not an act of molestation, just backwards fuckwaddery that has no place in this or the preceding century. Use a ‘holy cloth’ or something for crying out loud.
You quoted Colorado Rev State 18-3-402.
You did not, apparently, read, or even look for, the definitions of the words used in that law. if you had, you would have found Colorado Rev Stat 18-3-401, the immediately preceding section, titled “Definitions:”
I read them. Like the Virginia statute, the last part (“abuse”) brings us back to whether mouth-to-genital touching is inherently “abuse”.
I understand and agree with your underlying point, which is that sex crimes are (mostly) not strict culpability. However, I think your analysis is colored by the fact that we’re talking about a rabbi.
Consider the following scenario: a neighbor of parents with minor children holds the sincere belief that a child should have oral sex performed on him (or her) for proper psychological development. He convinces the parents of this line of thinking, and performs oral sex on the children.
What is he guilty of, if anything?
It seems like it qualify under Colorado as being for sexual arousal, as the statute doesn’t indicate whose arousal it needs to be for and the neighbor has clearly indicated that the “oral sex” is for the benefit of the psyche - oral sex for psychological benefit sounds like arousal to me.
What is with the penis obsession? Slicing 'em up, sucking on them. That’s sexual. Spin it how you want, but it’s sexual. Penis, penis, penis. All about the penis. Cutting it and sucking it.
Oooh, ooh, it’s a covenant with God so everyone knows you’re Jewish.
I’m sorry, but I quit making my Jewish slaves walk around naked and obsessing over their penises years ago. Get with the times.
Since the act is performed for the purposes of sexual arousal (of the victim, even if we concede it’s not for the neighbor), he’s guilty of taking indecent liberties with children – and other crimes – in Virginia. And in Colorado, he’s guilty of sexual assault.
And this assume a jury buys his sincere belief claim. More likely, the jury would weigh his claim that this is a sincere belief and reject it, if for no other reason than his is not a particularly wide-spread viewpoint.
Okay, let’s eliminate the arousal part. His sincerely held belief (and yes, we’re assuming the jury buys it) is that performing oral sex on a child reduces the incidence of cooties.
Then he wouldn’t be guilty of the crimes we’ve discussed, since he, as a matter of fact, lacks the scienter element of the crime.
The problem is, of course, that the jury would never buy it.
So what do you think is stopping the State of New York from prosecuting Rabbi Herpeticai?
The belief of the prosecutor that the rabbi lacks the requisite scienter element, and the knowledge that the rabbi could explain this ritual to a jury and have an alternate, believable explanation for why he placed his lips on an infant’s penis.
Forget sex crimes. I want the rabbi charged with the standard ‘you should have known better and now a kid is dead’ charges. Surely there’s grounds for those?
Reckless endangerment, perhaps, but the rabbi would have to have known that he was herpetic at the very least.
Agreed. I don’t think you reach criminal conduct without showing that the rabbi knew he was infected.