Orthodox Shitheads Defy Law In Order To Endanger Children

[Czarcasm]

@QuickSilver

I’m coming around to your point of view. God help me.

In the comparison to the checking of young men’s testicles, I’m afraid a couple of the balls were palmed(I am so going to hell for that one):

1. They are not regularly checking testicles with freshly opened cuts, and
2. They are checking them with gloved hands, not open and germy mouths.

[AnaMen]

@QuickSilver

I’m ostensibly on the same side of the issue as you and even I want you to shut the fuck up with insisting it’s a sexual act. It fucking well isn’t.

It’s an archaic practice. It’s a medically unsound practice. It’s a ridicule worthy practice for a small subset of intractable and hopelessly tone deaf religious zealots. And they need to knock it the hell off if they are to maintain a single shred of respect for their religious practices in this day and age.

And if it takes a court order and threat of being charged with the crime of endangering a minor, I’m okay with that. But not by any means necessary. Which means we don’t call something sexual assault and pedophelia when it’s not.

I have taken pains to indicate that we are NOT on the same side, so nothing I say ought to be used against you. It makes no difference to me WHY a baby’s dick is being sucked, except in the potential case of medical intervention, such as snakebite (where at least there is reason to believe someone is sincerely attempting to provide treatment).
As far as I am concerned, religious “reasons” for anything are a big steaming pile of shit and deserve zero respect or legal exceptions. I realize this is an extreme position, and I expect no agreement. I do respect people’s right to believe any steaming pile of shit they believe and practice whatever crazy nonsense they wish, provided no one is harmed and no laws are bent or fashioned around their personal batch of nonsense.

So I respect their right to practice and I respect the fact that their practice is serious to them, but I absolutely do not respect the practice itself.

Pedophiles can’t help their desires, but their crimes are not victimless, so they must be stopped regardless. This is not necessarily pedophilia – it’s worse.

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

In the comparison to the checking of young men’s testicles, I’m afraid a couple of the balls were palmed(I am so going to hell for that one):

1. They are not regularly checking testicles with freshly opened cuts, and
2. They are checking them with gloved hands, not open and germy mouths.

What does that have to do with the accusations of pedophilia?

Please remember that I said:

@Bricker

There is absolutely a valid argument to be made for the law, and indeed for banning the practice. But no one – so far as I’m aware — seriously contends the opposition arises because of a need on the part of mohels to “keep sucking baby dicks,” a phrasing that darkly hints at motives starkly different from those that actually motivate the mohels in question. You may rage at their adherence to superstition over medical science if you wish; you pollute the discussion by salacious phrasing.

(Red text added for emphasis)

[AnaMen]

@Bricker

I mentioned hernia checks above as a similar example. It’s perfectly legal for a middle-aged man to touch a grade-schooler’s testicles. (I assume you would say “fondle,” and defend that word as an accurate description of the practice).

So the answer to your question is: adult-mouth-to-grade-schooler-penis would be legal, if similar circumstances existed. By that I mean that if there were some indisputably long-standing religious practice that involved identical circumstances - public, brief suction after a wound - it would be legal insofar as criminal sexual assault statutes are concerned.

The same is true, in other words.

So does the guy that opposes the practice.

And I am not even defending the practice, you dolt. I am attacking your attempts to paint it as sexually deviant.

If you want to condemn the practice as medically unsound and unhygenic, I’m right there with you.

If you want to say that the law requiring consent should be upheld, I agree. If you want to say the practice should be banned, I think that’s a law that would survive strict scrutiny.

If you want to call it “baby dick sucking” and imply (or outright state, as you have) that the motivation is perverse sexual gratification, I’m going to continue to call you on it.

Hernia checking involves fondling some testicles. So what? There is a medical reason. If there is a medical reason to suck a baby dick, suck away.

You’ve arbitrarily grouped all “reasons” for baby-dick-sucking as “religious or medical” in one group and “for sexual gratification” in another, and ignore all other possibilities.
“Public brief suction” to a wound you purposely inflict on an eight-year-old’s penis is okay if there is “tradition” behind it? Nothing starts out as a tradition. When a tradition is idiotic, it should be stopped, not preserved. It makes zero difference to me who gets off on it or doesn’t.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

If you want to condemn the practice as medically unsound and unhygenic, I’m right there with you.

There have been people in this thread that have done that, and while you may have mentioned that you are also against the practice for that reason, it was usually only as a small aside to this big issue you have against having them being called perverts. I’m not seeing the big rally post full of vim, vigor and cites condemning the barbaric and unhealthy practice that is the topic of this thread. That part of the equation gets “Sure, I’m with you guys!”

[Bricker]

@AnaMen

Hernia checking involves fondling some testicles. So what? There is a medical reason. If there is a medical reason to suck a baby dick, suck away.

You’ve arbitrarily grouped all “reasons” for baby-dick-sucking as “religious or medical” in one group and “for sexual gratification” in another, and ignore all other possibilities.
“Public brief suction” to a wound you purposely inflict on an eight-year-old’s penis is okay if there is “tradition” behind it? Nothing starts out as a tradition. When a tradition is idiotic, it should be stopped, not preserved. It makes zero difference to me who gets off on it or doesn’t.

I am not, and have never, said it’s “OK.”

I am saying it’s not pedophilia, and that arguments that attempt to paint it as a perverse sexual practice are dishonest.

It’s ironic that you inveigh against religion, have posted in another thread about your success in combatting false ideas promulgated by religion, and here you are promulgating a false idea.

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

There have been people in this thread that have done that, and while you may have mentioned that you are also against the practice for that reason, it was usually only as a small aside to this big issue you have against having them being called perverts. I’m not seeing the big rally post full of vim, vigor and cites condemning the barbaric and unhealthy practice that is the topic of this thread. That part of the equation gets “Sure, I’m with you guys!”

My very first post:

@Bricker

I object to the OP’s presentment of the issue.

There is absolutely a valid argument to be made for the law, and indeed for banning the practice. But no one – so far as I’m aware — seriously contends the opposition arises because of a need on the part of mohels to “keep sucking baby dicks,” a phrasing that darkly hints at motives starkly different from those that actually motivate the mohels in question. You may rage at their adherence to superstition over medical science if you wish; you pollute the discussion by salacious phrasing.

Your post immediately following mine:

@Czarcasm

That’s right-you can’t call them “dick suckers” if they only suck on one side of the dick.

Are you saying that in that one post, consisting of four sentences, the fact that the second sentence clearly and unambiguously laid out my agreement that medical arguments against the practice are valid was insufficiently strenuous?

Because based on that one post of mine, you upped the pedophilia ante.

[The_Great_Unwashed]

@AnaMen

As far as I am concerned, religious “reasons” for anything are a big steaming pile of shit and deserve zero respect or legal exceptions. I realize this is an extreme position, and I expect no agreement.

I couldn’t agree more, except to say I don’t see it as being extreme in the least.

On the other hand I find this nothing but reasonable:

@Bricker

I object to the OP’s presentment of the issue.

There is absolutely a valid argument to be made for the law, and indeed for banning the practice. But no one – so far as I’m aware — seriously contends the opposition arises because of a need on the part of mohels to “keep sucking baby dicks,” a phrasing that darkly hints at motives starkly different from those that actually motivate the mohels in question. You may rage at their adherence to superstition over medical science if you wish; you pollute the discussion by salacious phrasing.

I do understand the temptation to use demonising rhetoric but given that the practice is so obviously vile and insanitary I do wonder why one would need to resort to such.

Another thing I don’t get: in all this condemnation of “old men who suck babies’ dicks” there seems to be an implicit acceptance of “old men who mutilate babies’ dicks”. Strange, because you know, if I had to make a choice between the two of them…

[QuickSilver]

@The_Great_Unwashed

Another thing I don’t get: in all this condemnation of “old men who suck babies’ dicks” there seems to be an implicit acceptance of “old men who mutilate babies’ dicks”. Strange, because you know, if I had to make a choice between the two of them…

Bad enough the injury. The sucking is just adding insult.

[AnaMen]

@The_Great_Unwashed

Another thing I don’t get: in all this condemnation of “old men who suck babies’ dicks” there seems to be an implicit acceptance of “old men who mutilate babies’ dicks”. Strange, because you know, if I had to make a choice between the two of them…

I couldn’t be more opposed to the mutilation. It just seemed off topic to bring that up.

[AnaMen]

@Bricker

I am not, and have never, said it’s “OK.”

I am saying it’s not pedophilia, and that arguments that attempt to paint it as a perverse sexual practice are dishonest.

It’s ironic that you inveigh against religion, have posted in another thread about your success in combatting false ideas promulgated by religion, and here you are promulgating a false idea.

The reason why these adult men are initiating mouth contact with infant penises is irrelevant. I don’t know what’s going on in their heads and neither do you, and I don’t need to know in order to consider the behavior objectionable. We know it is not being done for a medical purpose. Splitting hairs about exactly why the behavior is immoral, disgusting, and whether or not is legal is pointless as far as I am concerned.

[robert_columbia]

This is a good example why the sex offender registry is not entirely a bad idea.

[Guinastasia]

@buddy431

In the U.S., it doesn’t work that way. A law that targets a religious practice is subject to a higher level of scrutiny than one targeting a secular practice. The higher bar can be met, and I suspect it will be in this case.

But even then, there are still limits – you can’t just put a child in danger and say, “My religion demands it!” Look at cases where parents have been charged when their child died because they chose faith healing instead of seeking medical help?

I would imagine that this practice could fall under that catagory. It’s one thing if an adult chooses to do so. Children? Not so much.

[Bricker]

@Guinastasia

But even then, there are still limits – you can’t just put a child in danger and say, “My religion demands it!” Look at cases where parents have been charged when their child died because they chose faith healing instead of seeking medical help?

I would imagine that this practice could fall under that catagory. It’s one thing if an adult chooses to do so. Children? Not so much.

I think this law is one that could survive strict scrutiny.

[Bricker]

@AnaMen

The reason why these adult men are initiating mouth contact with infant penises is irrelevant. I don’t know what’s going on in their heads and neither do you, and I don’t need to know in order to consider the behavior objectionable. We know it is not being done for a medical purpose. Splitting hairs about exactly why the behavior is immoral, disgusting, and whether or not is legal is pointless as far as I am concerned.

If the reason is irrelevant, why do you continue to describe it in very salacious terms?

[buddy431]

@Guinastasia

But even then, there are still limits – you can’t just put a child in danger and say, “My religion demands it!” Look at cases where parents have been charged when their child died because they chose faith healing instead of seeking medical help?

I would imagine that this practice could fall under that catagory. It’s one thing if an adult chooses to do so. Children? Not so much.

I agree. This law will probably meet the higher standards required of it. The only way we’ll know for sure is when a judge rules on it.

[levdrakon]

@Bricker

I think this law is one that could survive strict scrutiny.

Not if it were girl-infants, it wouldn’t. We have UN commissions devoted to that.

[AnaMen]

@Bricker

If the reason is irrelevant, why do you continue to describe it in very salacious terms?

The reason doesn’t matter because all possible reasons are horrifyingly bad. I’m not describing it in salacious or exaggerated terms. I have no idea what kind of moronic euphemism you think is more accurate.

[buddy431]

@levdrakon

Not if it were girl-infants, it wouldn’t. We have UN commissions devoted to that.

You misunderstand. This is the new law restricting the practice that will probably survive the strict scrutiny.

[levdrakon]

@buddy431

You misunderstand. This is the new law restricting the practice that will probably survive the strict scrutiny.

On what grounds does the law survive strict scrutiny with one gender on not the other?