Re: New York Baby Infected With Herpes After Metzitza B'peh Circumcision Rite
Jack, as much as I agree this is a bizarre religious ritual, calling it pedophilia is even more bizarre. The practice is done in front of the parents, family and friends. Do you really think they would condone such a thing? And since the practice has gone on for generations, would that mean each generation would have to find pedophilic mohels to do the deed? It would also mean all orthodox Jews condone pedophilia.
This 'audience' business, to expose a child's genitals for onlookers and make it the centerpiece of a party, is sick right from the start - even without the cutting and sucking.
But, I'll bet if Catholics were told they'd be excommunicated if they didn't watch priests molest their children, they do it. Probably a good many of them would get off on it. How many Catholics defend child-molesting priests, or at least want outsiders to mind their own business, do you suppose?
Muslims, to this day, stone their wives and daughters to death in front of a seemingly content audience. It is quite usual/normal for them to expect audience participation, isn't it?
-------------------------
Anyway, the word 'pedophile' has more that a couple well published/used legal definitions.
For example: "Some forensic science texts, such as Holmes (2008) use the term to refer to a class of psychological offender typologies that target child victims, even when such children are not the primary sexual interest of the offender."
As usual, it is imposable to get everyone to agree to use only one definition. Here, for this topic, the targeting of defenseless male infants, the exposing their genitals, etc. is near enough to pedophile activity for Jack's comments/accusations to not bother me in the least. If this activity is not pedophilia, it is right on the brink of it - too close for comfort.