Sexual assault? Context *does* matter. A doctor is allowed to touch a child’s genitals during the practice of medicine, just as a parent or other caretaker is allowed to in the practice of cleaning a child. These are seen as normal, legitimate contexts for touching a child’s genitals. Putting aside the issue of infectious disease for the moment, it seems inconceivable to me that putting one’s mouth on an 8-day-old’s penis for a fraction of a second in the context of a ritual which is widespread or universal in the child’s community has any likelihood of causing psychological or any other kind of harm. So why shouldn’t “Judaism get a pass”, and Metsise B’peh be recognized as another legitimate context?

Meanwhile, the disgust of your students (or yourself) is hardly a cogent reason to illegalize any practice. It’s not too difficult to convince people (especially young impressionable people such as your students might be) of the weirdness and “wrongness” of the practices of another culture. How about teaching them to have an open mind and practice real analysis instead of encouraging knee-jerk reactions against the Other?

How about a discussion of the numerous practices of “our” modern liberal society that cause preventable deaths and injuries to our children at a rate equal to or greater than Metsitse Be’peh? Should these, too, be made illegal? How about raising questions such as: What are the “legitimate” reasons to cause risk to children, and what levels of risk are considered acceptable? Who gets to decide? Do we single out practices of minority cultures for condemnation while ignoring or excusing those widespread in the majority culture?

To borrow the words of a religion not my own: Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.