Is penetration for sexual abuse for the purpose of sexual abuse required intent?

Noting that sexual penetration required him to act "for the purpose of sexual abuse, arousal, or gratification[,]" defendant contends "the assaults, particularly the acts of attempted or actual penetration with a foreign object, were very violent and the jury could as well have found those charges were committed for sadistic, rather than sexual purposes." Be that as it may, penetration "for the purpose of sexual abuse[]" does not require sexual intent. (People v. White (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 193, 204-206.) "Penetration for sexual abuse means penetration for the purpose of causing pain, injury,

Page 18