If a blind person does the (I assume) normal put-their-hands-on-your-face-to-tell-who-you-are-slash-tell-what-your-emotions-are routine, and they put their finger in your mouth, can you charge them for rape? I understand that rape is penetration of any kind, including having fingers put in your mouth. Conversely, can a blind person use blindness as an excuse for putting their fingers in someone’s mouth, despite ill-meant intentions? Just a random question I’ve been thinking of. Thanks for any help.
Rape is usually sexual intercourse without consent. Some definitions here. It sounds fairly far-fetched to consider that putting a finger into someon’e mouth is equivalent to rape. It might be deemed an assault, though, I’ll say as a WAG.
I’ve worked directly for two blind people and with several more. Not one of them ever put a hand on me - they identified me by the sound of my voice and my walk. (In fact, one of them used to get quite annoyed at me for walking so quietly he couldn’t hear me and therefore didn’t know where I was and ran into me a few times). One of those two folks I worked for, despite being legally blind, did have some vision left and could identify people in part by skin color, hair color, and general overall size.
I think you’d have to prove that they meant to poke you in the mouth, as opposed to just hitting the wrong spot with their fingers. Rape ** IS ** defined as penetration of the body by any body part, finger in toe in nose for example. That’s not to say that any finger in your nose is a rape - after all, someone who hit’s you by mistake - e.g. in a crowd, wouldn’t be charged with assault…
Just my 2 cents.
Uh, citation? Please indicate a jurisdiction where “rape” is penetration of a non-sexual part of the body.
Personally, I’ve never come across such a law. “Rape” is commonly described as “sexual penetration without consent” because the penetration must be precisely that: sexual.
For example, in New South Wales’s Crimes Act 1900:
**Other jurisdictions, such as my own, rely on a plain english reading of the adjective “sexual” as modifying the word “penetration”; penetration of the nose or mouth or a similarly non-sexual area of the body would not meet the definition of “rape”. (Assault or common law battery would be another matter.)
Of course, the correct answer depends on the jurisdiction and its criminal law. I am yet to see, however, a definition of rape the includes non-sexual penetration. I think we should all refrain from blanket assertions such as “rape IS” unless you can pony up a reference to law.
Rape in the context of “attack” - as in “The Rape of the Sabine Women”.
The OP asks, “could you charge then with rape?”
Your reply includes the words, “I think you’d have to prove…”
So we’re clearly talking about criminal law. Let’s not bandy about with literal references, mmm-kay?
True enough. You can charge anyone with anything you like. It will probably just be thrown out of court.
How about battery e.g. Touching someone without their consent…
considering the guy is blind and would ask for permission and would NEED cooperation to even find the other persons face, Rape would not even be an issue as consent is implied pretty much from the outset.
Thanks for the replies. Yeah, something like what handy describes would also be of interest. I’m mostly wondering about unjust cases against blind people or even unjust cases by blind people.
A guy wants someone to suck on his finger and jabs his thumb in my mouth… And I didn’t consent to it… I’d consider that rape.
Why? Because it was a violation of my body by another by force. Rape is not motivated by sex… it’s motivated by power
But then again… I might be charged with assault… because I’d try to bite his thumb off. 
It never ends.
You can complain. It generally falls to the prosecutor (State’s Attorney, District Attorney, Commonwealth’s Attorney) to criminally charge an individual.
There is no way you meant “rape” in the context of “attack” above – because an attack doesn’t have to include penetration of the body by another body part.
- Rick
Good grief.
No jurisdiction in the U.S. agrees with this definition of rape. It may be a “violation of your body” – but that’s not what rape means, mmmkay?
Yes, but would the police? Would the courts? My WAG is that they would consider it a form of assault, but not rape.
<sorry>
Narrad said :
:dubious:You saying my nose aint sexy?
</sorry>
<YDWN>
Nobody wants to know what i thought this thread was gonna be about.:eek:
</YDWN>
Well, I don’t think one should lessen the word with ‘finger in the mouth’ or ‘picked my nose’ …
In my opinion, rape is a very serious offense & should not be taken lightly or given an incorrect definition. Here is what Webster defines it as:
2 a : sexual intercourse with a woman by a man without her consent and chiefly by force or deception .
One of my best friends is blind–no really!–and she’s never “felt” my face. She was born that way and I think she really doesn’t need to process people that way. She will “look” at things that I hand to her or point out, like weird fruits in the supermarket or the fancy carved table my grandparents gave me, with her hands. And she hugs me like anyone else would and has felt my hair a couple of times to “see” a new hairstyle.
And yes, she uses the words look and see and watch and all.
The definition Handy found is a little out-of-date but the key word is surely “sexual”.