The legal American definition of RAPE is as follows - “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Similar to the UK - So

The oral penetration, no matter how slight, with any object, of another person, without the consent of the victim.

Which by definition includes pushing a swab into your mouth for the purpose of getting DNA.

I merely make this point so anybody wrongly arrested and taken to a police station is aware that they may be raped by police. Which any court of law would say, I assume, is illegal.

I would also point out that if, God forbid, someone accuses you of giving them a "blow job" you are quite entitled to say no, it was without your consent, you were pushed into doing it and you have been raped.

JK2006 wrote:
I would also point out that if, God forbid, someone accuses you of giving them a "blow job" you are quite entitled to say no, it was without your consent, you were pushed into doing it and you have been raped.

Only prudes refuse blow jobs.

I do prefer the Collins English dictionary definition which is abuse - not necessarily sexual - Abuse of someone is cruel and violent treatment of them.

You've erred slightly in your reasoning, dear host.

K2006 wrote:
...or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.


So oral penetration with a cotton bud wouldn't count.

However, you've reminded me of a post you made some time ago, suggesting that defendants accuse trial or prosecution officials of historically abusing them. Then there was that incident of two drunken barristers having it off in public somewhere in London. When arrested, the woman claimed to have been too drunk to consent and was therefore a victim and entitled to anonymity.

Then I remembered the definition of "sexual" given in the SOA2003. I'm paraphrasing but it's anything that is by its nature intrinsically sexual or anything that, given the context, purpose and circumstances, a reasonable person would consider sexual. Not a very good definition because it's almost purely tautological. But anyway, one of the purposes of swabbing for DNA is to determine the subject's sex. If the swab is done in connection with a so-called sexual crime, then the context is also sexual. So on both parts of the definition - such as it is - it's sexual. And if it's done without your consent, it's a sexual assault.

And I have to say these days, at my age, a cotton bud is about as sexual an object as I could ever hope to expect!

Randall wrote:
You've erred slightly in your reasoning, dear host.

K2006 wrote:
...or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.


So oral penetration with a cotton bud wouldn't count.

However, you've reminded me of a post you made some time ago, suggesting that defendants accuse trial or prosecution officials of historically abusing them. Then there was that incident of two drunken barristers having it off in public somewhere in London. When arrested, the woman claimed to have been too drunk to consent and was therefore a victim and entitled to anonymity.

Then I remembered the definition of "sexual" given in the SOA2003. I'm paraphrasing but it's anything that is by its nature intrinsically sexual or anything that, given the context, purpose and circumstances, a reasonable person would consider sexual. Not a very good definition because it's almost purely tautological. But anyway, one of the purposes of swabbing for DNA is to determine the subject's sex. If the swab is done in connection with a so-called sexual crime, then the context is also sexual. So on both parts of the definition - such as it is - it's sexual. And if it's done without your consent, it's a sexual assault.

I once dated a cotton bud and she / he was a superman /woman in bed.
So you are wrong.
I think it was a cotton bud. Memory getting quite bad now.
Maybe just a very thin person with white hair.
Anyway I was found Not Guilty.