Quote:
Originally Posted by avistew
Rape is about lack of consent, and someone who can't speak (because paralysed, nonverbal or whatever) can definitely get raped. However rape is about violence, both sexual and mental (it's an act of control most of all) so something that doesn't have any feelings, be them emotional or physical, can't be raped.
So I'm afraid closets aren't considered rapable by law. If your closets are offended by that I suggest they start fighting for this right.
|
Well, most definitions do not consider violence an integral part of rape, although one or two do suggest that rape is "usually" accomplished through violence.
Here are some definitions from Wiktionary:
Verb
To force sexual intercourse or other sexual activity upon another person, without their consent.
To abuse an object in an extreme manner.
The loggers raped the virgin forest
(slang) To dominate in a contest.
My experienced opponent will rape me at chess.
As you can see, the closets are inrapable according to the first definition because they are not human. The third definition may apply in some abstract cases, but it is not likely. The second definition, however, is more interesting.
In order to first operationalize "abuse," we must find the purpose of a closet. It is generally accepted that closets are intended for storing items, so to do anything other than that would be abuse. However, abuse of the object on its own does not qualify as rape just yet.
The object in question must be abused in an "extreme" manner if it is to claim that it has been raped. First, let us define "extreme". Wiktionary gives us: "The greatest or utmost point, degree or condition; Each of the things at opposite ends of a range or scale." From this, we can assume that in order to abuse a closet in an "extreme manner," one must render the closet entirely incapable of ever storing items again.
If my client were to break the closet in the course of his sexual liaison, therefore, (which he did) then he would have raped the closet. Or would he? Let's back up a little bit here. I have an audio-tape of my client recorded before the supposed rape stating that he wished to, and I quote, "temporarily store my penis in that closet." In light of this, it can be plainly seen that my client was not, in fact, "abusing" the closet. He was fulfilling the closets purpose. This means that although the end outcome (i.e., the closet being incapable to be used properly ever again) is the same as it would have been were the closet to be raped, the act which produced this outcome was
not, in fact, rape.
The defence rests.