Last night in Social Psyc I learned a new way to keep a class interested. I've begun to argue for moronic, extreme viewpoints - basically anything against the majority - just for the sake of argument. Yes, just for fun. The best part is that people take me seriously and get upset about things. Ahh, so much fun!

Later, I began to think about the old expression, "If you like [an inanimate object] so much, why don't you marry it?" And of course, there are several reasons that would be impossible. For example, a non-speaking thing could not say "I do", nor give consent to sex, even if you argue that sex is possible (for if not, how could the marriage be consumated? It would be null and void).
So, what about someone like Stephen Hawking, except without a fancy computer with which to communicate non-verbally? Someone with no use of limbs and no way to communicate? If that person is not able to consent and you somehow fell in love with them, would sex be considered statuatory rape?
Since sex with vegetables should be considered, then, to be statuatory rape... are they all unfulfilled in that way? Perhaps it is irrelevant, for they may be unfeeling, and certainly not able to give complaint. But if the above seems to be too ridiculous to contemplate, then perhaps you should ask yourself if marrying a blender is really that ridiculous.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?