Why I have been dishing green humor, blame that to my prof the certified horny Judge Pablo Agustin. This midget size intellectual twerp is a contradiction of terms. His name is Pablo Manuel Agustin, which are all names of saints (San Pablo, San Manuel, San Agustin). He is my professor in Criminal Law 1 and today, he posed the question, “if you assaulted a lady in the rear, what is the crime committed?”. Kit the skinhead (na concentrated and white hair sa isang location lang ng ulo. weird) answers that the crime committed is rape. But rape, by legal definition is the touching of a foreign object to the vaginal orifice or the women’s pudendum. The act does not qualify as rape.
Cholo the brownman superstar said it’s illegal entry. He cited jurisprudence of analogous cases like thieves breaking through the window and not the door entry. “By the same vein, entering a woman’s behind without her permission is illegal entry”. But there is no real or personal property involved so it lacks the needed elements to qualify as illegal entry. It’s my turn. “Sir, it’s treachery. The woman does not see you and suddenly, you’re inside her behind. The attack was sudden as well as unexpected. She never even had time to fake her orgasm. By all elements, it’s treachery”. The class bursts into laughter. I don’t know why, did I say something wrong?
A father saw a naked man on top of his likewise naked daugther. The man was simply feeeling the pubic and did not want to enter. He was contended just playing “around ” with his instrument but never had in mind any penetration. Excited and surprised, the father kicked the ass of the man, then lo and behold pumasok yung his to hers. pls help me. rape daw yung. but not against the naked man but against the father. help me. i am the father.huhu
@horny u nakow kinakalawang na utak ko sa ganyang legal analysis. pero talagang rape nga un.
To: horny me
rape nga un. naku! complaint nalang kulang sau.