In State vs. Steven A. Harvey the defendant argued that he hadn\’t committed sexual assault because he hadn\’t, um… \”stimulated\” the victim. In other words, he claims no sexual act had taken place because the victim (his stepsister – ick!) wasn\’t, um… \”satisfied.\” You can read the actual text of the case, but I\’m warning you – the details would even gross out the Minnesota Vikings. The case sounds like the hot tub at Paul Barrows\’ house.
The court obviously disagreed saying that a crime had been committed, even without the woman being \”satisfied.\” This sets a dangerous precedent.
If you can now go to jail for failing to please a woman, we better build more prisons. The incarcerated population of Wisconsin will triple. If being unable to satisfy a woman is made a crime, I might as well go buy my own orange jumpsuit now, when there\’s less demand. In fact, given my history as a repeat offender, I might end up on death row. Starting tonight, I\’m going to start practicing eating 50 eggs.
Fellow amateur comedians feel free to pile on – the jokes just write themselves.