Rape In The Bible?

[mcjal]

Yan na 'yon?
You really should try the adult section...

why? you want this or this ? i prefer to do it with the .

 

[dhanzboy]

pano nga pala kung ang babae ang nangrape sa lalaki?

just curious he he he.....

 

[shunkss]

simply lang naman yan ei.. dina kaiklangan e explain..

 

[Mist3rClay]

akala ko tinatanong mo kung ano ibig sabihin ng talata? i would assume na alam mo ang ibig sabihin ng talata. if you can put in here kung ano naintindihan mo at hindi naintindihan, it would make us easier to tell you. Unless this is just “one of the pakulo” ng isang taong mapanira.

kung ang tanong mo naman ay "bakit nakasulat iyan?", "batas" po iyan na ipinaiiral sa kanila. iyan po ay isang "kautusan" na ibinigay sa kanila.


Kung babasahin po natin at iintindihin ang talata, we will understand that the word “rape” is not the “rape” that we know of, by force. Rape in the verse means “lies with”. Ibig po sabihin sa verses na iyan, there is an “existing” mutual agreement/feeling between both parties involved. You can read verses 25-27 to differentiate the sexual act in 28-29.

to confirm we need to cross-reference with other versions:



P.S.: if the intention is really to "understand" the verses, i would appreciate the willingness to learn. but if the main purpose was to "create a negative impression" (as what i am seeing from some of the posts), it just shows how idiotic those comments are.

bakit kasi rape yung ginamit na word mamimisinterpret talaga ito ng makakabasa

 

[exodus elixir]

simple lang yan..batas kasi nila yan noong kapanahunan nila..e tulad ng di pagkain ng baboy na ipinagbawal dati pero sabi ni jesus kay pedro na nilinis na ng diyos..

every generation naman e may batas tayo na sinusunod dba??kaya pwede rin maging posibilidad na ganyan ang hatol ng dios noong una sa rape..si haring solomon nga dati saksakan ng dami ng asawa eh..noon yun na panahon nila..pero sa panahon ng kristiano syempre iba na..

ganun lang po yun

 

[mcjal]

bakit kasi rape yung ginamit na word mamimisinterpret talaga ito ng makakabasa

depende na iyan sa version na ginamit. that is why we always recommend cross-referencing.

pwede mo rin naman iresearch kung ano ang "original" word na gamit at kung ano ang ibig sabihin.

 

[jtribaco]

well explain Mcjal sa thread nakakatuwa lang minsan ang mga "pakulo" or in other way "unintentional" sa posting regarding Bible verse.

@thread: hope clear na ang verse

 

[lebronwade21]

oo nga anoh bakit nasa bible yan...may pakahulugan yan.

 

[koenma]

KJV Bible kasi gamitin mo... kasi madame na omit na verses at napalitan sa mga ibang Bible... mas accurate ang KJV Bible...

 

[bladerblood]

pasintabi lang po iisa lang ang ibig sabihin nyan . na noon pa man ay may mga manyakis na talaga.

 

[00zero00]

this is my opinion....

noong unang panahon....ang mga babae ay hindi treated as equal as today....

if I must say...sila ay treated as commodities noon...mapapansin nyong wala siyang karapatan...
Even Abraham's wife...tawag nya kay abram e "lord" imbis na "darling" o kaya "babe" o kaya "honey"....

*kasi noon unang panahon...importante ang pagre-reproduce kaya kahit incest,tatay at anak,via rape e di masyadong big deal....

*pero kung regrarding immorality ung pag-uusapan....maliwanag na tutol dyan si Lord... masasabing lusot ka sa batas pero kay Lord, hindi ka makakalusot...tulad na lng ng nangyari kay David, legal siyang nang-agaw ng asawa pero punarusahan parin ni Lord(paki basa na lng po)

*Ang pakahulugan nyan: law is only meant for the lawless para ipakita na makasalanan sila
hindi para gawing escapegoat sa mga kabulastugan

That's why I will ask you..."kung legal ba ang pangre-rape, mangre-rape ka?"
"KUNG LEGAL BA ANG PUMATAY, E PAPATAY KA?"
"KUNG LAGAL BA NA ASAWAHIN MO UNG NANAY MO,AASAWSAHIN MO SYA?"

-------buti na lang sakin, ke legal man o hindi, e hinding hindi ko gagawin yan--------

PS: sa lahat po ng sasagot ng "yes" dun sa mga tanung ko...hindi magandang biro yan. Dahil pag pwede talaga pumatay,mang-rape e baka mag-unaunahan kayo papunta sa bahay ko para lng patayin ako o kaya gahasain ung pamilya ko (wag naman ganun...hehe)

 

[00zero00]

sana po malinaw...kahit dito sa Pilipinas, e nito lang naman nabigyan ng pantay na karapatan ang mga babae...diba indi pa nga pwedeng bumoto yan dati...

Clarify ko lang po....HINDI po ako kabilang sa mga so called "bible defenders",
dahil ako po ay "BIBLE DEPENDENT"

 

[pasikat_disinwebe]

thumbs up to mcjal and zero.

sa mga non believers, may the lord bless you.

 

[aa1986]

di pwede yang pang excuse...hehe

 

[maroenli02]

ako eto ang sa akin:

hindi natin maiintindihan ang paq quote sa bible nang hindi binabasa ang buong content. marami kasing mga cases na nagqoquote ng mga verses sa bible na kung babasahin nga naman eh parang mali or hindi dapat nasusulat sa mga inaasahan ng iba na "banal" na aklat. kung gusto nating maintindihan ang anu mang nakasulat sa bible or kahit sa anumang aklat. basahin natin ito.

suggestion ko lang naman

 

[toynjer]

Why did God’s Law say that an Israelite man who had sex relations with an unengaged virgin had to marry her and could never divorce her?

At Exodus 22:16, 17 and Deuteronomy 22:28, 29, we find this law, which some have claimed seems unsympathetic toward women.?Actually, it encouraged a high moral standard for both men and women.

Deuteronomy chapter 22 presented various domestic laws. For instance, it dealt with the situation of a man who no longer loved his wife and claimed that she had not been a virgin. It also presented God’s laws about adultery and rape. Then we read:

“In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, the man who lay down with her must also give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.”—Deuteronomy 22:28, 29.

This was a case of pressured seduction and/or fornication. If an unscrupulous man felt at liberty to have sex relations with a virgin, she would be the primary loser. Besides the possibility that she might have an illegitimate child, her value as a bride was diminished, for many Israelites might not want to marry her once she was no longer a virgin. What, though, would discourage a man from taking liberties with a virgin? God’s “holy and righteous and good” Law would.—Romans 7:12.

The Mosaic code had a provision allowing a man to divorce his wife for certain reasons. (Deuteronomy 22:13-19; 24:1; Matthew 19:7, 8) But what we read at Exodus 22:16, 17 and Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 shows that the option of divorce disappeared after premarital fornication. This, then, might cause a man (or a virgin woman) to resist a temptation to share in fornication. A man could not feel, ‘She is pretty and exciting, so I’ll have a good time with her even though she is not the sort I’d like to marry.’ Rather, this law would deter immorality by causing any would-be offender to weigh the long-term consequences of fornication—having to stay with the other party throughout his life.

The Law also lessened the problem of illegitimacy. God decreed: “No illegitimate son may come into the congregation of Jehovah.” (Deuteronomy 23:2) So if a man who seduced a virgin had to marry her, their fornication would not result in an illegitimate offspring among the Israelites.

Granted, Christians live in a social setting that is different from that of the ancient Israelites. We are not under the decrees of the Mosaic Law, including this law requiring the marriage of two persons who engaged in such fornication. Nonetheless, we cannot feel that engaging in premarital fornication is an insignificant thing. Christians should give serious thought to long-term consequences, even as this law moved the Israelites to do so.

Seducing an unmarried person ruins that one’s right to enter a Christian marriage as a clean virgin (male or female). Premarital fornication also affects the rights of any person who might become the individual’s mate, namely, that individual’s right to marry a chaste Christian. Most of all, fornication must be avoided because God says that it is wrong; it is a sin. The apostle aptly wrote: “This is what God wills, the sanctifying of you, that you abstain from fornication.”—1 Thessalonians 4:3-6; Hebrews 13:4.

 

[shunkss]

yan na yan the words itself..

 

[jjaayyaarr2000]

The Old Testament and Rape Sam Shamoun Some Muslims claim that the following passage
from the Holy Bible condones rape: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not
pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father
fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl,
for he has violated (anah) her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy
22:28-29 NIV There are two points to note here. First, even
though the verse may seem to be instructing the
rapist to marry the victim the passage nowhere
sanctions, condones or even approves of rape. This
is simply a gross misreading of the text. The
injunction is intended to instruct the Israelites on how to deal with and address a rape situation if
and when it occurs. Second, by taking a careful look at the context and
consulting the original languages of the Scriptures a
strong case can be made that this is citation isn’t
even addressing a rape case at all. We must
remember that the Holy Bible was not written in
English. The OT was written in Hebrew, with parts of it being written in Aramaic. The NT was written
in Koine or common Greek. This means that if we
want to know whether an English translation has
faithfully and accurately translated the inspired
author’s intended meaning we must turn to the
original language of the sacred text. Once this is done, it will become quite apparent that the Holy
Bible does not sanction rape at all. With this just said, the word which the NIV
translates as rape comes from two Hebrew words,
taphas and shakab. Here are the meanings listed by
the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon in
reference to these two words: taphas - # 08610 1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize,
wield a) (Qal)
1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be
taken, captured
c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands) AV - take 27, taken 12, handle 8, hold 8, catch 4,
surprised 2, misc 4; 65
(Source: Blue Letter Bible) Here is one example of how this word is used: "The priests did not ask, ‘Where is the LORD?’
Those who deal (taphas) with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. The prophets prophesied by Baal, following
worthless idols." Jeremiah 2:8 shakab - # 07901 1) to lie down a) (Qal)
1) to lie, lie down, lie on
2) to lodge
3) to lie (of sexual relations)
4) to lie down (in death)
5) to rest, relax (fig) b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
e) (Hophal) to be laid
AV - lie 106, sleep 48, lie down 43, rest 3, lien 2,
misc 10; 212 (Source: Blue Letter Bible) As Brown-Driver-Briggs demonstrates, the word
can be used in relation to sexual intercourse as well
as for other things. The following examples help
demonstrate that shakab does not necessarily imply
a forced sexual act: "And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man's wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies (shakab) with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is
concealed that she has defiled herself, and
there was no witness against her, nor was she
caught—" Numbers 5:11-13 NKJV Here, the word shakab refers to a voluntary sexual
act between two consenting parties, in this case to a
woman who voluntarily chooses to commit
adultery. It is clear that the woman in question
wasn't forced into having sex. Again: "If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in
water and be unclean until evening." Leviticus
15:18 These examples clearly demonstrate that these terms
do not in and of themselves necessarily imply that
rape is in view. This is reflected in the way
Deuteronomy 22 has been translated by the
following translations: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not
betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her , and they be found; KJV If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not
espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is
not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her , and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not
pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not
betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her , and they have been found, YLT When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is
not betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not
betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her , and they be found; JPS 1917 OT "If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not
betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and
they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not
betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her , and they be found, DARBY If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not
betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her , and they be found; AMV If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, RSV If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not
engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ESV If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not
betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him . If they are caught, CEV Now someone may want to argue that the
preceding examples do not combine the two words
together as is the case with Deuteronomy 22. Hence,
the use of the word taphas in conjunction with
shakab in Deuteronomy implies that the sexual act
was forced upon the maiden without her consent. A careful reading of both the passage itself, as well as
its surrounding context, dispels such a notion. We
quote the passage again, yet this time adding the
surrounding context for further clarification: "But if a man finds a betrothed young woman
in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death , for just as when a man rises against his neighbor
and kills him, even so is this matter. For he
found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not
betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her,
and THEY ARE found out , then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's
father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be
his wife because he has humbled her; he shall
not be permitted to divorce her all his days."
Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV Although vv. 25-27 refers to a woman that is
betrothed, the point is still clear. By screaming, the
woman indicates that she is being forced to have
sex without her consent. Hence, when the woman
does not scream this indicates that she willfully
chose to engage in the sexual act with the man. This is further seen from vv. 28-29 where both the man
and the woman are held accountable, i.e. "and THEY ARE found out ." This is unlike the woman of vv. 25-27 who is said to be not guilty. Also notice that in v. 25 a different word is used
when signifying rape, namely chazaq. If the
inspired author wanted to imply that the woman in
vv. 28-29 was being raped, he could have used this
same word chazaq; especially since this is the word
he uses in the preceding verses to refer to an actual rape incident. The fact that he didn't use it should
further caution us from reading rape into vv.
28-29. This is supported by other OT passages. In the places
where rape is mentioned none of them use the word
taphas with anah. Rather, the authors use the word
chazaq with anah to convey this notion: "Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she
had borne to Jacob, went out to see the
women of the land. And when Shechem the
son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the
land, saw her, he seized (laqach) her and lay
(shakab) with her and humiliated (anah) her. And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter
of Jacob. He loved the young woman and
spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to his
father Hamor, saying, ‘Get me this girl for my
wife.’ Now Jacob heard that he had defiled
his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace
until they came. And Hamor the father of
Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him.
The sons of Jacob had come in from the field
as soon as they heard of it, and the men were
indignant and very angry, because he had done an outrageous thing (n’balah) in Israel by lying
with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing must
not be done." Genesis 34:1-7 ESV And: "Then Amnon said to Tamar, ‘Bring the food
into the chamber, that I may eat from your
hand.’ And Tamar took the cakes she had made
and brought them into the chamber to Amnon
her brother. But when she brought them near
him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, ‘Come, lie with me, my sister.’ She answered
him, ‘No, my brother, do not violate (anah)
me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do
not do this outrageous thing (n’balah). As for
me, where could I carry my shame? And as for
you, you would be as one of the outrageous fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to
the king, for he will not withhold me from
you.’ But he would not listen to her, and being
stronger (chazaq) than she, he violated (anah)
her and lay (shakab) with her. Then Amnon
hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater
than the love with which he had loved her.
And Amnon said to her, ‘Get up! Go!’ But she
said to him, ‘No, my brother, for this wrong in
sending me away is greater than the other
that you did to me.’ But he would not listen to her. He called the young man who served him
and said, "Put this woman out of my presence
and bolt the door after her.’ Now she was
wearing a long robe with sleeves, for thus
were the virgin daughters of the king dressed.
So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. And Tamar put ashes on her head
and tore the long robe that she wore. And she
laid her hand on her head and went away,
crying aloud as she went. And her brother
Absalom said to her, ‘Has Amnon your brother
been with you? Now hold your peace, my sister. He is your brother; do not take this to
heart.’ So Tamar lived, a desolate woman, in
her brother Absalom's house. When King David
heard of all these things, he was very angry.
But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor
bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated (anah) his sister Tamar ... But
Jonadab the son of Shimeah, David's brother,
said, ‘Let not my lord suppose that they have
killed all the young men the king's sons, for
Amnon alone is dead. For by the command of
Absalom this has been determined from the day he violated (anah) his sister Tamar.’" 2
Samuel 13:10-22, 32 ESV Notice that neither passage uses the word taphas,
providing additional support that this word in of
itself doesn’t necessarily imply the use of force. It
also demonstrates our point that if the inspired
author had rape in view he could have simply used
chazaq, or even laqach, since these are the very words he used elsewhere to indicate that a rape had
occurred.(1) The final line of evidence demonstrating that
Deuteronomy 22:28 does not condone rape comes
from Exodus: "If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his
wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her
to him, he shall pay money according to the
bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17 Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in
place of taphas. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew
Lexicon defines pathah as: # 06601 1) to be spacious, be open, be wide a) (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
b) (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open
2) to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade a) (Qal)
1) to be open-minded, be simple, be naive
2) to be enticed, be deceived b) (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible
c) (Piel)
1) to persuade, seduce 2) to deceive
d) (Pual)
1) to be persuaded 2) to be deceived
AV - entice 10, deceive 8, persuade 4, flatter 2,
allure 1, enlarge 1, silly one 1, silly 1; 28
(Source: Blue Letter Bible) As can be seen, the word can mean entice, persuade,
deceive etc. The following passage uses the word in
a slightly similar fashion to that of Exodus, namely
how God will allure or draw Israel back to his love: "‘Therefore I am now going to allure (pathath) her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her. There I will give her back her
vineyards, and will make the Valley of Achor
a door of hope. There she will sing as in the
days of her youth, as in the day she came up
out of Egypt. In that day,’ declares the LORD,
‘you will call me "my husband"; you will no longer call me "my master." I will remove the
names of the Baals from her lips; no longer
will their names be invoked. In that day I will
make a covenant for them with the beasts of
the field and the birds of the air and the
creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the
land, so that all may lie down in safety. I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness , and you will acknowledge the LORD.’" Hosea
2:14-20 It is clear from the context that Exodus is referring
to a man persuading or enticing a woman into
having sex. Hence, this passage lends support to the
fact that the woman in Deuteronomy 22:28-29
consented to the sexual act, and wasn't forced into
having sex. In other words, there was no rape involved between the man and the woman. As the following Study Bible puts it: 22:28-29 Preceding legislation dealt with cases of rape involving a woman already married or
engaged. The ruling outlined here is addressed in cases of seduction IN WHICH IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WOMAN WAS, OR MAY HAVE BEEN, CONSENTING TO THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP . The fact that such a relationship had taken place was nevertheless
regarded as of vital concern to the community
and therefore required that a requisite sum of
money be paid to the woman's father. It is
assumed that the bride's father's rights have
been violated by what had taken place and that appropriate compensation was necessary
to offset the loss of the expected bride-price.
A further stipulation required that the couple
should then marry and that no subsequent
divorce was to be permitted. In Exodus
22:16-17 the closely comparable law allows that the father need not consent to giving his
daughter to the man, in which case the
compensation was still to be paid to the
father. Fifty shekels was a significantly large
amount and may be assumed to have been
equivalent to the average bride-price. (The New Interpreter's Study Bible: New Revised
Standard Version with the Apocrypha
[Abingdon Press, Nashville TN 2003], pp.
278-279; underline and capital emphasis ours) Or, as the late renowned Bible expositor John Gill
explained it long ago: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which
is not betrothed… That is, meets with one in a field, which is not
espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to
be an unmarried man, as appears by what
follows: and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as (Deuteronomy 22:25) WHERE A DIFFERENT WORD FROM THIS IS THERE USED; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this,
though owing to his first violent seizure of
her, and so different from what was obtained
by enticing words, professions of love, and
promises of marriage, and the like, as in
(Exodus 22:16,17) but not without her consent: and they be found; in the field together, and in the fact; or
however there are witnesses of it, or they
themselves have confessed, it, and perhaps
betrayed by her pregnancy. (The New John
Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible; online source; capital and underline emphasis ours) This concludes our exegesis of Deuteronomy
22:28-29. We prayerfully hope that by the grace
of our risen Lord and eternal Savior Jesus Christ, this
short paper will be of great help to those Christians
who have been confronted by Muslims with the
accusation that the Holy Bible condones the raping of women. Hopefully, both Christians and Muslims
will see that the Holy Bible nowhere condones rape. In the service of our great and eternal triune God
forever and ever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus, come. We
will always love you, risen Lord of eternal Glory. Further Reading http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/he-done-
her-wrong.html Endnote (1) The word anah is used elsewhere without any notion of rape being attached to it: "When you go to war against your enemies
and the LORD your God delivers them into
your hands and you take captives, if you
notice among the captives a beautiful woman
and are attracted to her, you may take her as
your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside
the clothes she was wearing when captured.
After she has lived in your house and mourned
her father and mother for a full month, then
you may go to her and be her husband and she
shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must
not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored (anah) her." Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NIV The man didn’t humble the captive by raping her
since he had to lawfully marry her before he could
touch her sexually. Rather, he dishonored her by
taking her captive or for letting her go either
before marrying her or by divorcing her since all of
this would imply that the man found something unbecoming or unfavorable about the woman in
question. Similarly, in the context of Deuteronomy 22:28-29
anah is being used to convey the idea that the man
has brought humiliation to the maiden because he
slept with her without marrying her first,
something which would have been considered
shameful to do.

 

[pinuno]

that certain law was only applicable only on Israelite at the time of the patriarch..sana nakatulong TS.!

 

[acelim23]

sarap pala noong araw kung ganun, pag may gusto kang babae, rrape-in mo lang