Her First Gang Bang - Menstrual ( Video )

A woman's period is Obscene?

Shit, it comes every month and its natural.

Yeah, well unfortunately if he has a canadian incorporation, it wouldn't matter much. For that matter, if he's a Canadian citizen, and the material was taken in Canada, he can still be prosecuted, and the Canadian government can have him extradited back for trial. It's been done before I don't want to see it happen, but the more extreme content I see them post, the more I see that as an inevitable conclusion.

Doesn't matter if it's natural. In Canada, and in most places, "Obscene" is defined by COMMUNITY standards. Therefore if there's a little old lady who things it's disgusting, it's obscene. You look at it from your view, but you have to remember that 95% of the community thinks differently (and mostly religiously), and even if they don't think it, they will go with that they think will bring them less trouble (so that means they will convict based on obscenity).

Babe, I don't think he really gives a fuck.

Oh I know Just educating the public a little I guess I've spent the last 5 years studying and learning about Federal law in Canada, especially pertaning to any aspect of my work such as copyright and obscenity.

I'm drunk

Actually, if you want a good laugh.. In Canada, it's illegal to take pictures of people having sex unless one of two aspects is involved... VISIBLE loving congress (kissing, caressing, hugging), or something that makes it artistic. Anything else is illegal. Stupid, eh?

Some of the laws you are talking about are Canon laws set up years ago by the church and have not been updated in years !

Most of Canada follows Jurisprudence, so the laws are based on past court decisions and how the jury decided.

The general theory of law must therefore constantly take up one or another disputed position on problems of philosophy that are not distinctly legal or illegal.

Unfortunately most of these laws have precident convictions, so no matter how much you argue that they are "canon" law, they are still actively prosecuted, and people lose these cases every day. I personally know several people who have been charged and jailed because of obscenity laws. When shooting extreme content such as your own, you take the risk, and I believe you do it willingly. The chance that you would actually get OUT of a conviction should obscenity charges be laid on you, however, is slim to none

Crazy Man Crazy

well, doesn't do it for me, but hey...if it sells - koudos!

I'm just scared of what could be next...

While I'm no lawyer nor do I play one on the internet I don't think this breaks any laws, the blood is questoin is not due to the model being abused or tortured.

If I'm wrong I'd like to see where its written.

Nice work Dugmor IMO fuckin a chic on the rag is hot

So, why edit out the condom? The pictures in the preview zip file all have condoms on.

Yes, it might be a little more risky AIDS wise, however, during sex, the womens "juices" get all over anyway. Its more risky for the girl than the guy in that time (because the cervix is more relaxed, its easier to get an STD during that time)

Hay that looks like ketchup!




Wazzzup Dugmor.....

I try to make it a habit not to schedule shoots during a model's period.

Just like a cleansing enema before anal sex. It makes for a more pleasurable shoot and makes work more enjoyable.

Of course, that might just be me.. but shit or blood on my cock = near instant mangina formation.

It's just a goddamn period. How is that obscene? A little different, yes, but it's all natural.

Show pix with today's paper.

The melissa chick you did awhile back is hot!
would like to fuck her silly.

I am sorry I don't remember her... can you post a picture ?

I'll take that bet hoax

Does it have to be obscenity .... or can it be for something else ?

i smell bullshit

Same reason ICE T made 'Cop Killer'

(and then went on to play the role of the cop many times over.)

That video is just wrong in so many ways! From the pulling of the tam-poon, to the oddly pierced sack, to the spike through the cock head....I bet that shit sells pretty well though!

the owner of stileproject is canadian, isn't he? how does he survive?

" Different strokes for different folks" ...... Just be carefull Brother... Play Safe... Life is precious. Nurses Order Wink*

Accually my sites have been up bro...

btw.. I think penispills.com might have a solution for your problem

that is what we can call a hardcore pict :P

Well, some is open to interpretation, but here are a few juicy tidbits right from Canadian law that might interest you folks. Before you people go accusing me of being on a cruisade or something, I want you all to realize I'm not doing this to directly criticise Dugmor or any of the people in this country who shoot extreme content. I believe that what they do is in their own hands, and for the most part, they KNOW the risks involved, and they accept them. That is fine with me. However, I DO believe there are a LOT of misconceptions about Canadian law, and those who are in Canada or who are thinking of moving their business to Canada to take advantage of "more lenient laws" SHOULD be properly informed. I have people asking me all the time what's legal and what isn't in Canada, and why there's certain materials I will not put on JACT Content. Unlike those that accept the risk of extreme materials, I personally do not want to take that risk, and that's MY decision as a mother. The profit that COULD be made is NOT WORTH the potential risk of going to jail for me. Different people have different opinions, and I COMPLETELY respect that. Anyways, enough of my blather.

PART V
SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT



Consolidated Statutes and Regulations
Main page on: Criminal Code
Source: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/40863.html

(Now please remember, in this case, the definition of "obscenity" is entirely up to community standards.. If what is being done is unacceptable to the community in general, it is obscene. I will also put up more about the allowances of sexual activitiy in photographs, especially pertaining to hardcore type activity).



PART V
SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT

Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals

Corrupting morals


163. (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever; or

(b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation a crime comic.

Idem


(2) Every one commits an offence who knowingly, without lawful justification or excuse,

(a) sells, exposes to public view or has in his possession for such a purpose any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever;

(b) publicly exhibits a disgusting object or an indecent show;

(c) offers to sell, advertises or publishes an advertisement of, or has for sale or disposal, any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a method of causing abortion or miscarriage; or

(d) advertises or publishes an advertisement of any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a method for restoring sexual virility or curing venereal diseases or diseases of the generative organs.




Oh, and just for the record. There are more reasons for the laws against iincest than just propriety, and you should know that as well, Dugmor. Children of incestuous relationships have a much higher probability of mental or physical deformities, as well as the social stigma involved. I'm sure you don't plan on having babies with your sister, but stranger things have happened. I know Dugmor that you personally believe that this law is "canon law" and useless, however it IS still a law that IS prosecuted in Canada (with a LOT of legal precidents behind it), and again I'm sure you accept the risk, but this is a heads up to those who might feel like following in your footsteps is a good idea. Ultimately its their decision, but being informed never hurt anyone.

Incest


155. (1) Every one commits incest who, knowing that another person is by blood relationship his or her parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild, as the case may be, has sexual intercourse with that person.

Punishment


(2) Every one who commits incest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Defence


(3) No accused shall be determined by a court to be guilty of an offence under this section if the accused was under restraint, duress or fear of the person with whom the accused had the sexual intercourse at the time the sexual intercourse occurred.

Definition of "brother" and "sister"


(4) In this section, "brother" and "sister", respectively, include half-brother and half-sister.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 155; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 21.

And here is a link with some information on US obscenity stuff. A very good read:

http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000...00-07-all.html

damn thats a small dick

It can really go either way Here's somre precidents to DO go either way.


Criminal law -- Obscenity -- Not all material depicting adults engaged in sexually explicit consensual acts which are degrading or dehumanizing constituting obscenity -- Material must also create substantial risk of harm to society -- Crown having to prove risk of harm beyond reasonable doubt -- Depiction of sex outside context of emotional involvement not perceived by most members of community as substantially harmful -- Approval of films by Ontario Film Review Board not amounting to lawful justification or excuse and not negating possibility of finding that accused acted "knowingly" in selling obscene film -- Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-46, s.163.

All of the accused were charged with obscenity offences under s.163 of the Criminal Code.

H was in the business of renting and distributing videocassettes. Police seized 800 videos from his home, 10 of which were entered as exhibits at trial. The videos did not portray violence, cruelty, bestiality, masochism or child pornography. They consisted of a great number of explicit consensual sex acts, with minimal narrative linkage, occurring in a context which was devoid of love or affection. The videos had been reviewed by the Ontario Film Review Board ("OFRB") and approved for "restricted" viewing. H called P, chair of the OFRB, as an expert witness at his trial. P testified that community standards no longer required a context of "love and affection" in films of this nature, if they ever did. The trial judge found that the films were not degrading or dehumanizing and did not carry a risk of harm, and were accordingly not obscene. H was acquitted. The Crown appealed.

J owned and operated three stores whose business was, in part, the sale of videos approved by the OFRB and classified as "restricted". The videos seized in his case were very similar to those in the H case, in that they did not portray violence but did portray a large number of explicit consensual sex acts. P also testified as an expert witness at J's trial. The trial judge held that the films were degrading and dehumanizing, principally because they were "devoid of anything other than the merely physical act". He concluded that the total effect of the films was such that the risk of harm was substantial. The films were accordingly found to be obscene and J was convicted. He appealed.

R owned an "adult" video store. The videos seized were all approved by the OFRB and were of the same type as the cassettes in issue in the case of H and J. Again, P testified that he was of the opinion that none of the films approved by the OFRB could create a substantial risk of harm to society, and that everything approved by the OFRB would fall within the guidelines of contemporary community standards of tolerance. The trial judge found that there was no proof of social harm being caused by exposure to these films. He dismissed the charges. The Crown appealed. 913719 owned and operated an "adult" video store. Each of the tapes seized had been approved by the OFRB. Three of the videos contained violence and/or apparently non-consensual sex. The trial judge held that, while OFRB approval is indicative of the community standards of tolerance, such approval does not amount to a "lawful justification or excuse". The three videos which depicted sex coupled with violence were found to be obscene and the accused were convicted on the counts relating to them. The trial judge was not satisfied that the explicit depiction of sex in the other videos was degrading or dehumanizing, nor was she satisfied that these videos resulted in a substantial risk of societal harm. Accordingly, the charges relating to these videos were dismissed. The Crown did not appeal those acquittals. 913719 appealed the convictions.

S's company owned and operated a tavern and adult entertainment parlour which showed movies obtained by a satellite dish. The movies were not screened by the OFRB and did not have the OFRB's approval. The films contained scenes portraying necrophilia, violence, and vampirism in a sexual context. The trial judge found the films to be obscene, and S's conviction was affirmed on appeal. S appealed.


In R. v. Butler, the Supreme Court of Canada formulated a new legal framework within which to determine whether something is obscene. It did so by dividing "pornography" into three categories of materials: (1) explicit sex with violence; (2) explicit sex without violence but which subjects people to treatment that is degrading or dehumanizing; and (3) explicit sex without violence that is neither degrading nor dehumanizing. Obscenity is defined in terms of what the community would tolerate others being exposed to on the basis of the degree of harm that may flow from such exposure. The first category of pornography set out above will almost always constitute the undue exploitation of sex. The second category may be undue if the risk of harm is substantial. The third category is generally tolerated in our society and will not qualify as the undue exploitation of sex unless it employs children in its production.

The definition of criminal obscenity is limited so as to capture only material that creates a substantial risk of harm. Harm is a component of the offence. Harm in this context means that it predisposes persons to act in an antisocial manner. The stronger the inference of a risk of harm, the lesser the likelihood of tolerance.

What is or is not degrading or dehumanizing and what is or is not harmful are matters to be determined by the standards of the community as a whole. These are not matters to be determined by the tastes of individual judges. The fact that a provincial board does not consider a film to be degrading or dehumanizing and has approved it for exhibition and distribution is clearly evidence of contemporary Canadian standards of tolerance that a trial judge must weigh in objectively deciding whether, on all the evidence, such films are so out of keeping with prevailing societal mores that Canadians would not allow other Canadians to see them.

As s.163 was interpreted in Butler, harm is an essential component of the definition of obscenity. Under the Butler test, not all material depicting adults engaged in sexually explicit acts will be found to be obscene. A substantial risk of harm to society must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that proof must be found in the evidence at trial.

In the case of H, the Crown adduced no evidence to establish harmful effects. In R's case, the evidence adduced did not prove to the satisfaction of the judge that social harm would result from exposure to the films.

In 913719's appeal, the trial judge properly concluded with respect to the three films which resulted in convictions that their contents included the portrayal of sex coupled with violence and coercion or subordination and created the requisite risk of harm. The trial judge did not err in finding that the OFRB approval of the film amounted to a lawful justification or excuse. Moreover, OFRB approval does not negate any possibility of a finding that the accused acted "knowingly" in selling obscene films.

In the case of J, the record contained no evidence from which it could be concluded, as the trial judge in effect held, that community standards require that sexual activity take place within the context of love, affection, commitment or emotional involvement. Nor can it be concluded that the depiction of sex outside that context would be perceived by most members of the community as substantially harmful.

In the case of S, the violence, vampirism, and necrophilia shown in these films (which did not have OFRB approval) were patently such as to bring the films within the second of the Butler categories. Manifestly, these explicit depictions of indignities to the human body rendered the material degrading or dehumanizing and created the risk of harm contemplated by Butler.

the chick that gets it from the Grey drill dilldo.

Lady Mischief, are you an attorney? If not, just post the articles and quiet down. I don't really care about your puritanical Canadian laws regarding porn.

Plus, ask any woman who will give you a straight honest answer. Sex during your period is wonderful. It eliminates cramps, gives you extra moisture so you won't have a sore dry vagina, and doctors say the blood is pure. All you have to do is find a clean/tested partner and fuck the night away.

What laws is this video violating under U.S. Laws? None, that I can see. Having a period is a natural condition, and what is wrong with a little blood dripping on the bedspread? Hell, if a man goes down too deep, he can cause the woman to bleed when she isn't having a period.

Although this video is a bit gross, you should take some notes, Lady Mischief. I think you probably need a good fuck to reduce your anger.

Hahaha dont you just love those cold posts..

and ohh yeah that shit isnt really my bag but thing that
shit sells pretty good..

ewwwh, not to mention that probably smells like death

I have a feeling that his company is not incorporated in Canada nor do I think he is a Canadian citizen