Any insight?
-
-
good question - but nobody has an answer for that and cannot have an answer to that. to some i am sure touching/cupping boobs is a sexually explicit act.I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly! -
There have been a few notable mainstream publications that have had women on the cover covering their naked breasts, or even had a man's hands covering them.Originally posted by MuttFor rent - ICQ 127-027-910
Click here for more detailsComment
-
hmm..... showing a baby drinking milk from the mother, most natural thing in the world. would probably not be illegal. BUT showing a grown up man doing the same could send you to jail... if it is violation of 2257
Comment
-
As long as the nipples are covered it could not be considered explicit..Comment
-
Originally posted by iwantchixx
rather than quoting 2256 definiition of sexually explicit over and over, i will answer with the simple and more colorful answer:
sexually explicit = any depiction of actual activity of people sticking things into any part of the body.
so cupping boobs doesn't require 2257
Fight the Clarifications!
http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957Comment
-
I was told that spread shots (no insertion) are considered sexually explicit and require 2257.Originally posted by FightThisPatent
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trixie RacerI was told that spread shots (no insertion) are considered sexually explicit and require 2257.
2256 has the lacivious part, which would cover your example, but new regulations strike out that part.
new regs mention 'actual' sex, not simulated.. and still follows my generalized summary of not having anything sticking into anyone.
fight the dictionary!
http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957Comment
-
edit:Originally posted by FightThisPatent
i might be gay.Comment
-
We were told it IS "sexual"
We do live video chat. We were advised by legal counsel that showing a boob, even pubic hair, is non-explicit or whatever.
But for example our chat hostesses can not do hand-bras. This is considered sexual touching, though that can cavort topless.
I am SO glad they are protecting the children... geeze.
YOU Are Industry News!
Press Releases: pr[at]payoutmag.com
Facebook: Payout Magazine! Facebook: MIKEB!
ICQ: 248843947
Skype: Mediaguy1Comment
-
I think so. I wouldn't take the chance..Originally posted by MuttUUGallery Builder - automated photo/video gallery plugin for Wordpress!
Stop looking! Checkout Naked Hosting, online since 1999 ! 
Comment
-
Originally posted by Basic_man
the vagueness in definitions is understandable, especially if MILF type content is being asked to provide 2257 documenation
so while you could argue with the DOJ inspectors that the model is clearly over 18, the law does allow for inspection of ANY model records that are "sexuallly explicit".
So even having granny models that are sticking things into them, you still have to have 2257 documentation, and still have to answer their inquiries.
Fight the granny imagery!
http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957Comment
-
-
actually it mentions 'genital contact' - so a girl spreading her lips with her fingers would probably be considered that regardless of if she's sticking anything in or notOriginally posted by FightThisPatentComment
-
you said the new regs strike out that part and presumably the "simulated sexual conduct" part.Originally posted by FightThisPatent
do you have the link to this? if it is not shown or defined in 2256, and we rely on the definition in 2256 where is it stated otherwise?
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ite:+18USC2256
Sec. 2256. Definitions for chapter
For the purposes of this chapter, the term--
(1) ``minor'' means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2) ``sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated--
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-
genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of
the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; orComment
-
It's ridiculous that naked boobies were considered 'going too far' but right under that message, there's a link to rotten.com. Naked boobies worse than that shit?Originally posted by vanderweb
TEMPLATEHYPE.COM - PREMIUM MECHBUNNY TEMPLATES
Responsive Mechbunny templates now available - NEAT TUBE - REDDY TUBEComment
-
I'm goina post a few examples here to see what you guys think, yes I know I would be better of talking to a alwyer but even they don't know what the DOJ is targeting 100%. Each lawyer has a different view on everything. That's what scares me.
lets use badgirlbuks's newest girl for example,, she's damn hot too!
http://www.mandymichaels.com/galleri...php?affiliate=
3rd thumb. She's touching her nipple. This could be viewed as sexual explicit since it's ina sexual nature.
http://www.mandymichaels.com/galleri...php?affiliate=
Second last thumb. She's just covering them. nothign sexual about it.
http://www.mandymichaels.com/galleri...php?affiliate=
2nd last thumb, open to anything. In the eye of the beholder.
http://www.pixiespillows.com/galleri...php?affiliate=
2nd last thumb. Just cupping and holding them
I hate how this can be open to different interpretations
my god she's hot...
Look at that ass
http://www.mandymichaels.com/galleri...php?affiliate=
2nd row 4th thumb. I wouldn'y last 3 seconds.Comment
-
Bare boobies are not sexually explict. I doubt the discovery channel has 2257 records from all the african chicks running around with their titties out.
Comment
-
I'm not talking about bare boobies. I'm talking about boobs being touched.Comment
-
fuck no...
Comment
Comment