naked tits according to 2257
 

The 2257 regulations define 'sexually explicit conduct' as:

(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; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Do I understand it right that a girl showing her naked tits or even somebody licking/playing with her naked tits is not considered sexually explicit then?

The licking stuff is gray area. Showing naked tits is all good.

Actually that's not correct.
2257 excludes (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals.

Yep. What Lenny2 said.

(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person is excluded.

this thread wouldn't be complete without a pic of Skufty's balls

http://www.hjorleifson.com/skufty/balls.jpg

So that means that full nudity is okay, as long as someone is not doing any masturbating or other things mentioned in A to D?

Skufty can suck my salty balls.

Bumping this, cuz i'd like to know too...

you cannot show the genitals no one else can be touching the person at all , the person can touch breast as long as its not intended to arouse them in anyway.

this SCREAMS sexually repressed law making to me. these damn people that are so ashamed of have genitals. i love my penis, why can't republicans start loving their penises too?

if everyone was comfortable with having a cock or pussy the world would be a better place.

TPTB want to keep the population growth down... cocks and pussies are bad :upsidedow

Looks like my balls on a hot summer day.

Thanks for pointing that out, I was also not sure about titties, now I am, thanks :)

have your lawyer look it over

On which (A-D) rule is this based? If this is true then you can show a picture of a woman totally naked and you can't do the same of a man, right?

Why? If the law says no lascivious display of the genitals, then you don't do that. If the sign says 55mph, you dont go over 55mph. It's not rocket science.

THIS LAW IS SO MESSY....

It is so jewish of them....

What that means is that it may largly come down to the interpertation of the agent looking at the photos.

So if you get some geek that has never been laid, and things that the Laws protect him, and the world from the evil porn webmaster, then you may be fucked for just showing tits. Remember that women have been arrested for breastfeeding in public.

http://pix2.hotornot.com/pics/HR/HQ/...HROSGVTXTG.jpg

ehe eh eh HI guys, I love you

Suck on my chocolate salted balls.
Put em in your mouth, and suck em!

Damn....hebewssss...

does Skrufty have a head ?

Thanks for clearing some things up to me guys and girls!

It's ok to show a picture of a man totally nude. However, if he's erect you are probably standing on shaky ground, depending on the context, if you don't have 2257 records for the performer.

That said, there is still much we don't (and can't) know until the statutes and regulations have been interpreted by the courts.

wtf :1orglaugh

Are tits genitals?

I've seen some man tits that gross me out. I think it should be ok for woman to show their tits as long as they don't gross me out.

What about babies that go naked on the beach? Is that bad too? I'm talking two year olds etc. They couldn't write a simple black and white law. The word "lascivious" makes it a subjective decision.

I concur.

what the hell is the difference, your site is P/R 0,
no one is going to see it anyway!
WTF?

I love his nick

Which site are you talking about dude?