Wet Dream Forum

THE Forum about Wet Dreams
It is currently Wed May 06, 2015 10:17 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]


Chat Room



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Child Pornography Laws
PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:55 am 
Offline
Active Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am
Posts: 300
Location: Behind The Wall Of Sleep
Age: 42
Number of wet dreams you've experienced: 0
Circumcised or Uncut?: Uncut (Intact)
Precum Production: Some Precum (2-4 drops before ejaculation)
Average time to ejaculation normally: 10
Have you ever had a spontaneous ejaculation?: no
If you've had a wet dream before, when did it occur after falling asleep?: N/A - never had a wet dream before
Sex: Male
This link may be relevant to what minors can post here:

http://www.adultweblaw.com/laws/childporn.htm

Section (E) prohibits images of "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." Courts that have interpreted this section have done so broadly - "as used in the child pornography statute, the ordinary meaning of the phrase "lascivious exhibition" means a depiction which displays or brings forth to view in order to attract notice to the genitals or pubic area of children, in order to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer." See United States v Knox (1994). You may risk prosecution if your website displays images of minors depicted in a way that excites viewers.

5. United States v Knox:

In Knox, a man who had previously been convicted of receiving child pornography through the mail ordered video tapes (by mail) of girls between the ages of ten and seventeen who, in the Court's words, "were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age." The girls wore bikini bathing suits, leotards, or underwear - none of the girls in the videos was nude. The videos were set to music, and it appeared that someone off-camera was directing the girls. The photographer videotaped the girls dancing, and zoomed in on each girl's pubic area for an extended period of time. Knox was prosecuted under United States Child Pornography laws.

Legal counsel for Knox argued that "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" meant that the girls had to be nude - wearing clothing meant that that genitals and pubic area were clearly not exhibited. The Court disagreed and held that there was no nudity requirement in the statute: "the statutory term "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area," as used in 18 U.S.C. � 2256(2)(E), does not contain any requirement that the child subject's genitals or pubic area be fully or partially exposed or discernible through his or her opaque clothing."

_________________
Existence-consciousness is the only reality. Consciousness plus waking we call waking. Consciousness plus sleep we call sleep. Consciousness plus dream we call dream. Consciousness is the screen on which all the pictures come and go. The screen is real, the pictures are mere shadows. — Sri Ramana Maharshi


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group