egafd.com

Lay off: I get quite enough abuse at work.
And at home I prefer to do the abuse personally.
I assume that the 'jj_fan' is an aficionado of the young lady who has recently misappropriated my nom de guerre.

What about JJ Michaels. The young midget stud who Louis Theroux made chums with. JJ then went on to star in many a scud flick.

Thats you that is. You know girls who run in a silly way? Thats also you. You know my disorder...thats you times ten with nobs on! So there! And you know that fungal infection I had between my toes.....yep thats your brain mate. You see people with no hair thats me that is. And my willy is bigger than yours. And I can beat you at conkers. So look that up in your book of of big words.

Nah! Love ya really! In a totally straight and hetero butch way of course.

You don't know what you're missing

The Watchtower...a great read at a bargain price

cheers
B...OZ Got A hankering For Anchoves

note to magoo, sad to hear those customs bastards pissed on your adult videos, that?s tough shit mate!!

'potentially' is the word - if you look at the C+E website it says under prohibited goods
'Indecent and obscene material featuring children, such as books, magazines, films, videotapes, laser discs and software.'

now - the definition of 'indecent' is as grey as it comes. I was thinking that, say you import the 'Pretty Baby' video (which has been passed 18 in the UK) then this could be suspected of being 'indecent'.

I would be interested to see if anyone CAN import an unexpurgated "Pretty Baby" from the US; as I have tried to point out in rame, the notion that there is an "artistic merit" exception to the federal child porn statutes is specious.

What's the rationale for f/f full-fisting being OK in a les vid, but not in a hetero vid?
That one REALLY made my head spin........

The scene Seymore got busted for WAS girl-girl, weren't it?? In "Tampa Tushy Fest"?

Since I never got to see it........as I understood it, it was g/g within an overall hetero flick. Hence my confusion as to the exact stricture.
And what's all this about artistic arguments being 'specious'? Your opinion, or the Supreme Court's? Either way, that's a pretty slippery slope, if one can't make films about (...then write about, then discuss....then even mention) 'edgy' topics. They passed 'Kids' without too many qualms. Why should 'Pretty Baby' be any different?

Well, simply put, "PB" by its content falls w/in the Child Porn laws, & they have a diff set of parameters. I would say that it is not my personal opinion, but legal consensus; e.g. the right to possess obscene material expounded in Stanley v. Georgia was no defense in re possession of child porn (I forget the name of the case).I think I can dig out a relevant quote from the Court of Appeals decision (affirming the conviction of the guy who filmed kids' crotches) if you like.

Your confusion is very understandable as there literally is no "exact stricture," as I tried to point out in my prior post.It is all willy-nilly, & often subjective as to what gets prosecuted.