Quote:
Originally Posted by dad1
If one girl's pubic hair is obscuring another girl's vagina in a photograph, is that considered hidden?
What if, during a brisk act of photographed cunnilingus, one girl's vagina is obscured by her own pubic hair - but only because it was caught in the teeth of the other girl?
|
To continue with my lecture ( I was trying to edit my last post but didn't get it done in time).
First, covered and "clothed" have distinct meanings here. Clothed referes to covered situations where the covering stays in place without the aid of hands, and remains so regardless of what position the body is in (lying on stomach vs lying on back, for example). Therefore, the pasties and the pie plate taped to the body are clothed pics, not covered pics.
OK, go ahead and laugh (I'm sure you are by now).
OK, McSky - hidden and covered nudity pics require some premeditated action and thought. The hiding and covering are generally
deliberate, not accidental. If someone's hair gets in the way of another's boobies by accident, in otherwords, that is "obscured" nudity, not hidden or covered nudity. One must prove
intent on the part of the person covered or hidden for a pic to be considered as such. Sometimes, a babes own hair might accidently obscure her privates, in which case we do not have "intent" to cover and so we have no covered pic IMHO.
It just sounds like I'm taking all this ultra seriously. Really, I don't care for lawyers much and so consider this to be more like parody.
Klondike