WebModels Forum is a message board for models, photographers, agents, managers, and others associated with the modeling industry.

Posted by: Christian B. (68.17.210.88) on December 31, 2002 at 02:04:22

In Reply to: Re: Does That Mean...? posted by Don Teller on December 30, 2002 at 16:16:39:

It looks as though the shoe fits perfectly. The entire intention of your shoots is to draw notice to the exposed genitals - you've even got a camera in case someone can't figure it out. You're a rotten shyte. It's how YOU get off.

christian

: They have to prove sexual intent to have indecent exposure re the california supreme court. So get a clue and know more about what you speak.

: California Supreme Court
: decision "In re Smith"
: In re Smith (1972) 7 C3d 362, 102 Cal Rptr 335, 497 P2d 807 (excerpts):
: "A person does not expose his private parts 'lewdly' within the meaning of Penal Code Section 314, condemning indecent exposure, unless his conduct is sexually motivated. Accordingly, a conviction of that offense requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor not only meant to expose himself, but intended by his conduct to direct public attention to his genitals for purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront.

:

: : Does that mean you'll cover the lawyer bills, fines, bail, in the event that the police don't react the way you "expect" them to?

: : You're an arrogant idiot. Any model who chooses to work with you... deserves what she gets.

: : christian

Follow Ups:

• Get off your moral high horse - Craig 14:50:28 12/31/02 (0)
• Re: Quacks like a Duck... - Don teller 07:50:52 12/31/02 (0)

Do Not Reply to Archived Messages

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Password:  A password is required to post messages. If you do not have one, pleaseregister now!
Subject : 

Location: 

Comments:
: It looks as though the shoe fits perfectly.  The entire intention of your shoots is to draw notice to the exposed genitals - you've even got a camera in case someone can't figure it out.  You're a rotten shyte.  It's how YOU get off.

: christian


: : They have to prove sexual intent to have indecent exposure re the california supreme court. So get a clue and know more about what you speak. 

: : California Supreme Court 
: : decision "In re Smith"
: : In re Smith (1972) 7 C3d 362, 102 Cal Rptr 335, 497 P2d 807 (excerpts): 
: : "A person does not expose his private parts 'lewdly' within the meaning of Penal Code Section 314, condemning indecent exposure, unless his conduct is sexually motivated. Accordingly, a conviction of that offense requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor not only meant to expose himself, but intended by his conduct to direct public attention to his genitals for purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront. 

: :  

: : : Does that mean you'll cover the lawyer bills, fines, bail, in the event that the police don't react the way you "expect" them to?

: : : You're an arrogant idiot.  Any model who chooses to work with you... deserves what she gets.

: : : christian



Optional Link URL:  
Example: http://www.webmodels.com
Link Title:         
Example: WebModels - Information and Resources
Optional Image URL: 
Example: http://www.webmodels.com/images/webmodels.jpg

Do Not Reply to Archived Messages