2257 needed, yes or no?
 

http://www.bigthrob.co.uk/spanking/s...x%20uk%202.jpg


2257 needed for this, yes or no?
(for those that do thumb tgps and such kind of important)

it's not sexually explicit... clearly the girl was naughty and is getting punished for it... now... HOW could punishment be sexually appealing?
:1orglaugh

Don't know?...touching?

I am going with yes for another reason.

I would, for two reasons. Schoolgirl outfit implies underage, and spanking is s&m.

I do not think a school uniform makes it required. Nowhere do we have a dress code or any rules about having something imply they are underage in the regs.
Though the S/M rule would require compliance as per the regs.

Now how many times has hollywood in the past used spankings in movies? Yes every one from Elvis to John Wayne laid the butt smacks down on naughty girls. Think they will get away with it again with out compliance of title 18, or will the DOJ just go after us smut peddles envoking selective prosecution?

I didn't say the outfit made it required, only wise.

I doubt they'll go after hollywood. 2257 is the Right trying to shut us down.