Very Saucy, Pussy-Licking Part 2 of WAMbledon

[SillyGilly]

Hi all

Now Bill has sent me the photos I can show you the VERY RUDE Part 2 of my supposed tennis tournament with Tori. The 11 min movie WAMbledon 2008 Part 2 is already up on www.gillysillyhouse.com and some of the pics have already been BANNED BY UMD for being too hot! So be warned...

The story goes that after the tit-for-tat mess in Part 1, rain has soaked the gunge-covered court so Tori and I decide to settle the Single Ladies Finals by wrestling in the mess. It starts as a simple gunge fight, but before long we are rolling around naked in the mess, licking and sucking everything we can reach! It really is hot stuff. Who comes out on top? You'll have to watch it to find out.

So join now to see Tori and me in steamy action - oh and drop into the forum whilst you are there!

Hope you like the film.

Gilly

[SillyGilly]

Now the knickers are off, tongues and fingers start to get to work...

[SillyGilly]

Our match 'climaxes' with a very horny 69 which certainly made me 'deuce-y' (heehee). Apparently my pussy tastes of ginger - must be the cake mix!!

To see the movie, join up for a while at www.gillysillyhouse.com and download it.

Enjoy. I reeeeeaallly did!

[midniter]

Gilly wrote:
some of the pics have already been BANNED BY UMD

Actually, it was only one pic. It's unfortunate that the content of the images posted on the UMD has to comply with U.S Laws. Thanks for rubbing our noses in it (again).

midniter

[Etonman]

Not getting at Midniter/UMD, but the US laws seem very odd.

These laws ban a "rude" pic (was it one of these here ), yet seems to allow stuff like violent porn, torture, etc.

[BillShipton]

UMD did only ban one picture - true - but we kept several others from them cos we thought the same would happen to them. Actually the one they banned, we thought would get through.

Anyway, no biggie, and we are not rubbing anyone's nose anywhere merely pointing out that there are pics here that can't be seen in the other post. At least it makes the two posts different from one another which is unusual for commercial plugs!

[dirtydids]

Not getting at Midniter/UMD, but the US laws seem very odd.

These laws ban a "rude" pic (was it one of these here ), yet seems to allow stuff like violent porn, torture, etc.

This is just part of the TOS from UMD.
The following is in regard to photos uploaded to any section of umd.net: Due to laws that mandate impossible record keeping requirements, we cannot allow any sexually explicit images to be uploaded to, or hotlinked anywhere to this site. (Hotlinking means using html or other means to make an image that's hosted elsewhere show up on this site.) Text links to pictures or sites containing these pictures are acceptable, but the photos must not actually show up here. By sexually explicit, we mean actual (not simulated) sexual intercourse, oral sex, and masturbation.

Its all basically down to the USA 2257 law,which is somewhat draconian. It must also be remembered that each "State" in the USA has varying degrees of what is allowed and what isnt, its the same when you start looking at ages of consent, some states are 18yrs a few are 21.
I came unstuck when i posted some pics of Candy's shoot on the bed with custard and her pink friend, they were taken down as well, its another reason why that shoot has not yet gone into the members area of Messymercedes as we use an USA based server/host not quite sure how we would stand. I know for a fact several US billing companies have been hit for $25,000 fines by Mastercard for allowing explicit material to be available for download/viewing on their websites.

Its a strange world out there and bloody complicated.


dids

[driversoft]

Not getting at Midniter/UMD, but the US laws seem very odd.

These laws ban a "rude" pic (was it one of these here ), yet seems to allow stuff like violent porn, torture, etc.

We have our own unworkable laws over here too - look at the new "Extreme Pornography" legislation - basically, possession of any image that appears to depict an act that may involve serious harm, particularly (but not limited) to genitalia, is now punishable by up to three years in jail (unless the scenario is faked AND YOU'RE ONE OF THE DEPICTED WILLING PARTICIPANTS). The Government seem to have decided that as individual images are contextless, they shall be assumed to be 'real'.

The consequence of this, of course, is that I can perfectly legally watch, say, Hostel II, at the cinema (wherein the images are in context by virtue of being a categorised movie, I suppose), but if I were to possess some of the same images in a standalone format, I'd be committing a jailable offence (there is no exemption in the act for images from otherwise legal sources, for example).

Furthermore, current legislation specifies that an individuals legal consent to any harmful (or potentially harmful) procedures is nullified IF THE IMAGES ARE PRODUCED FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

Worthwhile knowing, even if it affects BDSM much moreso than WAM.

[Etonman]

Just googled that new UK law, and it looks so complicated as to be unworkable! Seems that they can't get at the producers, so just pick on the easy target of the "consumer"....and, considering the amount of porn spam emails which come through, how can anyone stop the possibility of
this type of thing finishing up on your hard-drive even if you delete the spam immediately.

Another example of what might seem to be "good idea" rushed through by politicians, without any consideration of the possible results in practice, or the difficulties in apply the law.
On a par with the new laws on wheely-bins....put them out too early, or fill them so full that the lid is open a couple of inches and you'll get a bigger fine than you will for shoplifting. So it just makes it a cheaper option to dump your surplus rubbish in the nearest lay-by.

(Sorry, I'm sounding a bit like the Daily Mail.....)

[Etonman]

Reading Driversoft's post ^^^^ and as an slightly more serious afterthought to my previous post....

I rather like one particular actress . In her latest film (Cert 15), she is, at one point, captured and tied up by the villain. Clearly he's not well pleased with her, and the scene definitely "appears to depict an act that may involve serious harm", insofar as he's about to blow her brains out . But the good guys arrive in time to rescue her, and everyone lives happily ever after.

So, if I have a lot of stills from the film on my PC, which happen to include one of her tied up, I could end up in jail?
Or if the same shot is included in a review of the film in the newspaper (and the scene really is that "innocent" that it could be), it's OK if I cut the picture out of the newspaper, but illegal if I scan it to the PC to keep?

[Devo77]

Even with all this debate about laws we really shouldn't
over look these pics.

Fantastic pics of you and Tori, Gilly! I guess this match
ended double love.

[Squelch]

Wooaah! Gettin' back to the pictures All I can say is..

NEW BALLS PLEASE

[shredder]

Thanks for rubbing our noses in it (again).

midniter

Enough politics: Can we just go back to looking at the great pics of the women 'rubbing their noses in it'?
No harm, no foul, I say and clearly the pics are depicting mutual enjoyment by individuals capable of saying 'no'. Oh yeah, and they pics are darn hot!

[BillShipton]

Couldn't agree more, Shredder.

[Candy Custard]

phwoar bloody hell....... right up my street this set nice one, very nice indeed