Mary Beth's Fantasy - Legelly Sissy

Mary Beth's Fantasy is rated PG-18: Home (Introduction) Menu (Contents)

Mary Beth's Fantasy

A Legal Review

"Contemporary community standards,
predominant appeal test,
and limits of candor"

[Jump To New Exhibits]


I receive a lot of email concerning my content. Most of that concern over the legality of me posting what I post, or more importantly, the legality of viewing what I post. In most of the opinions on this topic and based on what follows, my answer is that it is both legal for me to post what I post, and for you to view these posts. I cite my answers based on the most basic of legal opinions.

First and foremost, I invoke my right to express myself freely, and in a number of rulings the court has agreed to that most basic of rights under the First Amendment.

The American Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's protection of artistic expression broadly and often in the extreme. This protection extends to books, theatrical works, paintings, sculpture, posters, television, music, videos, DVDs, movies, comic books, magazines, newspapers and of course electronic compositions on the internet. In a word, whatever the human creative impulse produces is protected.

Secondly, when testing those fundamental rights against a specific work or set of works there is one important principle that is almost always taken into consideration, or cited, and that is content neutrality.

Content neutrality is an important concept, and simply means that the government cannot limit expression just because an individual, or even a group of individuals, are offended by that content.

My content, while it might offend the vast majority of people who chose to conform with that vast majority of other people, does not, in itself, make it illegal. My content is about me most of all.

I am a male who believes himself to be female, and by nature's design. I grew up understanding this and hence my views of such things.

Since that is so my depictions are always males as females, or at least feminine. I have also developed my own forms or vision of a life style around this view, and obviously, to me, all perfectly normal!

That is my real world at times although, more specifically, much of the fantasies I have with respect to this world.

However, and for the record, there are also a number of criteria I've been using for the past few years in developing images and stories for my web sites.

Given the fact that I do own and operate a web presence makes it important to me to be sensitive to other views. Moreover, I'm also sensitive to those who "do" want a softer, less adult, view of these things.

Given that, I've tried to apply a reasonable amount of personal censorship to my content.

Most of my criteria is based, in part, on what does and does not constitute the "legal" and moral definition of erotica and/or pornography for the United State (and for most of Europe). By those vague definitions (there is no legal definitions) I'm also legal there as well.

For me to publish an image or story, I must be able to answer "no" to all of these questions that follow:

Am I depicting nudity of the genital area (including breast on females)? Am I focusing on or emphasizing, the genital area? Am I showing unnatural or sexually explicit poses? Am I depicting children, or a child, as a sexual object(s)? Can the subject (if seen as a minor) be considered sexually exploited?

Am I fostering a scene strictly suggestive of sex, or a sexual setting? Is there any sexual misconduct between an adult and minor? Has the subject been harmed or appear to be harmed irrevocably?

I apply this criteria to both my text and images before I publish, and, moreover I re-apply that same criteria "again" anytime I receive email expressing concern over something that may be questionable. I'd rather modify an image or change a story than patently offend "my" viewers or readers.

I don't mind offending those that don't like this sort of thing because they are not my audience and being here is of their choosing. You on the other hand, if you are like me, are my audience so it's your opinion I value.

Remarkably, none of those arguments are really required! It's not required, because those images of mine are hardly unique. In fact, I would argue that they do meet my community standards easily. "Next"

Media Examples

Those community standards have already been set! They been set by the community "at large" as a matter of record!

As always, those contemporary community standards, that predominant appeal tests and those, so called, limits of candor" are always judgmental, and rejudged constantly.

Judgmental, and relative to the individual making such judgements. Fortunately those who chose to judge, must judge my site by what they've already seen and thus do so by those examples.

So will I, and frankly those also happen to be my best arguments on doing what I do. It's those standards that have already been set that makes the most sense in weighing what I do, because it's already been done. It's been done, and done by those far more in tune with these standards than I.


Mass media producers produce for the masses so I've used, as examples, what has been published or produced for those masses. What better arguments than those already argued? What can I hope to add given what the media has argued by their presentations or examples?

Boys in dresses is hardly knew. Neither are boys wearing diapers and plastic pants or dressing and acting as babies.

Frankly, and for me, those issues have already been raised and discarded as issues. Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, along with dozens of cable stations, and even Disney, the "G" rated company, have done exactly the same sorts of things I'm doing here. Better perhaps but not too much different. They've done so for millions of viewers and for countless number of times. So much so that I'd need a complete web site to capture all of what's been produced.

Therefore, what the community at large has already defined as "normal" is exactly what I deem normal. These are again, in many cases, my best examples of what the community has found suitable for viewing. Moreover, and because of the size and scope of distribution nationwide, they are, by default, my nations standard.

To further substantiate my arguments allow me to present to you a number of exhibits, in various media forms, and for various reasons before I rest my case:


Disney's "Almost Angels"
Exhibit 100

"Pageant Princess"
Exhibit 101

"Dress Codes"
(Formally Bruno)
Exhibit 102

Cross Dressing
Fox Trot - Cartoon
Exhibit 103


Small Wonder
Situation Comedy
Jamie As Vicki
Exhibit 104

Wonder Years
Situation Comedy
Bo Peep
Exhibit 105

Huck Finn - 1885
by Mark Twain
Huck as a girl
Exhibit 106

Subway Sandwiches
Guy As A Cheer Leader
Exhibit 107


Exhibit 108
is a special project

Marvin Cartoon
By Tom Armstrong
Marvin Does Drag
Exhibit 109

and Team Rocket in
Ash Does Drag
Exhibit 110


The Suite Life of
Zack and Cody
Exhibit 111

Mountain Dew
Young man transforms
into a young lady.
Exhibit 112

Face goes from Male
To Female
Exhibit 113


So who am I to argue?


The images shown here remain the property of their respective owners.

[To Main Menu]

Copyright 2003 under U.S. Copyright Law
Some material Copyright
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, 2002
All rights reserved