18 U.S.C. § 2252A criminalizes the receipt of child pornography. A depiction counts as child pornography if its "production . . . involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A) . "Sexually explicit conduct" includes a "lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person." 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v). Congress pinned punishment to objectively lascivious exhibitions , not depictions that are subjectively lascivious "in [a defendant's] estimation[.]" United States v. Williams , 553 U.S. 285, 301 (2008). Yet some Circuits graft subjective intent and desire onto this scheme by telling factfinders , when deciding if a depiction shows a lascivious exhibition, to consult subjective factors from a forty -year-old judicial opinion . See United States v. Dost , 636 F.Supp. 828 (S.D.Cal. 1986), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Wiegand , 812 F.2d 1239 ( 9th Cir. 1987)). The question presented is:

How, if it all, m ay courts direct factfinders to rely on the "Dost factors " in decid ing whether a depiction includes a " lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person ?"

How, if at all, may courts direct factfinders to rely on the 'Dost factors' in deciding whether a depiction includes a 'lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person'?