Follow Gene Ross at twitter@GeneRoss3; Follow AdultFYI at twitter@Adultfyi1

from www.cnet.com – And now for a steamy lawsuit.

A lewd, lascivious lawsuit that, though it lacks naughty close-ups, makes up for them in, some might say, naked gall.

For here is a legal demand that Apple should sell its products with a built-in antiporn filter.

Yes, a Tennessee lawyer is suing Apple because its products are exposing him to rottenness at his core.

I am excitedly grateful to Above The Law for bringing me some details of this suit against the birthday suit.

It seems that Chris Sevier, a lawyer of disputed age from Nashville, believes that Apple is so very negligent in allowing its customers to immediately access that thing called the Web — the one where pornography lurks around every corner.

I will offer you a couple of highlights, but have embedded the full 50-page complaint, for your eternal titillation.

The complaint does begin with an expression of almost carnal affection: “The plaintiff loves Apple.”

He goes onto explain that he believes Apple is “concerned with the welfare of our Nation’s children, while furthering pro-American values.”

Indeed, it seems logical to this plaintiff that Apple should therefore “sell all its devices in ‘safe mode,’ with software preset to filter out pornographic content.”

Sevier claims, you see, to have been a victim — a victim of porn. He is sad that Apple didn’t warn him of the “damage that pornography causes.”

Moreover, he insists that he was trying to log onto Facebook.com when a completely innocent maneuver — a spelling mistake — landed him on F***book.com.

This “appealed to his biological sensibilities as a male and led to an unwanted addiction with adverse consequences.”

It’s quite obvious (at least to Sevier) that Apple should have known this would happen. After all, there are millions of porn addicts roaming the world, causing havoc and even standing for public office in New York.

The complaint says that “Apple employees know that a man is born full of harmonies and attacked to by women engaging in sexual acts with the intent to cause vicarious arousal.”

Yes, that is a quote. It seems that “hormones” may, in Sevier’s head, be harmonious.

Perhaps most pulsating is the idea that the appearance of naked, nubile, and seemingly available women created “unfair competition.” That would be unfair competition between these women and Sevier’s wife.

“The Plaintiff began desiring younger more beautiful girls featured in porn videos than his wife, who was no longer 21,” says the suit.

You, while you attempt to keep your face straight, will wonder what damage this unfair competition caused the troubled plaintiff.

Lookee here: “His failed marriage caused the Plaintiff to experience emotional distress to the point of hospitalization. The Plaintiff could no longer tell the difference between Internet pornography and tangible intercourse due to the content he accessed through the Apple products, which failed to provide him with warnings of the dangers of online pornography whatsoever.”

I can no longer tell the difference between the law and a donkey. All I know is that I much prefer donkeys.

Still, I cannot depart without offering one more pithy scene from this interesting suit: “Unregulated Internet porn is hurting brick and mortar or ‘mom and pop’ porn shops.”

While you consider all the nuances of the “‘mom and pop’ porn shop,” I trust you will hope, as I do, that this case will reach at least the same levels of sheer passion as did Apple vs. Samsung in 2012.