In State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739, 193 P.3d 678 (Wash. 2008), the Washington Supreme Court engaged in a lengthy discussion whether the terms "pornography" and "sexually explicit" were sufficiently definite to survive a vagueness challenge. 193 P.3d at 686-89. The Washington court held that a probation condition prohibiting the defendant from possessing "pornography" was unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 686-88. The court upheld a probation condition that referred to "sexually explicit material", but not in the context of prohibiting the defendant from possessing printed or video material. Rather, the probation condition in question barred the defendant from "frequenting establishments whose primary business pertains to sexually explicit or erotic material." Id. at 688-89. Moreover, the Washington court noted that Washington had a statutory definition of "sexually explicit material": RCW 9.68.130(1) defines "sexually explicit material" as: "any pictorial material displaying direct physical stimulation of unclothed genitals, masturbation, sodomy (i.e., bestiality or oral or anal intercourse), flagellation or torture in the context of a sexual relationship, or emphasizing the depiction of adult human genitals: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That works of art or of anthropological significance shall not be deemed to be within the foregoing definition." (Quoted in Bahl, 193 P.3d at 689.)