When the six Dost factors are read to a jury to determine 'lascivious exhibition of the genitals' under a child pornography statute, is a conviction constitutional when the images depict no sexual conduct?

The question presented, on which state appellate courts and federal circuit courts of appeal are split, is: When the six factors of United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986), are read to a jury as the means of obtaining a conviction solely based on what constitutes “lascivious exhibition of the genitals” under Connecticut’s possession of child pornography statute, is a conviction constitutional when the images depict no sexual conduct?