Dolls need sex too

[moomoo1]

Oh you "boys" are really asking for this…

[Fenrisulfr]

mmmmmmmmmmmmm yes but not forgetting

[youtube]8IG8dw5qwXQ&feature=fvst[/youtube]

[haremlover]

'''''''''''''''''''''''''With the recent controversy over certain fetish pics, should TDF have a special section ONLY for "Fetish" and other "extremes"? And if yes, then should this new section be for "members only"? Personally I think if they kept BDSM or other fetish pics in a separate category it would be better. Also should there be a WARNING posted on that section warning of the depicted content?''''''''''''
I've read this somewhere, seemed like a sensible post What is that they say about pride and 'falls'

Hi!

This seems a very sensible suggestion and solution.

In the nature of depiction of murder and necrophilia, there is a parallel with paedophilia.

Were the photographs to have depicted under age dolls intended for any sort of gratification, I don't think that anyone would dare say "But it doesn't matter, it's only a doll". The site would be closed down and it would risk nocturnal police raids on all members.

The violence depicted represents a murder or at the very least a very "don't do this at home" dangerous activity which has resulted in high profile "accidents" and should not be depicted publicly for the reason that it is so dangerous and so against the public interest that photographs of such a sequence should not be in the public domain to give any weirdo ideas. By weirdo I don't mean any member of this forum: I mean one unengaged in communication and sharing who simply sees images and acts on them. This is the argument for such fetishes to be available to be discussed (although in saying so I am not endorsing them) in a group visible only to registered members and not in the public domain.

Best wishes

Harem.

[moomoo1]

'''''''''''''''''''''''''With the recent controversy over certain fetish pics, should TDF have a special section ONLY for "Fetish" and other "extremes"? And if yes, then should this new section be for "members only"? Personally I think if they kept BDSM or other fetish pics in a separate category it would be better. Also should there be a WARNING posted on that section warning of the depicted content?''''''''''''
I've read this somewhere, seemed like a sensible post What is that they say about pride and 'falls'

Hi!

This seems a very sensible suggestion and solution.

In the nature of depiction of murder and necrophilia, there is a parallel with paedophilia.

Were the photographs to have depicted under age dolls intended for any sort of gratification, I don't think that anyone would dare say "But it doesn't matter, it's only a doll". The site would be closed down and it would risk nocturnal police raids on all members.

The violence depicted represents a murder or at the very least a very "don't do this at home" dangerous activity which has resulted in high profile "accidents" and should not be depicted publicly for the reason that it is so dangerous and so against the public interest that photographs of such a sequence should not be in the public domain to give any weirdo ideas. By weirdo I don't mean any member of this forum: I mean one unengaged in communication and sharing who simply sees images and acts on them. This is the argument for such fetishes to be available to be discussed (although in saying so I am not endorsing them) in a group visible only to registered members and not in the public domain.

Best wishes

Harem.

No offense Harem, but by your line of logic almost all video games, mainstream audiovisual media (i.e. film, television), novels, comic books and whatever else you can think should be hidden from public eyes. I mean come on if you really are worried people about acting on impulse from what they see, the streets should be overrun by hordes of killers, thieves, warmongerers.

This is a site for adults, so I think we are much better off treating people here at TDF as adults with minds of their own. If we ever get so concerned with what a stray "weirdo" is going to do that, that defines policy I think we seriously are in trouble.

Well that's my $0.02 and a bit more sense,
Moo.

[Fenrisulfr]

'''''''''''''''''''''''''With the recent controversy over certain fetish pics, should TDF have a special section ONLY for "Fetish" and other "extremes"? And if yes, then should this new section be for "members only"? Personally I think if they kept BDSM or other fetish pics in a separate category it would be better. Also should there be a WARNING posted on that section warning of the depicted content?''''''''''''
I've read this somewhere, seemed like a sensible post What is that they say about pride and 'falls'

Hi!

This seems a very sensible suggestion and solution.

In the nature of depiction of murder and necrophilia, there is a parallel with paedophilia.

Were the photographs to have depicted under age dolls intended for any sort of gratification, I don't think that anyone would dare say "But it doesn't matter, it's only a doll". The site would be closed down and it would risk nocturnal police raids on all members.

The violence depicted represents a murder or at the very least a very "don't do this at home" dangerous activity which has resulted in high profile "accidents" and should not be depicted publicly for the reason that it is so dangerous and so against the public interest that photographs of such a sequence should not be in the public domain to give any weirdo ideas. By weirdo I don't mean any member of this forum: I mean one unengaged in communication and sharing who simply sees images and acts on them. This is the argument for such fetishes to be available to be discussed (although in saying so I am not endorsing them) in a group visible only to registered members and not in the public domain.

Best wishes

Harem.

No offense Harem, but by your line of logic almost all video games, mainstream audiovisual media (i.e. film, television), novels, comic books and whatever else you can think should be hidden from public eyes. I mean come on if you really are worried people about acting on impulse from what they see, the streets should be overrun by hordes of killers, thieves, warmongerers.

This is a site adults, so I think we are much better off treating people here at TDF as adults with minds of their own. If we ever get so concerned with what a stray "weirdo" is going to do, that that defines policy I think we are ceriously in trouble.

Well that's my $0.02 and a bit more sense,
Moo.

Just to put the record in context and straight, what I was quoting was the start of a thread by dollluver73 before he took a plunge towards the darkside with his badtaste pics of inflatibles to stir the pot, to talk sense then go bellyup in my view that is.

[lifelike]

With the recent controversy and boundries undefind I thught I would have alittle fun with my dolls having sex with eatchother.

is that some sort of she male doll? sometimes feels as if doll manufacturers are just effing with us, i swear to god...

It is a Transgendered doll. Hounistly I have never seen another TG doll on TDF. Inflatable or otherwise. BTW unfortunantly in the porn industry they call them "shemales". I hate that term.

no offense intended. i'd never call anyone a shemale irl, but habitually describe
dolls as such. WEIRD.

anyway, yeah. there are a couple of tgirl dolls on the market. most of
the ones i've seen aren't much better than the one you've got, though
pipedreams' mia isabella line appears to be a step in the right direction:

[moomoo1]

there are a couple of tgirl dolls on the market. most of the ones i've seen aren't much better than the one you've got, though pipedreams' mia isabella line appears to be a step in the right direction:

Looks to me like a Hannah Harper/Kimmi Lovecok gone brunette with a tan, and er an extra appendage.

I kind of find it both a little sad and comical when inflatable doll makers (even the high-end ones) just slightly alter their designs for multiple licensed dolls. I thought the whole point was to try and make them different.

[Fenrisulfr]

there are a couple of tgirl dolls on the market. most of the ones i've seen aren't much better than the one you've got, though pipedreams' mia isabella line appears to be a step in the right direction:

Looks to me like a Hannah Harper/Kimmi Lovecok gone brunette with a tan, and er an extra appendage.

I kind of find it both a little sad and comical when inflatable doll makers (even the high-end ones) just slightly alter their designs for multiple licensed dolls. I thought the whole point was to try and make them different.

Seriously tho a number of inflatables are shite, yes there is an entry level for every doll whether it be blow up or silicone, but the punter is shafted from the word 'go' unless he pays lots. The French latex are way in front, nearly bought one but a Taffy crossed the line first, But the 'stag night specials' leave a lot to be desired and the only real answer for them is Why can't inflatable makers cater for the 'real buyer' with a half decent effort for each side of the coin and give them what they want, if silicone can advance in products and do it why can't they.