Ms KillerBabe

Aug 27, 2002
7,188
1
36
Florida
Visit site
#1
Your thread has been deleted because MDFF no longer allows photos featuring dolls. I would have just removed the one offending image but the series of images are originating from your website.

Please feel free to repost your thread without the one photo included.

UN1
 
Dec 6, 2004
84
0
6
Visit site
#2
Your thread has been deleted because MDFF no longer allows photos featuring dolls. I would have just removed the one offending image but the series of images are originating from your website.

Please feel free to repost your thread without the one photo included.

UN1
Underneath1: Is this an inhouse ruling or a new law iminating from our socialist government?
 

assaddict

New Member
May 4, 2007
5
0
0
#3
At last these images have been banned! We are well rid of them! This wasnt what our fetish was about. Good decision moderators!
 
Mar 9, 2003
551
0
0
Visit site
#4
Underneath, does this apply to any doll or just dolls that look like babies?

I can sort-of understand banning pictures of dolls that look like a little bit like babies. They could be construed as paedophilic although I have no idea why people like to see those pictures so I couldn't say whether they were or not.

However I can't see why anyone would think there was any harm with crushing Ken and Barbie dolls as those could only be seen as giantess and I really like those sorts of pictures.
 
Mar 9, 2003
551
0
0
Visit site
#6
Thanks for clearing that up.

Just in case my post caused any unintended offense to Ms KillerBabe, I’ll just say having thought about it a bit more, I’m fairly sure the people who like those pictures are not paedophiles and that they are imagining what it would be like to be the doll and not how much they would enjoy crushing the doll.

They are probably the sorts of people who people who have that adult baby festish where they like to fantasise about being a baby, which while being extremely weird is harmless.

I’ve no problem with the pictures being banned though.
 
Aug 27, 2002
7,188
1
36
Florida
Visit site
#7
Dibble:

My pleasure.. I forgot to thank you in my previous post for taking the time to ask about it. People seem to read the postings a lot more than the rules so hopefully others now know about it..

Personally I don't have a problem with those types of clips or pics (Yes I know a lot of others differ with my opinion on it) just because I realize it's nothing but fantasy and plus I have a real problem with censorship period because that's a slippery slope that can snowball once it gets started.

When you start banning one theme because it offends certain people, it's a heck of a lot easier to start banning other themes. It's like banning smoking in all public places and soon it leads to court cases where people barbecuing steaks in their back yard are being sued by their neighborhood vegetarians and animal rights activists who are subjected to the smoke drifting into their backyard. Bit if a stretch I realize but nothing surprises me anymore about people and their intolerance for others.

What is strange/inconsistent though is even though the rule is now in effect... clips and images involving baby dolls can still be viewed in the fetishvideos.com thumbnails above if the content of the post or the theme of the subforum is similar. So what have we really achieved by the new rule?

take care,

UN1
 
Last edited: