X

ashton drake what ella loves doll Relevant Information

(69 People Likes) Has any Quora user ever visited the real Annabelle doll and if so, did you experience anything paranormal?

Lorraine), the daemonologists, and now rests in a glass box at Warrens’museum.
When the Warrens were bringing her to the museum, they narrowly escaped a fatal car accident. The priest who was called to bless her did not take her seriously. Later that day he called Lorraine and said the brakes on his car had failed and even he narrowly escaped a fatal accident. A guy visiting Warrens’museum mocked Annabelle and the Warrens. He died that day in a bike accident. All this besides the numerous times the Warrens felt her presence in their home. It was after they placed Annabelle in the glass box that all the happening around her somewhat ended.
So as you can see this doll is pure evil. So if she comes out of the glass box, people around her are either going to die or suffer seriously. She might attack Lorraine and her family first. After that she will be left alone with no one to sto

(54 People Likes) Why do some people think Meghan Markle was never pregnant and they used a surrogate?

eghan Markle could hardly get pregnant at age thirty-seven, after no other viable pregnancies after six weeks of trying. Based on her saying she was twelve weeks along at Princess Eugenie’s wedding, Meghan would have become pregnant six weeks after her wedding. That isn’t realistic.
Meghan Markle supposedly had multiple abortions, making it more difficult for her to maintain a viable pregnancy at age thirty-seven. Remember, that a mother is considered old past the age of thirty-five. After three years, after age thirty-five, 75% will still be trying to get pregnant. Meghan’s odds were never in her favor.
If Meghan was really born in 1977 and not 1981, and discrepancies do exist, then she stood basically a 2% chance of getting (not even staying) pregnant. Meghan would have been 40 with no known successful pregnancies, making it harder for her to stay pregnant.
Throughout Meghan’s pregnancy, the size and shape of her bump changed drastically. Somedays it was a rectangle, as though it had been in a suitcase, and other times she would have a very large bump, only to have it shrink in size over the week.
A truly pregnant woman’s belly does not ever shrink in size. It cannot do so. The baby grows every week and even a malnourished mother will have a larger bump in a week’s time. A pregnant belly will never shrink. Never. And Meghan’s did, many times.
Meghan was filmed squatting down at eight months of pregnancy and her belly was deflated, and as she stood, and her belly re-inflated, an audible, Pop! was heard, and noticed by her visitors. It is on tape.
Meghan squatted down, legs together, in high heels and rose again unassisted when she was eight months pregnant. That’s quite an accomplishment, and one most pr ashton drake what ella loves doll gnant mothers could not have ever done. Just reading the observations of women who have been pregnant. Online. It’s all there for you to read.
Meghan walked out with her belly around her knees one day. Not a belly on top, about a 7 months pregnant belly had fallen to her knees. Pregnant women do not have their uterus fall to their knees, ever.
Meghan, at the NYC baby shower, had a huge baby bump, but not the night she went out with her flame, Markus Anderson. She had a flat stomach, but tried to hide it with a handbag. There could be no hiding her belly, it was simply too large at that point. But then it went flat.
Meghan did not want to give any information on where she was giving birth.
When the paparazzi were watching Frogmore Cottage for signs of activity in the weeks leading up to the delivery, no one was at Frogmore. No lights on, no activity, no cars. No Meghan. No Harry. Where were they?
Meghan refused to use Queen Elizabeth’s OB/GYNs. Why? She said she didn’t want any “men in grey”, a Diana term, to attend her private birth. It was so private, no doctor would sign a birth certificate. There exists no record that Meghan gave birth to a baby in May 2019. As attested and affirmed by a physician.
Harry and Meghan lied about when Meghan went into labor, saying she went into labor after she reportedly gave birth. Why the timing issues? Fake? No birth happened? Making it as complicated as possible to confuse people?
Meghan left the hospital FOUR hours after she gave birth for the first time in her life. No doctor would have released Meghan. It would have been unsafe for mother and baby. at that age. Meghan lied about when she left the hospital or lied about giving birth. Or so people claim.
When Harry and Meghan brought “Archie” out to the three photographers and one videographer to see their new baby, the child never moved, as all newborns do, even when they sleep. The cameras could not get a good image of the baby. It is reported the couple used a doll. Dolls don’t move or make noises. And this baby didn’t move once or make any noise.
Prince George on the steps of the Lindo Wing, and Archie’s closeup, below….
Prince Louis, newborn, below…
When asked about the baby, Harry slipped and said “Archie” had changed so much in two weeks time. Meghan looked down at the gaffe, and never fully regained her composure. They left shortly after. So was there a real baby somewhere that had been born two weeks before Meghan’s presumed “birth”?
Why the supposedly photoshopped images of Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth and Doria all gathered in a random hallway at Buck Palace (as if Doria would be wondering around on her own in there!)? Why not take real pics? Why use photoshop?
Some allege that there was a surrogate who carried the egg of Meghan and the sperm of Harry to create this “Archie”. The surrogate lives in the UK and not North America. When the surrogate saw how mean Meghan was as a real person, the surrogate refused to give up her baby. In the UK the woman who carries the fetus is the mother and not the egg donor.
Is this why the Queen refused to use the customary wording about a baby being born to a royal? Is this why no signatures confirmed a live birth involving Meghan? Is this why “Archie” is not a prince? He cannot ever be a prince if the child was born of a surrogate. That is not permitted. Ever.
See the difference??? Cambridge baby, top. Sussex baby, bottom.
Did the surrogate have a baby with Down’s Syndrome? That has been reported by others also, along with some photographic evidence.
Can Meghan and Harry visit the baby? Does the surrogate live in the UK, as thought, and we see so few images of that baby because he is not Meghan’s child?
Reportedly, Meghan and Harry used their friend’s baby when they went to Africa to show off “Archie” to the people there. When in Africa, the people had huge sings welcoming “Archie’s father” but nothing was up about Archie’s mother. Meghan reportedly tore down the banners in a rage, but she didn’t get rid of all the banners. They can be seen online on the public domain. Why? Why hide a surrogate pregnancy? This could have been the perfect time to shine a light on the benefits of having a surrogate mother carry a child for another woman.
The front carrier was on upside down. Illustration purposes only….
In Canada, when Meghan was out with her two dogs, she had a baby doll hanging from her front carrier, which was worn incorrectly. Had Archie been in that carrier, he would have strangled to death according to experts. I’m only reporting on what I have read. These are not my opinions. They belong to many other people.
Was Meghan using a doll and why not use the real baby? Was he not available?
Archie has not been photographed since May, when Meghan taped a segment of her reading a book to the child, who had on a very soggy and drooping diaper, and he only wore a plain white onesie. Why? Why not dress up the child and change his diaper to a fresh and more comfortable one? I do have a grandson of almost the same age, and he likes dry diapers.
If Meghan was maternal, it is alleged, she would have taken better care of said child and placed him a nice, clean outfit. And a fresh, dry diaper.
It is alleged that Meghan and the baby had very little bonding together. “Archie” did not grab at Meghan’s face, or hold her hands, snuggle into her, play with her hair or her jewelry. There seemed to be no bond between this baby and Meghan. Again, just observations from many people. I am trying to include as many as is possible.
“Archie” and his Christening photos are definitely photoshopped. Clearly. Anyone with an eye can see it. But why? Just baptize the child. The time stamp of the images are at eleven pm. As in almost midnight. The Christening photos were created at night. Why? Where are the real ones? Are there real ones?
If the surrogate mum lives in the UK, it explains why “Archie” is not seen in any photos since the beginning of May 2020. That was five whole months ago. We would see their toddler if he lived in California, but since the child does not, there are no family photos of Harry, Meghan and “Archie”.
It is said the name of the child is not even “Archie”. Meghan was mad at the Cambridges (again), and Prince George’s nickname was Archie. So she used the name “Archie”, strange as it was for a child, and in effect took away George’s pet name. Nice auntie, right? People have said Meghan enjoys playing mind games with people. This would be a mind game. It is also claimed that Meghan loves to lie. This would be a whopper of a lie.
Where is “Archie”? And why hasn’t anyone spoken out about the strange child who is never seen? Some claim it will all come out in the trial of Markle v the Mail on Sunday. Will it?
When will the royal family address Archie and any strangeness surrounding his birth, Meghan’s pregnancy and the subsequent lack of evidence that a child is living with Harry and Meghan in California? But they would have nothing to reveal if all is at it seems, right?
When will Meghan and Harry take a family photo of the three of them all together?
So, you see there exists quite an exhaustive list of reasons why people have their theories on “Archie” and Meghan and Harry. It’s exhausting to write them all down. But I cannot think of one more point of contention. This is not my opinion, as there exist many theories here. I wanted to make a list of all I have read, so readers on Quora can see what exists in the public domain regarding the child called, Archie.
Now I’ll go back to giving my opinions o

(47 People Likes) How does law enforcement know you don’t have more passengers in your vehicle in the HOV lane?

lier, he placed the blame on the morning traffic. He didn't carpool, but there were times he really wished he could use the carpool lane. It just moved along so much faster than the other lanes.
So to fix his problem he bought a mannequin. He used his old Halloween wig and his girlfriend's makeup to dress up the mannequin and placed it in the back seat of his car.
The guy and his partner in crime, the unassuming mannequin, used the Carpool lane every morning for years. It shortened the nightmare commute through Marin by half.
One day the guy parked at a gas station pump and went inside to use the bathroom. An off-duty officer pulled into the pump behind him. The officer needed gas.
The officer was walking in to pay when he noticed that the woman in the backseat of the car in front of him wasn't moving even though she was sitting upright and her hand was to her face. When she continued not to move for the next few minutes, he walked up to the open Real Doll indow and looked inside.
A mannequin? Odd but not illegal, he thought. Still, the officer was suspicious.
When the offender returned to his car the officer decided to follow him. He followed him from the gas station, onto the freeway, and into the Carpool lane.
Within minutes the officer called his buddies and the jig was up for the Carpool Bandit.
Here's the best part: the guy did not receive a ticket for driving in the Carpool lane. Instead, the judge sentenced him and his mannequin to sit on the corner of two very busy streets for an hour every day for two weeks.
When I saw them on the corner, he was holding a sign that read: We were caught driving in the Carpool Lane.
Everyone made fun of him as they drove by.
There are many things I learned from that incident. The obvious is don't break the law. The other is that you

(35 People Likes) Is it a sin in Islam to have sex with a sex doll?

cerning this exact question. I will post the entire answer for you here on Quora.
tl;dr It is haram (sinful) to have sex with a sex doll.
Fatwa No : 85010
Sex dolls
Fatwa Date : Sha'baan 8, 1423 / 14-10-2002
“Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the World; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.
Allah, the Exalted, Says: {And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts) Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame; But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors;} [23: 5-7].
Imam al-Shanqiti (may Allah's Mercy be upon him), while commenting on the above verse in his book Adwaa al-Bayaan, said: 'Allah has stated that those who guard their chastity, i.e. from committing illegal sex as Zina and sodomy and so on are the true successful believers. He also stated that guarding one's chastity does not prevent him from taking pleasures with his wife or his concubine (woman slave) and he is not to be blamed since this is his right according the contract of marriage or possession in case of concubine. But, whoever seeks pleasure in other channels and means, i.e. not in marriage or concubine, he is considered sinful and transgressor who transgresses the Divine Limitations' .
Therefore, we state that it is Haram to use "sex dolls" for enjoyment and one has to guard his private parts except from his wife or what he possesses of woman slave.
Allah kno

(59 People Likes) Should we give pedophiles children sex dolls to satisfy their sexuality? Will there be less sexual abuse of children?

’m going to establish some facts and personal background before actually answering it.
I am a victim of childhood abuse, both by confirmed pedophiles and abusers who abuse children. I’ve written about this extensively and some of the writing is in my profile. I am not a pedophile or anyone who has or would ever sexually abuse children.
Pedophilia, or a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, is something that some people are, although estimates of exact percentages vary. It isn’t something someone chooses to be, it can’t be conditioned into them or out of them. It’s very likely, given what we know, that some people are simply born pedophiles and there is nothing to be done about that.
Most sexual abuse of children is not perpetrated by pedophiles, but garden variety abusers who target children because children are easy victims.
Now that we have that out of the way, let’s look at the goals here.
The problem with our society presently when it comes to pedophiles is that we simply demonize anyone who is a pedophile. They make a great punching bag because anyone who is attracted to children is obviously a bad person, right? The fact that they can’t help their attraction is completely ignored and we lump people who are pedophiles but don’t actually act on it in any way (including in viewing child pornography) in with those that do. Because of that stigma around pedophiles, there isn’t a lot of solid research on it and what research there is heavily depends on offending pedophiles as subjects. Pedophiles who don’t offend rarely take part in studies because of the stigma around being a pedophile, so we have a limited sample size.
As a society when it comes to dealing with pedophiles, the goal is and should be simply the reduction of harm to children. In other words, the goal should be whatever it takes so that less children are abused. If you look at it from that perspective, the answer when it comes to sex dolls that look like prepubescent children, is that if in the end it reduces harm to actual children, we should allow them.
As for whether or not they actually reduce harm to children, we simply don’t have enough data to say one way or the other. Evidence seems to suggest that it does make a pedophile less likely to offend if they have access to some kind of way to relieve themselves sexually like with a doll. There isn’t any evidence to suggest any kind of escalation of activity like using a doll would make someone more likely to abuse children. Similar to how massive amounts of evidence shows that people who play violent video games are actually less likely to be violent in real life and as porn use goes up people are less likely to commit sexual assault, we can extrapolate that people are less likely to act on their urges with a real child if they have some kind of ethical outlet.
The main way the pedophiles who do offend actually end up offending is by viewing and collecting child pornography. This hurts children and is wrong as well because you need to abuse real children to produce it. So having an outlet that doesn't abuse children would make all of those pedophiles that fall into the trap of child pornography less likely to actually do that. This leads us to the logical conclusion as well, where if we could create child pornography without hurting children, would that be allowed as well? As animation gets better, this might someday be possible. These are thorny ethical issues that must be addressed.
The thing is, personally it bothers me and disgusts me. The idea of someone using a sex doll that looks like a child and watching animated porn of people having sex with children Is repulsive (and personally triggering to me). However, we have to remember that we have a goal in mind here and that goal is: fewer children molested and harmed. So if something that bothers and disgusts us but doesn't hurt any children will make it so that less actual children are harmed, I’m all for it.
So in terms of whether or not they should be illegal I am leaning towards no. They should be allowed and we should do more scientific studies to make sure they actually do what we hope they do: make pedophiles less likely to offend. I would probably be in favor of them being prescribed by a psychiatrist or something like that, who would monitor the person using them and make sure they weren’t going to hurt a real child. However, this is outside of my wheelhouse.
Do they encourage and normalize a cultural climate that condones child molestation and pedophila? Why or why not?
It would in no way create something that condones child molestation. There is no slippery slope here. This has been brought up in countless other industries. Do movies and games that show violence condone real violence? All evidence points to no. In fact, healthy humans are able to separate fantasy from reality and that’s why we are able to enjoy fantastical things that we would never condone in reality. There is strong evidence to suggest that having these fantasies prevents people from doing immoral things in real life. This is why rape fantasies are okay, but real rape isn’t. It goes on and on.
As far as normalizing and condoning pedophilia, we need to normalize it in that we need to recognize that pedophilia or people who are pedophiles are normal and that they exist. We need to normalize their sexuality and help them not act on it. This is very important. Normalizing sexual abuse of children is not something we should ever do (and again, no evidence to suggest that child sex dolls do that). Normalizing pedophiles acknowledging their attractions and getting help to prevent them from hurting children is something we need to do.
Summary: As someone who has been sexually abused as a child, I am willing to support anything that prevents another child from being sexually abused. If that means sanctioning and providing child s

Copyright © 2016-2022 ELOVEDOLLS.COM All Rights Reserved. Sitemap