X

rule 34 sex doll Relevant Information

(23 People Likes) Wouldn't a battle between Hulk and Superman severely damage if not outright destroy the multiverse?

l there is, in their respective Universes.
Even in the most dire of circumstances (without an extenuating and amplifying technology, i.e. Infinity Gauntlet
, Cosmic Cube
, Heart of the Universe
, the Ultimate Nullifier
or the M’Krann Crystal
) could a battle between these two titans ever endanger the ENTIRE Universe, let alone the collection of entire universes which comprise whatever passes for a Multiverse embodying both of these comic universes and their related cosmic timelines/realities/parallel dimensions.
While these two entities comprise what are arguably two of the most potent of the types of limited reality-altering heroes, entities who shape reality mostly by their unconscious force of will, neither could summon the will or have ever demonstrated the capacity to extinguish even the tiniest star, let alone the entirety of a galaxy, or the subsequent destruction of a galactic group.
If you send me a picture of either Superman or the Hulk manhandling a gravitational singularity
(yes, such pictures exist) I will denounce it as allegorical hyperbole and an example of their unconscious reality-manipulation. (Meaning, they are as strong as their plots demands them to be - and just how science-deficient most comic books are.)
For the record, we technically have had one of the most powerful versions of the Hulk, the Green Scar (colloquially known as World War Hulk) face off against a Marvel-analog version of Superman known as the Sentry. In their titanic struggle they didn’t even manage to destroy an entire city.
Was this either of them going full out? Probably not. The planet most assuredly would not have enjoyed the results of that energy output. Still don’t see the entire Universe in any particular danger, though…
Real Science comparisons to put the Universe to the proper scale
Why I feel confident the Universe can take the strain is simple. For all of their incredible power, they pale before truly incredible energies we take for granted all the time: Like the sun. I have already explained how puny the Hulk’s powers are in relationship to the sun, but if you’re interested in how stars work and how the Hulk disappears in a greasy cloud of angry smoke, try this on for size: Would launching the Hulk into the Sun kill him?
Compare the size of the Earth to the size of the sun:
The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it.
Next:
Compare the size of the sun to the size of the Milky Way Galaxy (where we live)
The Milky Way
is a barred spiral galaxy
that has a diameter usually considered to be about 100,000–120,000 light-years
but may be 150,000–180,000 light-years. The Milky Way is estimated to contain 100–400 billion stars
. There are likely at least 100 billion planets
in the Milky Way.
The Solar System is located within the disk, about 27,000 light-years from the Galactic Center
, on the inner edge of one of the spiral-shaped concentrations of gas and dust called the Orion Arm
.
Our puny galaxy when compared to other larger, more impressive, nay, shall I say majestic galaxies.
For comparison, the Milky Way
is believed to contain a mere 100 billion stars (that's a lot, but not compared to a trillion). This brings us to the main point of this article – IC 1101. IC 1101
is the single largest galaxy that has ever been found in the observable universe. Futurism - Jan 17, 2016
It’s simply too much to imagine (the complete destruction of the Universe) happening in any kind of real way outside of comic (and science) fiction.
A flat universe of theoretically infinite size should be beyond their ability to affect in its entirety, because the forces they manipulate would be limited by the speed of light.
So let’s assume a fight between these two could somehow cause a catast Realistic Sex Doll ophic rip in the space-time continuum, sufficient to trigger a second Big Bang, releasing a new universe, rewriting the old one, this effect would be limited and travel slower than the expansion of the first theoretically infinite universe already in existence.
Even if we take into consideration the theory of inflation, the new Universe should in theory never catch up in size to the older, already-existing “infinite” universe. Creating an effect like a Matryoshka doll except with separate, smaller Universes embedded within each other.
A matryoshka doll (Russian
: матрёшка;) also known as a Russian nesting doll, or Russian doll, is a set of wooden dolls
of decreasing size placed one inside another. The name "matryoshka" (матрёшка), literally "little matron", is a diminutive
form of Russian female first name "Matryona" (Матрёна) or "Matriosha".
A set of matryoshkas consist of a wooden figure which separates, top from bottom, to reveal a smaller figure of the same sort inside, which has, in turn, another figure inside of it, and so on.
DC and Marvel writers would experience seizures as they have to explain how a universe, inside a universe, replaces an existing universe at the speed of light and how some parts of the Universe are disappearing while other parts remain unaware of this transformation, unless they possess faster than light sensor (and/or) traveling technology. Then they watch as a wave of primordial destruction erases parts the prime universe with a second, more energetic one. Eventually.
But don’t think Marvel’s writers haven’t tried it. (Masterfully, I might add.)
Marvel’s Annihilation Saga postulated exactly this thread: An encroaching universe (the Negative Zone) was invading ours, with the goal of erasing and replacing our Universe with theirs, claiming they were retaking what once belonged to them. A phenomenon called the Annihilation Wave swept away anything in its path. Comprised of monstrous species, it was the precursor to an energy which would replace our universe with a new one at a border between both Universes called the Crunch.
The Kyln
: A power-plant at the edge of the Universe, providing power to millions of aliens species across the galaxy, harvesting the energy of an expanding Universe and imprisoning the most dangerous criminals from thousands of worlds. Lifespan of average criminal is three solar years… Mind blown!
No. Superman and the Hulk in their peak forms using their peak abilities could not destroy a star, let alone a galaxy. A Universe is out of the question.
Even if they were augmented further by the world-shattering, reality-altering power of a being whose alignment with the powers of the Universe are far greater than their own, say by Galactus or another of his cosmic brethren, even then, they could not destroy a single universe on their own.
In Marvel’s comics, it takes singular beings on the scale of The One-Above-All, the Beyonders
, or the manipulation of titanic technologies (see above) to destroy an entire reality let alone all of the Multiversal realities in a single instance.
In the (less than excellent, in my opinion) Secret Wars II, The Beyonders, cosmically powerful beings, each godlike in their own right, existing outside the Multiverse as we understand it want to find out what happens when every universe (they don’t inhabit) is destroyed at once. To that end, they destroy the abstract entities which comprise the intelligent manifestations of the Universe in a massacre designed to destroy the Multiverse.
It’s a matter of scale: It took beings capable of creating entire Universes (the Beyonders), to attempt to destroy the Multiverse. Superman and the Hulk are completely out of their league, even on their very best depicted days.
Yes, Silver Age Superboy towed planets and Worldbreaker Hulk could destroy them with his world-shattering waves.
Now go back and look at how tiny and insignificant the Earth is in comparison to the size of a star (see above), then compared to the size of a galaxy and you realize just how tiny both of those godlike men really are in the universal scheme of things.
When the dial can be scaled toward beings whose capacity can create or destroy entire Universes like the Beyonders
can, it is hard to remember beings like Superman or the Hulk even exist.
Questions about the Cosmic Order:
Why did The One-Above-All let the Marvel multiverse be destroyed by the Beyonders?
Who is the most powerful being in the Marvel franchise?
In an all-out struggle, who wins: the Marvel Universe or the DC Universe?
Is the Council of Godheads stronger than the Celestials?
Is the god-being, Yahweh, depicted in the Ghost Rider series, the same entity as Marvel's The-One-Above-All? (a primer on the origin of the Gods of the Marvel Un

(38 People Likes) How does inflation targeting work?

s is available. And they do a pretty good job… until they don’t
Inflation targeting is a monetary policy regime in which a central bank has an explicit target inflation rate for the medium term and announces this inflation target to the public. The assumption is that the best that monetary policy can do to support long-term growth of the economy is to maintain price stability.
It sounds pretty straightforward and it’s goals are definitely the right onea. But, it’s really hard to do because managing inflation is ridiculously complicated.
I think of inflation as a variable, uneven “Type 2” Chaotic system.
Variable - refers to the fact inflation isn’t governed by any “fundamental” Fiat currencies (like the dollar have no intrinsic value (they can only be valued relative to another currency). So, there is nothing to prevent a merchant from doubling his price at will (other than market forces, which are the gasoline rather than the control here)
Uneven - the next problem with targeted inflation is that it affects different asset classes differently. So for example, if the stock market is increasing dramatically, people may take their marginal dollars and use them to purchase stocks rather than to buy homes. As a result, the equities market would increase at a faster rate than the price of homes. The problems with this are many and nuanced enough to warrant their own question. But, to keep this short for now, let’s stipulate that the short version of the issue here is
the Fed has few tools to effectively manage the sector bubbles in a weak economy and
sector bubbles have a disproportionately negative impact on people without discretionary dollars. I.e. working class or “labor“ and can create some real problems
The type II chaotic system refers to a system governed by chaos principles (the most important feature of chaos for this discussion is that small, even negligible events may have an exponentially large affect on the system in a very short time,
Type 1 chaotic system is naturally chaotic. So, think about the weather. It doesn't matter what we think about the weather, it’s going to do what is going to do.)
But, type 2 system is self-aware and self referential In other words, it’s chaos derives from the fact that people beleive there is inflation in the system. That belief can cause inflation…. just like inflation can cause inflation…. or a shock to commodity prices…. or a bubble in a sector or…
The point of this is - inflation is fundamentally unpredictable.
So, targeting inflation is really hard because:
Asset values are variable. Meaning, it takes a long time to move a little and no time at all to move a lot. Pricing levels are arbitrary
It’s unevenness means to target inflation requires you to take the average of a bunch of sectors that are growing at different rates. Think about the housing crisis of 2008. Back in 2004, did the Fed see housing prices rise? Sure. But, across the broader economy…. they were concerned about deflationary pressures stemming from a weak post 9/11 recovery…. They didn’t foresee that within 2 years housing would almost destroy the entire financial system
And asset prices are chaotic. Who would have thought a demand for mortgage losses would tip housing prices to a depression era drop? Or a destabilization in Thailand would gap equity volatility and cause a $100B fund that few people had heard of to put the entire world’s financial system at risk?
Centr

(70 People Likes) Why is importing or possessing a child sex doll a crime, for example in the UK and many states in the US?

’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

(50 People Likes) Are there any stores in the US that sell blow-up dolls of Donald Trump?

h a spoon. He is already a blowhard. Any store that would sell that disgusting item, would be out of business before they open the door. I hope he starts an I Trump blow-up store to add to his failu

(82 People Likes) Why are vibrators acceptable but sex dolls are shunned by the public?

of these sex toys and ask the question “Why are realistic dildos considered more acceptable then realistic men’s masturbators?”. This is a good question to ask because they are similar products.
When Did Dildo’s Get A Bad Reputation?
Dildos were one of the very first sex toys ever invented. When sex toys were first becoming popular they were used and recommended by medical professional like Doctors and General Practitioners to treat hysteria. Women’s sex toys then began to get a bad reputation when they were advertised in adult magazines which were considered at the time to be “over sexualised content”. Sex toys were then mass produced, made affordably and then advertised through other methods of media like online sex toy shops.
There Are Sex Toys That Are Realistic And Non-Realistic
It always does come down to person choice whether someone wants something which is made to look realistic or non-realistic. Realistic looking and feeling sex toys are often made to reproduce the feelings of real sexual intercourse whereas non-realistic sex toys can be ergonomically d rule 34 sex doll signed to reach pinpoint erogenous zones and have other added features.
Did You Know The Adult Lifestyle Company Fleshlight Made Mannequins First?
If we look at the story behind Steve Shubin, the man who created Fleshlights we will find that the first two years of his journey he had patented and produced “mannequins with sexual applications”, he had tried to sell these originally but decided he needed to find out more information about what the customer needs. One of his business friends wanted a mens masturbator but when he was offered a mannequin he said “Oh, no, no, no. Please don't do that. I've got children, I could never bring something like that into my house." Steve Shubin discovered that to make men’s masturbators more functional he needed to create something handheld which people could use discretely and something they could take with them when they travelled. Though he still needed the product to feel and look realistic so he then created the Fleshlight.
Fighting The Stigma
Sex dolls and mannequins can be used for enhancing people’s levels of sexual wellness. They are especially helpful for people who have high sex drives, aid men who have partners who are pregnant or disabled. These days there are a lot of documentaries and movies which explore the use of sex dolls. There are also a lot of ac

Copyright © 2016-2021 ELOVEDOLLS.COM All Rights Reserved.