exdollofficial.com

Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm dolls

The EXDOLL company manufactures high quality, high-end and lifelike silicone dolls. They have been focused on bringing the best silicone sex doll to market since 2009. Every single doll, from the Utopia collection to the RealClone collection, manufactured by EXDOLL, are the fruits of their ingenuity, creativity, and commitment. As EXDOLL has customers in over 100 countries, they remain dedicated to achieving their original purpose of "making the customer's dreams come true". It is their honor to bring you the perfect doll. Either you want a love doll or a collectible art, they will never hesitate to make it happen for you. English Website:https://www.exdollofficial.com/

Moderator: jiayi

User avatar
AlexKnight
Senior Admin
Senior Admin
Posts: 14398
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:00 am
Location: The Netherlands, Limburg
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by AlexKnight »

With humans, there is a provable age, so size doesn't matter, she can be 50cm tall with no breasts at all, and a face like a 12 year old for all I care, she would still be an adult.

But with dolls, there is no provable intended age, so it's just the way they're shaped we have to go by. Size isn't a deciding factor, it's the general appearance.
Check out Kayla's Christmas dress by clicking here. - December 17, 2015
or have a look at Ashley's Coverdoll release by clicking here - June 13, 2015

A must-see video on Realdoll softness! Click here!
_____________________________
A Spark of Kindness may start a Fire of Love.

Here's my Doll Album, with pictures of Jenna*, Melissa*, Kayla & Ashley, and some other things: Doll Album Gallery
*I no longer have Jenna or Melissa.

User avatar
Szalinski
Doll Oracle
Doll Oracle
Posts: 7346
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by Szalinski »

Sorry about dragging this up, I thought I had answered it already. :oops:
AlexKnight wrote:I'm sure Flickr won't just display those adult-only albums to every member they have, but only to adult members, so they must have some form of age check in place, otherwise, they would open themselves up for a world of trouble, if non-adults could access adult-only content.
They (Flickr) don't: Users provide age verification when joining, and as adults they are given the choice as to what kind of material they wish to view; safe (self explanatory) moderate (nudity but nothing that would be considered pornographic) or no restrictions. Minor members do not have the option of choosing. Likewise members who post photographs must mark questionable material appropriately. Accounts are randomly checked by the Flickr staff to verify that these guidelines are followed.
And considering lots of TDF members are sensitive about their privacy, requiring credit card checking, or something like that, to verify they are an adult, would not go well, not to mention, it would create a lot more work for our volunteer staff to make sure no adult content, what so ever, would be posted on the public forums.

Also, blocking all adult content from the outside world would not do TDF, or it's advertisers any good, because essentially, the adult content is what draws in new members, because for the majority, that's what love dolls are about, sex, and not art.
The regular Doll Forum already contains sexual [doll] content! So if the system it has now is working as far as I'm concerned it can be left as is. The G rated version naturally would require no such verification as the only material allowed would be admissible for any age. As it would be a separate forum then the appropriate advertisers could be attracted to it without worries of they're shying away due to any adult content. And those who have a non-sexual side to their doll hobby could also feel welcomed.

Which is the very reason why I think there should be a G rated mirror forum that forbids adult content. Not all owners of these dolls buy them for sex, many have absolutely no sexual interest in these dolls at all. Lady Peridot is the perfect example; she almost left us because of this. It is a particular shame because most regular doll forums will not allow any type of doll other than the ones that can be bought at art shoppes or X-mart, so many of our members have no other place to go.

Why is it always me who has to point out the blatantly obvious? :roll: :mrgreen:
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
~ George Washington

User avatar
Wim
Doll Advisor
Doll Advisor
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:37 am
Location: The Underworld.
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by Wim »

Szalinski wrote:Which is the very reason why I think there should be a G rated mirror forum that forbids adult content. Not all owners of these dolls buy them for sex, many have absolutely no sexual interest in these dolls at all. Lady Peridot is the perfect example; she almost left us because of this. It is a particular shame because most regular doll forums will not allow any type of doll other than the ones that can be bought at art shoppes or X-mart, so many of our members have no other place to go.

Why is it always me who has to point out the blatantly obvious? :roll: :mrgreen:
Believe it or not, I am not here for the sexual content either. It makes me kinda feel uneasy. My doll is my companion and some day I'll make great photo shoots with her.
I'd rather ignore all the adult content here, but it's hard. Whenever I find a forum with adult size dolls (I don't call my doll a sex doll, no matter what the manufacturer made it for.) that are just for their beauty, I'll leave this forum and never look back.

I must admit that I don't feel at place on this forum, but it's the best I could find until now. I would have never bought my doll if it wasn't for this forum.
________________________________________________
“Illusion is the first of all pleasures”

User avatar
rick2604
Contributing Poster
Contributing Poster
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by rick2604 »

some dolls are for purely companionship and artistic purposes.
some are purely for sex
some are actually both and become important parts of the doll lover's life.
MP Tomini has sexual function by why in the hell ruin a $6000 doll for some "alternative" desire?
Its more fun to see how long it takes till someone figures out she isnt real. Lots of fun sometimes.
Jewel petite? another story altogether. to me the age is in the mind of the person looking.
she can be a really cute 22 year old to someone who understands Japanese culture or a 12 year old to
an American looking for a reason to control another person's life.
All I know is she is an awesome doll who is often in my Living room for all to admire. Most admire, some want to know
how they can have thier own. Very very few find her or my Artie creepy. When I know someone is coming, I pose them on the couch watching a movie.
First time visitors dont realize they arent my kids watching TV.

User avatar
Staraway
Doll Mentor
Doll Mentor
Posts: 1336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:00 am
Location: upside down at 11:34
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by Staraway »

Now if only people would stop making themselves look so darn young!!
:drinking:

I like tiny teeters, little bodies, and youthful features ON ADULTS! And, apparently so do ADULTS!?! UH..?

This is why there are breast reductions, lip enlargements etc.. to mimic youthful vibes.

This is fantasy!

..and dolls aren't for sex if you want to wax intellectual about it, I would say they are for a sexual type of masturbation that is safer or healthier, or just more fantasy fulfilling!

..so..only big titted, big jawed women, with a deep intelligent brow! No innocence! The experienced look..

:haha4: :haha4: :haha4:

And, on companionship without the simulated intercourse, I have considered making up some way of putting an android device in the dolls head so she can hook up to a t.v. like in Chobits. Using microphones and voice responses this would be a big enhancement and even give a utility purpose to the 'friend' doll.

I get a lot of companionship from dolls (small and large), and I hope people will lighten up some on the presentation of fantasy through the doll world.

I AGREE TOTALLY that CHILDREN dolls should not be portrayed sexually!

I also believe that a cultured person who is open minded can act out a 'safe' sexual fantasy with a more youthful doll!

I guess the bottom line, for me, is that WE DECIDE who our doll IS! There is no AGE to a DOLL, just a representation and those who review that image and make an assumption!

And, of course, the bottom line for the forum is what the moderators apply to it's course, and I am in total agreement with them.

..hurts a little to know that work has disappeared or is unavailable to decide for myself upon..

Anywho.. this site is still AWESOME.. and I'm sure they did the right thing!!
:shakefist:

:haha4:

P.S. I love Air Girl Usahane dolls..
:evilbat:
:morning:
:plaidskirt:
:evidence:
;-P( | )q-;

Dreams are where life goes to die
Life is where dreams go to die

User avatar
Nescio50
Site Manager - CoverDoll
Site Manager - CoverDoll
Posts: 23441
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: In TLC, The Low Countries, surrounded by dolls
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by Nescio50 »

Staraway wrote:I guess the bottom line, for me, is that WE DECIDE who our doll IS! There is no AGE to a DOLL, just a representation and those who review that image and make an assumption!
I wish this could be true, but as soon as legal authorities are involved, it isn't :(

User avatar
ToucanPlay
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 4:46 pm
Location: Eastern US
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by ToucanPlay »

You're right, the "legal authorities" are crazy and who invites crazy into a den of doll lovers?

Doll definition: Small-scale figure of a human being. A sex doll is a type of sex toy in the size and shape of a sexual partner for aid in masturbation. Now, try drawing an imaginary line between perception and reality and then throw in "legally underage."

Found this in a search:
It's illegal to purchase sex toys in Alabama yet, in Washington state, it's totally legal to eff an animal like an animal, as long as it weighs less than 40 lbs. What, fatty farm pets don't deserve some love?

Nothing but crazy laws and the crazy people who make and enforce them. TDF is in a difficult position by human nature. I'm afraid it's Catch-22.
"Big things have small beginnings." - Prometheus

eclaire
Contributing Poster
Contributing Poster
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by eclaire »

I'm no lawyer, however, I have taken college classes in law, politics, and investigation/interrogation. I believe I've learned enough from these classes to make an educated guess about the legality of the sexually functional 132 cm dolls from DS doll according to U.S. Law.

There are two laws that may be cited if one were to prosecute an owner and user of the doll. The PROTECT Act of 2003, and Title 18 U.S. Code Chapter 110, any crimes pertaining to child pornography as child pornography is defined by § 2256: Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256

“child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

“minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;

“identifiable minor”—
(A) means a person—

(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.

The PROTECT Act of 2003 does not contain any legal provisions prohibiting the private sexual use of an object that may or may not be considered by some as a "minor". The exception, I think, is if the object is "indistinguishable" from an actual minor, a real person. Then I think it would fall under child pornography statutes. These may not be limited to photos, but real life simulation is probably included.

However, we can all agree that though the 132 cm doll does look young, it does not look like a real person. And that is why I believe it is safe to say that ownership and use it would not fall under either child abuse, sexual offenses involving minors, nor child pornography laws. The exception would be if you made actual attempts to represent this doll as a minor, or took photographs of it involving sexually explicit conduct where it appears to be representing a minor. Then you would be arrested as a pedophile, and the doll and the images of it (as long as it doesn't look like a real minor), would merely be used as evidence for the pedophilia charges. The charges would not be for the dolls or images of them, they would just be used as evidence.

The case provided ctalon, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/ ... -jail-bait, shows this as well. The feds prosecuted this person for online trafficking of child pornography. The dolls they found during their search is merely evidence used to prove that the person is guilty of crimes involving child pornography. There are no charges against this person for possessing child-like inflatable sex dolls because the dolls do not look like real persons.

During investigations, sexual deviance, and evidence of it, is only considered if it relates to an actual crime being investigated. You do not get charged for having the sexual deviance, or evidence of it. You get charged with the crime, and the sexual deviance, and evidence of sexual deviance, is merely used as evidence to prosecute you for an actual crime. The dolls, as long as they don't look like real persons, and this means indistinguishable from a real person according to the definition, would only be confiscated and used as evidence if you've committed a crime that relates to it. At least, this is as far as I am aware and what my classes have taught me.

So in the end, as long as you're not a pedophile, trying to represent the doll as a minor, taking sexually explicit photographs of it where it looks as though it represents a minor, or not involved with anything that has to do with child pornography, your private sexual use of this young looking doll is not illegal, nor is it legal to obtain any information about your private usage of it without your consent due to privacy protection laws.

I am in the process of ordering one. So I can let you know if I experience any troubles with it or not. I don't expect to though. And don't worry, I'm not a pedophile. I'm probably a lot younger than most of you (college aged). This doll looks much more like many of my fellow college students than children, especially the pretty ladies from China, South Korea, and Taiwan. Plus, the 132 cm doll is the only one I can afford (138+ is too expensive), and I don't have very much room in my small apartment, so this is a better option for storage purposes as well.

By the way, I think the exception to what I said is if you live in Alabama. I hear all sex toys are illegal in that state. But again, you'd only be prosecuted for having a sex toy, not having a sex toy that looks young.

User avatar
Nescio50
Site Manager - CoverDoll
Site Manager - CoverDoll
Posts: 23441
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: In TLC, The Low Countries, surrounded by dolls
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by Nescio50 »

eclaire wrote:However, we can all agree that though the 132 cm doll does look young, it does not look like a real person. And that is why I believe it is safe to say that ownership and use it would not fall under either child abuse, sexual offenses involving minors, nor child pornography laws.
The manufacturer has stated that the 132cm doll represents a minor (less than 18yo). TDF is governed by the laws of Canada. Canadian law is quite restrictive on this issue. Also UK law is important to TDF.
We implement Rule 1 of our Rules of Conduct strictly.

eclaire
Contributing Poster
Contributing Poster
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by eclaire »

I apologize. I did not say what I said as a challenge or opposition to the decisions made regarding the doll and the forum. I understand that this is an international forum, and different legislative bodies must be considered. I also respect the fact that the decision is at least a precautionary measure to prevent legal and moral disputes. I only provided what I said because people were asking about its legality in the U.S. and requested a lawyer to provide an opinion.

Also, I am unaware of the manufacturer claiming that the doll represents a minor. I have not read this on their website, only that the doll represents an anime or cartoonish form of the human body. If the manufacturer really uses this doll to represent a minor, I would like to know where they say this.

EDIT: I know that they've said that the 100 cm doll is a child-style doll. But I've not seen anything that the 132 cm doll is supposed to represent a minor. I'm not sure if you were referring to the 100 cm doll or both the 100cm doll and the 132 cm doll since this post is also about the 100 cm doll as well. Of course, I was not referring to the 100 cm doll (I actually forgot it existed xD). I haven't seen anything that would imply that the 100 cm doll has ever been available as a sex doll either.

In the end, nothing I said should be used as a challenge to your decisions regarding these dolls and the forum :)

User avatar
Nescio50
Site Manager - CoverDoll
Site Manager - CoverDoll
Posts: 23441
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: In TLC, The Low Countries, surrounded by dolls
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by Nescio50 »

DS Dolls told TDF Management that the 100cm and 132cm DS Dolls are modeled to have the appearance of a non-adult.

User avatar
AlexKnight
Senior Admin
Senior Admin
Posts: 14398
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:00 am
Location: The Netherlands, Limburg
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by AlexKnight »

They don't say it in direct words on their site, but by reading this portion on their order page, it's pretty clear what they mean:
And according to the local law, 132 and 138cm manneequins may not available for where you live. please confirm it before make an order, and please do not use our dolls for any pornographic purpose. Our company will not be liable for any ethical and legal issues resulting therefrom.
and on the 132cm and 138cm detail pages, they say this:
if like to order a sex doll, please confirm that have this doll is not illegal by the local law where you live.
They officially only sell the 132cm and 138cm as non-sex mannequins, you can't select a sex function for those dolls on their English order page, but they do offer it "under the table", and on their Chinese site.
Check out Kayla's Christmas dress by clicking here. - December 17, 2015
or have a look at Ashley's Coverdoll release by clicking here - June 13, 2015

A must-see video on Realdoll softness! Click here!
_____________________________
A Spark of Kindness may start a Fire of Love.

Here's my Doll Album, with pictures of Jenna*, Melissa*, Kayla & Ashley, and some other things: Doll Album Gallery
*I no longer have Jenna or Melissa.

eclaire
Contributing Poster
Contributing Poster
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by eclaire »

They don't say it in direct words on their site, but by reading this portion on their order page, it's pretty clear what they mean:

Quote:
And according to the local law, 132 and 138cm manneequins may not available for where you live. please confirm it before make an order, and please do not use our dolls for any pornographic purpose. Our company will not be liable for any ethical and legal issues resulting therefrom.


and on the 132cm and 138cm detail pages, they say this:
Quote:
if like to order a sex doll, please confirm that have this doll is not illegal by the local law where you live.
Before I say anything, I want you to know that I'm not saying anything to be argumentative or challenging, I'm just trying to figure out more about this issue.

I always thought they said this because some local legislative bodies have broad laws that would make even pornography of real 18+ Asian women illegal just because they look underage like the infamous "small breast" bans. More like a warning than a declaration. The request to not use them in pornography I thought was their way of trying to cover themselves from possible laws suits from those certain legislative bodies, as the following sentence appears to be further stating the letter of the previous sentence. I don't see how this declares, explicitly nor implicitly, that the 132 cm doll represents a minor. Plus, if this is truly a concern, then why not ban the 138 cm doll as well? Or did you and you just haven't said so in this post? I think this conversation would extend to the 138 cm doll as well if that message is truly your concern, but so far I've been led to believe that its limited to the 132 and 100 cm dolls? :/

But if what Nescio says is true, and the manufacturer actually told you guys that its supposed to represent a minor, then...
Then why has this whole conversation about whether or not the 132 cm doll looks non-adult and not because the manufacturer said its supposed to be non-adult? Curious...

EDIT:

I think I found the message that Nescio was referring to thanks to AlexKnight's post earlier in this thread:

This is AlexKnight's post:
First of all, we have not singled out Mexdollover, it's just unfortunate, he was one of the few, who shared pictures of this doll.

Also, the intended age is not subjective in this case, as the manufacturer has stated, these dolls are too young for TDF, as shown here: viewtopic.php?f=143&t=40305&p=459072#p459072 but back then, they were said to only be available as non-sex dolls, which is the very reason an exception was made to allow them. If we had known then, they were also available as sex dolls, the 132cm dolls would never have been allowed.

TDF has never allowed child-like sex dolls.
This is the post the link he provided goes to...
Hi everybody

Thank for all of you.

and Sorry for the pictures of 132cm and 100cm doll.
they are not sex doll, just silicone mannequin, but they look too young.

I will not post the pictures of 132cm and 100cm on TDF anymore, Thanks for reminding.


ps: hope you like our dolls
Again this sounds like their concern for other people thinking that it may not be non-adult (because of its looks), not a declaration that the 132 cm doll actually is supposed to represent a minor...

Ofcourse, I'm not challenging your decision to ban these dolls. But I'm glad we're able to discuss this because you had me believed that they explicitly (or implicitly) said that the 132 cm doll is supposed to represent a minor, but according to what they really said, it's not necessarily true.

User avatar
AlexKnight
Senior Admin
Senior Admin
Posts: 14398
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:00 am
Location: The Netherlands, Limburg
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by AlexKnight »

If they say a doll looks too young for TDF, that can only mean one thing, they don't need to declare it.
Knowing the underage bit isn't as big an issue in Asian society as it is in western society, it wouldn't be illogical for them to try to touch that market.

Also, looking at the way the dolls are represented on their website, the pictures don't really emphasize adult-hood.

And yes, the 138cm DS Doll is also not allowed, because it is based on the 132cm doll, just 6cm taller.
Check out Kayla's Christmas dress by clicking here. - December 17, 2015
or have a look at Ashley's Coverdoll release by clicking here - June 13, 2015

A must-see video on Realdoll softness! Click here!
_____________________________
A Spark of Kindness may start a Fire of Love.

Here's my Doll Album, with pictures of Jenna*, Melissa*, Kayla & Ashley, and some other things: Doll Album Gallery
*I no longer have Jenna or Melissa.

eclaire
Contributing Poster
Contributing Poster
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm do

Post by eclaire »

Any sentence can have different meanings given the context and circumstances (even this one). That's the beauty of the English language and what makes it perfect for poetry.

They didn't actually say that it looks too young for TDF, they just say that it looks too young. Didn't they say this after some discussion over the appearance of the doll as well? Sounds to me like they're again expressing concern for people thinking that it looks too young and that they're just trying to follow the rules.

If some one was allowed to post pictures of people on the forum for example, and they started posting pictures of a young looking woman who was actually 18+, but no one knew her actual age. The same discussion would be going on. And just like TDF taking precautionary measures to avoid legal or moral disputes over the content of their website, so too would the poster of those pictures feel obliged to do the same about his content that he submits to the forum for the sake of his reputation on the forum. And he/she would say something like, "I'm sorry for these pictures, the girl looks too young". But that doesn't mean that the female in those pictures is actually underage. Nor does the poster imply that the pictures portray an underage person. The poster is merely expressing his concern for the people on the forum and his reputation on the forum. The same thing appears to be going on here.

Another example, take something along the lines of a Jewel Petite or nano doll, who some on the forum may think looks like a minor. If the manufacturer has said specifically that those dolls are supposed to be adults, and TDF management still takes precautionary measures to ban all photos of them on the forum, does that mean that TDF management is implying that the dolls are actually supposed to represent minors even though the manufacturer has claimed otherwise? Of course not. For the rule is "photos of any dolls that may be PERCEIVED as under the age of 18 years whether clothed or not are considered in bad taste and will not be allowed." Any doll that TDf claims is perceivable to be under age doesn't mean that TDF is claiming that they actually are underage, they're just claiming that they can be perceived as underage.

So, when Doll Sweet claims that their doll can be (or has been) perceived as underage, how does it imply that they also mean that their doll is actually underage?

Maybe this example might be better. Take a young girl, or boy, who is 21 but looks to some people like they're 16. They want to go buy some beer and they are asked for their IDs. The policy on that here in America is if the person is perceived to be under the age of 40, then they have to show their ID in order to avoid the sale of alcohol to minors. This person may get offended and say "I'm the legal age, you don't need to ID me." The clerk should respond by saying "You just look too young". This doesn't mean that the clerk is saying, or implying that he actually thinks that the person is too young, he is just expressing his concern over the rules he has to follow. The same thing appears to be going on here with Doll Sweet when they say that their doll looks too young.

Also, I'm not sure what photos on their website you could be referring to when you said that their photos represents the 132 cm doll in a non-adult manner. I think I did see a couple of pictures where one of them was holding a teddy bear. Maybe that's what you're referring to? I mean, even pictures of them playing in the park (swinging on swing sets, sliding on slides, ect) is something that I've seen adults do too. My ex girlfriend would take a picture of herself holding a teddy bear any day and she's 25 years old. I've seen other adult women as old as 28 take photos of themselves hugging teddy bears or playing in parks. So why does the doll have to represent a minor instead of one of these women who loves teddy bears or playing in parks? Its not something limited to child-hood.

It would take something more solid to label something as representation of a minor. Something like a picture of the doll in a cheerleader outfit that says "Junior High" on it. Or a picture of the doll playing with toys...

Locked

INFORMATIONS