A frank, mature discussion about doll-vaginas. (nudity)

I'd say that this level of vulva-detailing is about equal to the "Frankly just a clunky sausage" level of detailing that that penides get. Note the lack of scrotum on even the most "correct" of boys. For variety, I suppose you could put some kind of dimpling on the labia majora, or even sculpt a little bit of the minora with addition/subtraction and a very fine blade, but other than that, I really don't know.

I'm interested to see how this topic pans out!

 

What say you? are slits okay, since they are just dolls? is it embarrassing that our perfect, beautiful resin children are smooth and sexless?

I don't ever take pictures of my dolls in the nude , so it doesn't really matter to me (personally) that the genitals are not perfectly accurate. Although come to think of it, I don't think that I have ever even looked this closely at my dolls' crotches; the clothes go on right away. I would hardly say a line that looks this way is "sexless." It certainly looks much more feminine than masculine.

The lack of detail in doll genitals is pretty equivalent to hands. Hands are usually much more visible, yet there are rarely any lines on the hands or finger joints.

Would a vulva be ugly, or offensive?
Not at all. The only issue I can think of is that such a delicately sculpted area could be easily damaged (similar to the reason why testicles might not really work all too well on some boy dolls).

 

i'm actually quite glad someone ELSE brought this up, haha.
I am currently comissioning a dear friend to work on my girl's vagina/vulva because i do feel, with the advancements in doll penises, the 'playing field,' as it were, need to be level. People are always modding or blushing or buying phallic attachments, merkins, what have you, to their male dolls but the 'scratch in the clay' look of the vulva is hardly ever given any attention.

In my view, both sets of genitals should be treated with the same level of interest or disinterest. Sculptors seem to favor males, and so do modifiers, and i think it has a lot to do with the taboo around female genitals being more 'private;' although, from what my friend is telling me, sculpting and attaching a tiny set of lady parts is quiiite difficult.
Should my girl's mod pan out, i plan on being extra careful not to chip or remove her new genitals for just that reason.

 

I am completely indifferent to my dolls' genitalia. If they had no genitals I'd be fine with that (and I did have a doll on an angel body for a while). As long as however their genitalia is sculpted doesn't interfere with their ability to pose or wear clothing nicely I pretty much have absolutely no interest what's down there. I'm not concerned with realism to that degree and I don't photograph my dolls nude so it's just a complete nonissue for me. More detail wouldn't offend me, but neither would less.

 

I don't think they need more than that. they are DOLLS. they do not need to have super realistic genetalias. a lot of boy dolls dont have detailed penis either. it would just be awkward in my opinion :/
and honestly, if they were super detailed it would be porn if you take a pic of your doll in that angle...

and i dont see what kind of detail should be added? when girls are just standing up it usually look pretty much like what our dolls have (unless the small lips are coming out). so you want a vagina like they have spreaded legs? Ôe

 

I wonder if there would be a danger of chipping and other damage if there were small resin labia, etc. I don't see the problem with the current slit line. Some people blush them or attach pubic wigs. As far as realism is concerned, that seems good enough to me. Real labia are not wide open for the world to see, and longer inner lips could be damaged if protruding (clothing, sitting). Think about the problems with larger male doll genitalia. It's resin, so it doesn't give or move with clothing. I think it's fine the way it is.

 

I personally have no preference to doll genitalea. In my eyes it just gets in the way of clothing (my IH boy's solid lump of resin peen is particularly annoying) and my dolls spend their time clothed anyway. In the same way as the penis being an annoying lump between the legs of my boy, a doll vulva would not be a soft, pliable thing. It would probably be too fragile to withstand the wear and tear dolls go through.
I also think sahoma rather has a point too; if they were as detailed as the real thing then arguably the level of photoshoots could become rather pornographic, which I (personally) would not be comfortable with. I much prefer just the suggestion of genitalea *nods*

Edit: To add, most doll breasts are not that realistic at all. I know my Elfdoll Tasha's breasts look like she is wearing an invisible push up bra :/. Even, say, Iplehouse Jessica's large breasts are too perky and centred to not be enhanced were she a real woman with breasts that size.

 

Leenah, I have two words for you: IDilean boys.

Personally for me, having only Yo-Sized kids at the moment... yes, my kids have genders, but it's more character-based genders than actual genders.

I don't know... BEING a girl, I personally think breasts are more... aesthetically pleasing than the 'between the legs' stuff. I mean heck... when you're trying to sexualize yourself to go out to say... a club, you normally wear low-cut or revealing tops to show off cleavage... you don't wear say... crotchless panties with a miniskirt that in reality is more like a thick belt.

I can understand having more detail down there if you're using your doll for artistic nude shots, but I think for most of our resin kids, they prefer not to feel a draft :P

 

Wondering this to,
why is such a degree of realism that important.
Especialy considering these dolls are very stylised all over(which is even more visible when you can see joints), why does this paticular part need to be so realistic on something that clearly isn't.


I don't ever take nude pictures of mine,
But honestly, I find anything more detailed on either gender verging into a creepy area.
Slits and lumps are just fine as long as they don't interfere with posing and make clothing impossible to fit.

 

I like to look at my dolls naked and sometimes photograph them.

However, I think the indented slit is a fairly accurate representation of what female genitalia look like when you're standing. You really can't see any of the inside details because they're usually covered by the labia majora. The clitoris and vaginal opening are not hanging out for all of the world to see on the majority of women, and usually are not visible unless the legs and labia are spread.

It has nothing to do with hating female genitalia or finding them ugly or preferring the penis. It's about practicality and deciding which details are worth incorporating into a sculpt. Most male bodies don't have testicles because of the lack of room between legs and resin's inability to squeeze and shift. It's the same thing here.

 

I don't quite see how it's 'offensive' for them not to be detailed... if you think about it, the only time you'd see any level of detail on a real woman is if she has her legs spread, if you look at a woman who's stood in a neutral stance all you really see is the labia anyway which is pretty much what you get with most female dolls.

Since my dolls spend most of their time clothed -and even when I do take nude pictures I don't have them sat around with their legs spread- as long as they're the right overall shape to fill out clothes correctly and pose decently I couldn't really care less if they had no genitals at all. I had one of my old dolls on a girl to boy modded body for example but I never bothered to mod him a penis because I was the only one who knew he was lacking in that department and it really made no difference to the over all look anyway.

 

I'll agree with that point as well - Some adult women, when they're standing straight up (Which seems to be the "default" for dolls), just have a sort of straight line, which is the fold between the outer labia, when the labia are big enough to cover everything else. The proportion of this "innie" configuration to the "outie" one (speaking as both a former mortuary technician in a university's cadaver lab and a sapphist) seems to be about equal.

 

Like most others have said, I think it's more of a space issue than anything. Some of those well endowed boys have trouble with pants, the poor things! My boy has a sausage shape with a teeny hole in it, and my girls have a slit. The boy may have a small groove to differentiate his testes, and my 13 girl has a hint of nipples on her moderately sized chest. I wouldn't consider any of it detailed, so to me the over all details are consistant. They've all got enough to show they are X gender, even my genderless one, without being overly sexualized and to me that's all that matters. I'd rather have the scupltors focus on things I see every day anyway, like faces and hands.

 

I'm one of those that just don't care that much about my dolls' parts. My mature boy has a tiny little lump of resin and that suits me just fine since he's hard enough to find pants for. I also have a female to male body I did myself and have no desire to ever sculpt a penis for him. He is no less of a boy to me and I don't plan to ever photo my dolls naked in any context.

I also wouldn't buy one that did have more detail, but I don't know how good it would look. I've seen a few mods for females and it looked a little strange honestly, but whatever makes you happy, you go and do it. I don't care what goes on between my dolls legs, but I know some people do.

 

I would assume sculpting a realistic looking vulva would be difficult or not very cost effective. It may be way too small to get in there and give it the detail it requires, or maybe even impossible. Maybe artists have tried and failed to make anything that looks decent and therefore just gave up?

All theories, of course. It's fun to ponder...