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

LMAO! Jenny that quote is Fabulous~!
Anyways.. now i have to contribute lol I dont see dolls having detailed sculpting as being gross or vulgar. Its kind of odd but I really like my dolls to have variety. I plan them specifically to be different heights, bust sizes, skin tones, etc because I want them all to be different. The fact that they have all had the same smooth um... genderlessness... Has kind of bugged me in the back of my mind lol I know it shouldnt really matter because they are clothed and whatnot but I want the variety, I want the full artistic glory!
Im actually kind of excited to be getting a DC girl because I hear they are a bit more detailed, and it will be different and she will probably get full-body-blushing glory! Also makes me wonder how ablerta works with that crazy body of hers O.o

So I guess that puts me in the camp of "Would like to see more detail in the sculpts" Because I really do appreciate these dolls as pieces of art.. and I dont want thier mounds of venus to feel short changed...

 

The vulvae on my female dolls make me sad. It seems absurd to put in so much effort to sculpt and engineer them, only to gloss over this detail. I don't consider it essential, but I consider a vague scratch of a vulva to be a sign of thoughtlessness. I would like it if the sculptors at least put in the idea of a clitoris the way some do a scrotum or glans penis.

 

When all is said and done, these are still just dolls at the end of the day. They are what people believe children, especially girls, love to play with. Yes, most of us in this community are in fact adults wanting to gain some form of artistic experience with a camera. But, people don't expect dolls to have highly detailed reproductive-anatomy hidden away beneath underpants & clothes. Although having said that, my boy has a moveable penis that can be posed to appear erect and comes with a lot more detailing than I would have actually expected. A lot of the other male dolls I've seen have little more than a lump of rounded resin where the penis should be. But, for some unexplained reason, Ringdoll decided - at least in their Grown male range - to have penises that can be posed to appear erect and markings of what I assume to be pubic hairs just above the crotch. Okay, so they've not gone as far as including a scrotum or anything quite as graphic. But, I wouldn't expect them to. These are still dolls, items that have been seen as children's playthings for decades. If my Barbie doll had had a detailed vagina, I'm sure my parents would have stopped me from playing with her when I was a child. Yes, BJDs are maturer "playthings" than Barbies - to a degree - but they are still just dolls when all is said & done. And, unless you're going to photograph that particular area for a mature photo-shoot, there is little point to the doll having such a detailed vagina or penis.

 

So a doll of any type should be associated with a child's toy? I suppose educational dolls and sex dolls are blasphemy then?

And why is it so terrible that a child be exposed to human anatomy exactly? A sculpted vagina does not equal pornography. Perhaps you are not aware of anatomically correct baby dolls? They teach children there is no part of their body they should be ashamed about.

 

Interesting thread. Yesterday I just happened to be carrying around my fairyland doll naked, and my parents noticed her slit. Their reaction was the same as mine, basically, "If your going to put it there, at least make it look like one." I love the doll but fairyland's girl parts just look stupid to me, no offense lol.

Its not nearly the most important think I look for when choosing a doll, but I do have appreciation for the more realistic bodies, privates included. I am a big fan of pubic hair on dolls, sadly I am afraid to do that on mine because I fear that when people accidentally see them naked, which seems to happen alot, they will think its perverted rather than artistic. :/

 

I believe they probably they just make a slit because that's the current beauty standard for vajayjays. I know in a few places there is a trend going around to have your extra skin surgically removed so that it's as plain as can be. I find it strange myself, but I guess if there were more detail on the doll it would throw me off... just because I'm so used to barely anything. (I don't have any male part dolls)

 

There is a current push in Australia for less anatomically correct dolls for teenagers than the current busty kind. I imagine this would go further with the introduction of the even more private parts of a doll. I realise that these dolls are for both adult and children hence this discussion and as of yet I have not made up my mind where I sit with it. I absolutely love Marina Bychkova dolls for their detail in an artistic sense and perhaps there arent any out there as detailed as her dolls. They are absolutely exquisite and I'm sure even more so in person. Now I see she is bringing out a resin range that I hope retain their uniqueness and dont become mass produced. Has anyone here seen any of these in person?

 

personally, i really dont understand why this is such an issue. the male genitals on bjds are rarely detailed anyway. and as people have said, you cannot see the details of female genitals unless the legs are spread. not trying to judge, but i think it is a little bit absurd/creepy to expect such detailed genitals for a doll. they are supposed to wear clothes

 

There is nothing absurd or creepy about wanting proper human anatomy on an otherwise anatomically-correct model. I would take offense to this, but really, it's pity that I feel more than anything - that there are people who find a part of their own bodies vulgar and a thing of disgust.

Den of Angels Criteria for Inclusion (rules for what is considered an on-topic doll), under Aesthetic and Content, number 3:

Emphasis on a fully rendered body sculpt.
The body must be more than just a vehicle to display clothing. Attention to anatomical detail is required, such as distinct fingers and toes, sculpted finger and toenails and muscular definition.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who finds the idea of genitals on a doll "creepy" or "absurd", should be playing with fashion dolls and not BJDs.

 

if people want their dolls to have realistic genitals, why not just buy a doll thats designed for that then? i find no shame in the human form but i just dont think its necessary to reproduce it onto a cute doll. details such as fingers and muscles are important because its what is seen most of the time. you only see the genitals if you are purposely doing so. again, i said nothing about being disgusted of human body parts. only that i think its not necessary to produce a beautiful, realistic looking doll.

 

Firstly, BJDs have a very wide range of styles. Not all BJDs can be considered "cute", nor does everyone in the hobby intend on their doll being "cute".

Secondly, I am really at a loss as to how a doll being "cute" does not mean it can have genitals. I have the Official Works book for the video game Okami, and in the commentary one of the designers talks about how he originally designed one of the characters with visible free-hanging genitals (a little boy, Momotaro). He stated that he thought it would be okay because children's genitals are cute. Actually, it's a little disturbing that - according to you - genitals are not necessary for something deemed "cute".

And I find the statement that "you only see the genitals if you are purposely doing so" highly subjective. By that logic, you can argue that you only see the behind if you are purposely doing so; you can only see the upper thighs if you are purposely doing so; you can only see the feet if you are purposely doing so; you can only see the breasts if you are purposely doing so; you can only see the arms, hands, shoulders, collar bone, knees, calves, belly button, neck, face, if you purposely doing so. It is after all up to the owner which body parts can be seen at all times.

 

you are taking what ive said very seriously.. in the end, i dont find having realistic genitals on a doll to be necessary. by "cute" i mean that the doll is a beautiful, small sculpture. i never said that every doll is supposed to look cute. i dont like my words being twisted. anyway, i dont want to have to repeat myself again. personally, i dont want my doll to have a vulva or testicles because i dont define my doll by its genitals. the genitals are not a significant factor to how i view my doll. theres not much to it...

 

If this is the case, that is perfectly acceptable, though I'm not certain why you would want to participate in this thread. There are companies that sell dolls with unisex bodies (Sugarble comes to mind) for those with a similar mindset. A doll does not have to have a gender. To me, however, if a doll is intended to have a gender, then their body should reflect that.

 

well, the topic asked for your opinion on the matter, im quite opinionated so usually i have different views than the majority.. but yeah, perhaps its just because i like very gender neutral dolls. and if im going to buy a doll that is distinctively female or male, the genitals arent a big factor (but thats just me) !

 

I had the lucky chance to see a porcelain Enchanted Doll in person. Her genitals were more realistically sculpted and blushed than most dolls I have seen. They were probably about as realistic as you can get without admittedly impractical long labia. They were still very unobtrusive (I actually didn't think about them at all until this thread). I also hope her resin dolls will have that level of detail!

In general, I prefer dolls with detailed, anatomically correct bodies. That means I like my dolls to have detailed genitals. It also means I like the rest of the body to look realistic. For example, if a doll is skinny I prefer to see the bones and muscles that would have definition on a skinny human. To me, genitals are part of the art and part of the doll. I even carved them into my Soul Doll that didn't have any. Unfortunately, my carving skills are limited and all I could do was a slit.

I can also see why not everyone would want genitals. Some people want their dolls to be more abstract or less realistic. Or it just doesn't matter to them. That's fine.

I wish companies offered more options (innie genitals, outie genitals, or no genitals). At a recent doll meetup, someone said they wished there were dolls with curvy "female" figures that had "male" genitals. There is definitely more demand than options offered.

 

Mmm. Today, when I went to collect my three-year-old daughters from daycare, amongst the toys strewn on the floor was a baby/toddler doll that had quite detailed (male) genitals. Sufficiently realistic to be clearly uncircumcised from a glance down as I stepped over it. If such a doll is uncontroversial enough to be a plaything for toddlers at daycare, then how can it be inappropriate to have reasonable representations of female genitals on a BJD? Of course, some people are more conservative about what they personally want to see, or allow their children to see, but I don't think that an argument that 'dolls don't need detailed genitals' with allusions to dolls being children's toys is at all valid an argument for what other people should or should not want or accept on their dolls - and I do think that the sexism in many knee-jerk reactions to female vs. male genitals should be challenged. Awareness is is the first step to change.

Personally, I think I would be irritated with genitals that interfered with clothing. However, like others before me on this thread, I appreciate the area being sculpted with care. I do think that women's genitals (compared to males) are given much less positive attention on average in art. Phallic sculpture and symbolism is always going to be more in-your-face because that is the nature of male bits - the feminine is always going to be more abstract and thus harder to represent or explore in physical art. In the case of BJDs, I'm still enchanted by the variety of the rest of the body and faces... more variety will never go amiss!

 

Not yet, but judging from this photo it looks like they are similar to the porcelain ones :

http://www.enchanteddoll.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/resin-poster.jpg

Personally, I like to display my dolls clothed, and I don't much care about the detail in that area, but it's true that in the case of Marina's dolls, whenever I handle them, it would be strange to see just a blank there when the rest of them are so detailed.

 

This made me laugh.

Seriously though, I agree. The male dolls are definitely more sculpted down there than the girl dolls. Some male dolls even have a urethra. :P

 

I'm not for or against it one way or another, but I recently got my first BJD, Fayette from Granado, and I was extremely surprised to see that she had sculpted labia. I'd looked and looked at BJDs and researched them and asked around for a year and a half before I bought her, and I was expecting there to just be the line. It wouldn't have bothered me if there was only a line, but being surprised by it was actually a very pleasant thing. The reason why was because to me it showed how much detail and dedication they put into making my doll. She even has a carved bellybutton, they made it an inny. So I would never mind if my girl doll didn't have anything, but seeing it there is very pleasing.

 

One thing that strikes me as unusual is that these dolls are otherwise so detailed and in some cases quite realistic that it seems that at least one company would also create more detailed genitalia.

Another doll sculptor who creates more realistic female genitalia in addition to Marina Bychkova is Dale Zentner. Not sure how many of you have seen or own one of her dolls but they also have a more detailed vulva and what appears to be painted public hair on some of them as well.