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

Personally...I don't care either way what my dolls COME with so far as the sculpting there goes. I like to do nude photography with my dolls...or the ones who are meant to be 'adult' in appearance, anyway. But at the same time, I haven't yet taken photos from any angle where the slit, lack of, or anything else between the legs would be overly visible. I've thought about how to deal with the genitals on my male and females dolls, and have come to the conclusion that when I have the time, and supplies, to tackle them, I'll have to take them one doll at a time, like everything else with them, as they are all individuals. Some won't get much beyond blushing of what is already there, others will be more detailed, others will have some minor modification done to the base sculpt...some will have pubic hair, some won't, and some will have groomed, short pubic hair. They'll all have the type, and level of detail, that feel right for the character. Not based on being male, or female, or what the base sculpt already had, but on the character.

*shrugs* Those are just my personal tastes for my personal dolls.

 

- by Kiyakotari

For those who may not have gone searching for details or be familiar with the DT body: The Dollstown body does indeed have a more "fleshy", rounded groin area that looks fairly natural. But they can do that because the pelvis and thigh tops (the "thigh balls") are all one solid piece, so the next moving piece of resin, the cylinder of the thighs, actually start further down. So, without the stress of moving thigh-balls in recessed hip sockets, etc., they could get more sculptural than body designs with just a narrow strip of resin there.

 

It makes sense to me that a dolls breasts would be far more details then an vaginal parts. All things cosidered with how people use them for taking photos or the clothes you can buy or make for them mimicking our own. Well, Breasts are a very visable part of a womans body even when fully clothed. But as staed in posts before. If you're looking at a woman standing up naked you're just not going to see a whole lot of whats between her legs! So why would the sculpt it?
The only purpose I could see to needing those parts fully defined would be for taking much more risque or questionable photographs. After all, aside from the mons and labia majora....you just don't see much.

 

I honestly wouldn't care for a more detailed vulva on my female dolls. I can only imagine it as extra detail that's so understated that it might as well not be there, or so pronounced that it hinders sitting or protrudes through clothes strangely - I've heard about male sculpts with genitalia obtrusive enough to cause them to rock back and forth while sitting and for my purposes I would much rather sacrifice realistic genitalia for more realistic sitting/drape of clothing. As long as there is a vague semblance on genitalia, I'm happy.
I'm really not interested in super detailed genitalia, it's such a minor part of what defines male and female silhouettes anyway, in my opinion. I would much prefer more attention being given to the shape of breasts/overall curves of the body - torpedo boobs are much more noticeable and jarring to the eyes than a simplified vulva imho.

 

Non of my female dolls have genitals and it has never bothered me - I didn't actually take notice until now actually. I guess it is because I don't expect that level of realism. My focus is more about how they will look when they are clothed and what kind of character they will put forth.

 

I actually found it weird and almost perverted that my friend's Kid Delf has more slit definition (front all the way to the back) than my curvy YID girl, who has little more than a fingernail nick between her legs.

I prefer attention to detail on things that can be seen in basic standing positions. This includes but is not limited to Boobies, tummies, booties, weenies, and tootsies. Little more than a tiny hint of lip separation is usually visible on a standing woman, and anything more than that on a doll is academic, if not obstructive to motion.

 

I do not care if my dolls have very detailed genitals or not. (But for the purpose of this thread, I honestly would rather they NOT.) As have been previously expressed, as long as they are able to convey the idea that they are male, or female, that's good enough for me. Maleness can be conveyed by a flat chest, broader shoulders and narrower hips, while feminity is usually done by curves and of course, breasts.

 

I prefer realism for my dolls, but, as was said before, only labia majora are visible in most cases while women stand (this means many women, me included).
I own i-Doll Byul, she has wide hips, so there is enough space to make rather plump bits, thanks Andro for that! The rest can be painted.
If photographer does not plan to take closeup photos of vagina basic blushing is pretty enough.

 

I pretty much agree with this. I like the hint of something more than seeing all details. There's only one doll in my collection where I modded the genital area and that's my girl-to-boy mod. I didn't even bother to blush that area to match with the resin, because how my doll looks when dressed is what matters most to me. I wouldn't want my girls to have the mentioned camel-toe, so the way girl dolls are down there at the moment is fine with me.

Feel free to wish for more realistic genitals, but when I was a young girl, I was taught as part of sex education class that vaginas come in different sizes and shapes, but they are all normal. All the girls in class were told that any (future) bed partner should feel special if they get to see yours and should they dare to say something negative about your genitals, then put your clothes back on and tell that person to get out.
I have never looked at my girl dolls and thought they looked wrong down there.

 

Personally I don't see how nudity automatically equates to pornography, but whatever.

I have to admit I've wondered the same - why more female dolls don't have just a little more detail between the legs. Most of the time it does seem like it's just a simple scratch without any definition whatsoever. As an artist, I've grown fairly indifferent to genitalia shown in non-sexual ways, they're just a part of the human body after all. Everybody has 'em. Though it's not like they need to be super detailed.

As for why breasts are typically sculpted the way they are, many people sand down nipples if they're too prominent since they have a tendency of looking like the doll is very obviously freezing cold through more form-fitting tops. Also, you wouldn't want your doll to look like she was running around without a bra would you? At least 90% of the time, our dolls are clothed. It may well be the same concern for doll vaginas. Though I would think most of it would be sculpted a little bit inward rather than protruding...

I agree that part of it may be due to a vagina being seen as more 'private', or just sculpting/casting/jointing concerns. On the other hand, most times when we do see nude female dolls (resin comparisons, posing, etc.) it's not an area that's easily seen in detail. Whereas males are much more visible.

 

I like there´s finally discussion about girl doll parts as there for sure is lots of talk about the boy dolls! But still, I think the sort of a slit is enough for a girl doll to have, as well as some sort of bump to be penis is enough for my opinion. That would be kind of unnecessary detail to add for the sculptors, and even though many of us wouldn´t mind, I think there is lots of people that find too exact reality disturbing, and I think that´s one of the reasons for doll firms to keep the dolls having sort of "neutral look" instead of very accurate.

I myself mostly have child dolls (petite and tiny size), and would feel a bit uncomfortable and even odd if there would be very realistic baby vagina. That would feel inappropriate for a child doll - who would show in pics or watch so closely a child or even child doll? I think that kind of realism isn´t needed. For a child doll I don´t mind the slit or bump existing, and don´t feel bad at all to have a genderless body either.

I used to have second hand msd doll, that arrived me with painted pubic hair and blushing. Must say, I didn´t like it at all, as the doll´s character was girl in early teens, for sure not a sexual character. I wiped it all off and felt much better. Then though, I own two lovely little ladies of Domadoll, and still they´re just 29cm tall, they´re fully women without a question. With them it seems just fine to have the lady parts though I still haven´t blushed them or wouldn´t show them in photos too much.

By the way, Domadoll girls do have quite a ladyish genitalia, it does show in front of standing doll much more than I´ve used to see in other dolls, and I think the shape is also a bit more than just a babyish slit. They do have also this lovely, curvy and more realistic body shape - adorable plump tummy and some extra on their waist, chubby thighs and also their breasts are more normal shaped and natural looking size compared the body, so it´s no wonder that they also have a hint more realistic genitalia than many other dolls.

// Must add something, though a bit off-topic maybe. (Sorry if it´s too off topic.) I have seen the Enchanted Doll porcelain ball jointed dolls in photos, and they do have really realistic and openly visible genital parts. I think these dolls are wonderful, but that much of detail in bjd would be a too much, still.

 

The mini girl I used to have had a very boxy looking slit which did bug me a little. I don't think the girls need a ton of detail (there isn't much to see when some girls are in a neutral pose), but some companies need to soften that line a bit, so it doesn't look like the sculptor just put a scratch between the doll's legs and left it half-finished. Now if I have to mod a body to have a vulva, a scratch in the resin is all they're going to get (my modding ability isn't that good). I modded my puki that way, but it's not like there's much space to detail on a doll that size, anyway.

 

I usually get mature, idealized female dolls, and I find their vulvae to be defined enough for my tastes. Firstly, I appreciate that she isn't sexless like a Barbie, but also feel that what she has is enough. Secondly, I find the groin area to be the least realistic part of any on topic BJD here because of the extremely obvious hip ball joints. I tend to focus on the curve of my doll's back, her belly, breasts (Super Gems have nice ones, but no defined nipples) her fingers (also not well-defined) and her face. To me all these things are more interesting and feminine than her hips/groin. It seems that a polymer clay doll, with extremely lifelike skin and no moving joints would be a more appropriate type of doll for super realistic genitalia. For a doll made out of hard resin, a soft extremely detailed area like the vagina doesn't make much sense.

I really like to idealize the dolls I have so I would never buy a doll with sculpted pubic hair--I don't even stand pubic hair on myself, there's no way I would want it on a doll of goddesslike beauty to have it. All my dolls' characters would have access to wax or razors so there's no excuse for them to have any. The "inny" lady parts is also the idealized form, so for me the slight mound and slit on my dolls is what I expect to see on an idealized nude female and what I want to see on one of my own dolls.

 

First- awesome thread.

Second: I only have Obitsus right now, and they don't even pretend to make genitals. My boy lower torso part has a sort of Ken doll like bulge, but it's not enough bulge to say, "I'm a MAN!" or even, 'I'm male".
My girl has a, well, frankly it looks like a small dremeled indention between her legs. It's embarrassing. It's perfectly round and about 1-2mm deep. AWKWARD. A full-on vulva would have looked less weird and more natural.
As for realism, I wouldn't mind at all. It would be kind of cool though, since they'd be 100% anatomically correct.
However, I think it would be one more thing non-BJD people would use to illustrate how "weird and creepy" they are in their poor, closeminded and dolly-lacking lives.
I do personally think the penises could be more realistic as well. I mean, if you go to all the trouble to slap a sausage down there, why not make it right? Same thing for vulvas, they could do a bit more, otherwise it seems moot to have even bothered. :/

Dragocorn-I do want to see the finished vulva!

-Meg

 

Honestly I don't mind the little slit since with some blushing you can make it look a little more realistic. If it was a little more developed it wouldn't bother me too much, but a full blown spread open area would be too much. Not to mention hard to dress and unrealistic.

The issue I forsee if they started doing this would be, where do you stop with the detail? Do you only make the SD/ mature dolls that level of detail and keep the "kid" dolls more gender neutral? Some people might be creeped out by a fully developed baby looking doll....not to mention if someone unfamiliar with the hobby started with the "Pedophelia" comments and accusations.

 

I'm pretty much with this and agree. Generally I'm just indifferent about dolls with genitals. Even the guy dolls aren't all that correct either but the basic shape is there to know enough that it's a dude. I've seen my co-worker's male doll and he doesn't even have testicles.

Also LOL BJD camel-toe. Hate seeing them on people with poorly coordinated jegging/legging outfits as it is. ><

 

Well, my dolls are all either children or anthros so it's very low on my list of priorities to have realistic genitalia... My female tiny is actually on a genderless body and it doesn't matter to me at all and all but one of my anthros are genderless - my Dollzone Dog (off topic here) has a little winkle.

I suppose I figure that quite a lot of vulvas are pretty plain... Well, (TMI) I can speak that mine is pretty hidden away - an ordinary slit would encompass the look of my own naughtybits quite well. As for wanting a doll with a vulva with more shape and texture and colour, I can only assume that it's because the detail that would go into that would be difficult and because vulvas can vary SO MUCH, they wouldn't want to risk someone seeing a very realistic vulva and saying WEIRD! I CAN'T HAVE THAT DOLL, TOO MUCH DETAIL, TOO UNLIKE MY OWN. Or any other reaction. And if the doll's vulva had FULL DETAIL such a clitoris, vaginal opening, etc., then honestly? It could look like it had been circumsized (female genital mutilation...not nice.) - the vast majority of women will have those bits covered by a set of labia and if all those parts are exposed, it would be possible that it would look as if the protective outer labia had actually been surgically removed.

Also, I suppose they have nipples and buttocks well sculpted because those are very typical in photography to be seen - when most people see wide spread exposed labia, they would be likely to think "Pornographic".

Would it be pretty cool to see dolls with very realistic genitalia, both male and female? Sure! But it would have to be a rather large doll and that sort of detail is probably pretty darn hard to sculpt and then cast without the delicate bits snapping off (no one wants one of their labia snapped off ). Myself? I don't care one way or the other. I don't photograph my dolls naked, and if I did own a doll that I would photograph naked, I still wouldn't be likely to care about the genitalia - that wouldn't be the focus of my photography.

 

Now that I was thinking of the topic more, I become to think how bjd:s represent sort of perfected beauty to so many, and started to imagine that if there would be some sort of default realistic vulva for dolls, how would it look like? As already mentioned in this thread, there´s as many unique looks as are the women, and so many women are already not appreciating themselves enough.

Having the doll´s genitalia quite neutral, like it is now, gives also every doll owner a chance to customize it in the way they think is most beautiful (or just let it be neutral). As there already exists all kinds of surgeries and operations to fit to the picture of hairless, almost child-like neat slit that media (and porn industry) is giving out, I think it would be just one more push to that direction, if also bjd:s would be done to support the same stereotype. (Please don´t understand me wrong in this, as I´m not saying whatever person looks naturally wouldn´t be good, but I just hate to see these documents etc which show the insecure young (or older) women that consider themselves ugly or not being normal because they don´t look like Barbie dolls...)

 

this is one heck of a thread title.

Personally, I don't think the "nether regions" of the male or female anatomy are all that beautiful to look at. I think breasts are beautiful, and don't mind showing those, but all my dolls wear panties whenever possible and I don't like seeing girly bits or boy bits.

Just my 2 cents.

 

I think from a structure point of view, placing too much detail would make the area fragile. My dolls' thighs are very round and lovely, but as my boy has proved, nothing moves and with all that tension, he's started sanding down the side of his penis a bit. x.X Hence he is now stuck with heavy, double/triple layer briefs.
Like the posters before me, I feel as though most of the girls have enough showing, and while everything is subject to the individual, for the most part, they seem to be in a state of relaxation where you wouldn't see the insides too much. For my girl, she got hair painted, and a tiny bit of pink along her line where I would feel might be slightly exposed, but it's more of a private detail, as she doesn't get photographed naked often. But as for being open and detailed, I'd start to project a feeling of frustration on my girl knowing she was stuck in a world where most (not all, I know) potential male partners have resin-induced ED.


That all said, I wouldn't mind seeing a doll with such detail, but the fragility I would feel the parts would have would drive me against owning one.