Adult themes taboo for tinies?

A few people have touched on other adult themes besides sex; violence, drug abuse, smoking, drinking, these are adult themes too when we're considering the average age and appearance of a tiny doll. I, personally, would baulk at any doll depicted smoking or taking drugs, but that is a personal squick of mine. With the others though; a tiny Puki Bond in a tuxedo with a teeny martini could look quite sweet...a tiny passed out drunk in a pool of vomit would not. There is comedy violence and hard-core violence too; a boxing match played for laughs (with added 'POW' and 'BAM' signs!) between two tiny prize-fighters could look sweet...a gang rape would not.

There is a difference between a naked child playing in the sea and a naked child in an adult situation In the first case, if a person found the picture sexually arousing, they would be projecting their own desires on to the image, in the second case, the provocative image is fuelling the paedophile's imagination by deliberately depicting adult acts.

 

People can be turned on by anything. Because of that, it's really hard to determine what CAN be bad. I would just focus on what IS bad, and if someone wants to be perverted in their perception, that's their problem.

 

BDSM is not morally questionable in and of itself. You might want to mind making such assertions in a diverse forum.

However, I do agree that people who believe they can be "triggered" are ultimately responsible for what media they view and consume. As they say on, umm, certain image boards: I feel sorry for the person who picks up a dirty Japanese magazine and finds a Shintaro Kago comic in amongst the ordinary smut. But, Shintaro Kago short stories seldom break 20 pages and are easy enough to thumb past in phone-book sized monthly anthologies.

I also remember once waaaaaaaaaay back when Dolly Debate opened, someone posted about being called a pedophile just for owning BJDs and taking photos of them, or something along those lines. Now that's projecting. People can read anything into anything else. Say, at this point, we could probably use a nice game of "take a picture of your tinies doing everyday things with no clothes on!" in the games forum, but people who weren't party to this thread might b a bit confused.

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of work people put into getting props for their doll pictures. Scale knitting needles with scale knitting? Sure! Scale medical syringes? Someone's got them! Stick on parts for sexually interested male dolls that aren't Unoas? Why, they had their own sales thread, IIRC. I'm sure some people submit to ConDoll just because they can, and that may account for a certain number of particularly tasteless and thoughtless picfics. Not that I would deny anyone the right to be tasteless and thoughtless, but when someone posts a photo story entitled "My Little Sister" and their screenname is "ShintaroKagoPwns", clicking should be discouraged among sensitive persons.

 

Re people being triggered and having PTSD: Yes, I know a lot about that and I acknowledge it. But that is why artists should warn and put content labels on their stuff, so people who can be hurt by it can avoid it. A person who had a bad experience in the military might have triggers looking at pictures of soldiers with guns, but are we going to forbid pictures of uniformed military dolls because some people are upset by it? No, it is up to the viewer not to click on that link. People can be seriously hurt by MANY kinds of images, some that you wouldn't imagine. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't show the images; we can't ban every type of hurtful image out there because anything can be hurtful. And it's pretty annoying IMHO to see people treating some kind of harm as "privileged harm"-- because it is a common type, they want to sanitise society of this thing so that these people never have to look at it-- whereas other kinds of harm they will simply brush off and tell the person to get over it or deal with their issues, or even worse, make fun of the person for being so sensitive as to let it get to them so much. These people never benefit from big campaigns to sanitise the world of images that will bother them. They have to avoid them themselves. And, while it isn't a good thing that they might confront upsetting images, it WOULD be unfair to ask the rest of the world to avoid using any image that might trigger anyone ever... because that could be any image. It really could.

Furthermore, there are some people on this thread just saying it's "icky". There are people here who say "It icks me out, so I don't want to see it, and" (sweeping generalisation) "I bet nobody else here wants to see it either, so it shouldn't be out there." They are trying to speak for everyone in terms of what's "icky", which is self-aggrandising and unthinking. Part of the problem I have with people just saying "It's all gross and disgusting and therefore it shouldn't exist" is that it fosters a culture of brushing off the whole issue without having to engage in it. If we just assume something is wrong because our culture insists that we condemn it in the strongest, most unthinking terms possible, rather than because we've thought about why it's wrong, we are not only in danger of being manipulated by social norms, we're being utterly disrespectful to the victims who actually had individual pain and care about what they actually felt and why. So there are few things that raise my hackles as much as people saying "Oh, it's icky and everyone else thinks it's icky too and anyone who doesn't think otherwise is all seedy and disgusting." They are not thinking about anyone's real pain; they are just taking advantage of the social permission to rant about their own personal squick on the matter in blanket terms.

We should not get to decide what is "harmful" and what is "harmless" by popular vote.

 

Seconding what was said earlier that BDSM is not intrinsically immoral. Can it be done in immoral or questionable ways? Sure it can. So can anything else.

 

I think the problem is this: there is a taboo. There is a huge, obvious taboo, as evidenced by this thread (which was originally about tiny dolls and whether adult situations, not limited to sex, are taboo for them even if they look like adults, but quickly turned into a thread about dolls that are obvious representations of children). I don't think it's possible to have any more of a taboo than Western society has about this issue at this time. And it isn't stopping this happening in the places where it is happening, at all. Not because child sexuality isn't taboo, but because if people are determined enough, they don't care about what's taboo. The only people being put off by taboos, no matter how strong you make them, are conscientious people who would have already been inclined to be sensitive about the subject matter and what people might think of it. The only people taboos affect are people who would want to make interesting and thoughtful art on the subject.

As a result of the taboo, there is no thoughtful art, because the thoughtful people are scared off while the only people making art on the subject are those who have no sense of the subject's significance whatsoever, and those people aren't going to be intimidated by taboos because... they don't have a sense of them, or care about them. Hence people going "the only art that's ever made of this nature is really crude and pornographic", which leads to people thinking there should be a stronger taboo, which leads to only the crudest and most thoughtless art being made, etc.

Taboos never stop actual child abusers. They just drive them underground and make them more likely to be dangerous. Taboos also don't stop the crude and gratuitous art. Ultimately, nothing short of advanced AIs that constantly monitor everyone's internet connection for transmission of everything that involves underage-looking dolls, and come to their house to auto-arrest them, is going to stop that.

I think what you mean to say is "I wish this wouldn't happen in the community because I don't like to see it", which doesn't seem to be possible. It's already banned on this forum and others, and if people are posting it anyway, clearly no rule, taboo or other social sanction is going to stop them: the most you can do is have constant mod vigilance and insta-ban them.

But don't believe that we need more taboos, because taboos don't affect the people you're actually trying to target. The mistake is in thinking, "I am affected by the existence of this taboo, but there are people who aren't yet affected: therefore, we have to make the taboo stronger, so that it will penetrate the minds of those harder-headed people". But it doesn't actually work like that. Past a certain point, the people who aren't affected by the existence of a taboo aren't going to be affected. And the child sexuality taboo, at least in the US, is about as strong as it gets.

...If you write "taboo" a lot, you start to notice it's a really odd word.

 

Child molest shouldn't be taboo? Really?

I totally disagree that making something taboo doesn't decrease people doing it. Teen sex used to be taboo and now it isn't. Look at teen pregrancy rates now as opposed to in the 50's. It's no longer considered wrong so MANY more people do it. Sure, some people won't be stopped by knowing something is wrong but many others will. Once people see something as common and accepted, more and more people will start to do it.

I just think people should keep all their pedo fantasies of the freaking doll collecting forum. If they have their own "edgy" "deep" little "art" site, they can post whatever they want there and I don't have to see it. For those of you saying "if you don't want to see it, don't click" well people don't exactly label their pedo photostories, so if I never wanted to see another one again I'd have to never look at another picture of a tiny so I'd miss out on all the cute, normal pictures out there. You don't expect to be bombarded with all these twisted sexual fantasies when looking at a supposedly super tame all ages message board.

 

A taboo exists to define what is culturally unacceptable.

While you might want to explore theses things in your 'art' you also need to be prepared to deal with the consequences of doing so.

Irate masses are one such consequence.

 

well it depends what YOU want them to be. i see them as children, but someone might just say : well i prefer small dolls, so my tinies are all alduts!
then it's perfectly OK. but if they are really meant to be children, that would be freaking awkward (and wrong).

the problem is never the doll itself, it's all in the owners head!

 

Uck- I'm guilty of posting without reading again =___=

After re-reading this topic, I see that it's taken quite a turn from what I originally thought it was about (whether or not a tiny can be portrayed as a teenager in teen aged situations) and I decided to change this post to reflect that. Clearly, on the subject of pedophilia, there is no excuse for any such conduct whatsoever- that said, this doesn't necessarily mean that having a tiny and tiny that you claim are teenagers (and have the mature appearance to back it up) is pedophilia. There are a great many things we can't do or won't do because it would offend or otherwise upset others, but I think the important thing here is to remember that even though you as the artist has a right to do as you wish, and you as the viewer have a right to view or not view what you choose, you both have a responsibility to each other- simply because of your respective roles. The artist wishes his work to be viewed, the viewer wishes to view said work. You can't function in those roles without each other- so yeah, pose your dolls how you wish, but suggesting the inappropriate is irresponsible, and potentially going to impact the very point- or maybe not as the case may be. It's so difficult to say what is and what isn't acceptable- I certainly don't want to see any child or representation of a child in a sexual situation of ANY kind whatsoever- however, we have to define what counts as a child in this particular situation (i.e. the OPs specific topic.) If the OP is able to make these dolls adult or at least age-of-consent in appearance, than you can't really argue that it's supposed to be a child can you? If not however, as in, if it is CLEAR that they are children, or even if it's SUGGESTED that they are children, then you've crossed the line- hopefully it will be that black and white...

 

You've really touched on all sides of this issue. I appreciate your insightful input.

I agree. If someone wants to make it, go ahead. Just keep it to yourself. Don't look for validation from us. I think people don't label their pedo implied or obvious photo-stories because they want to see if they can get away with it. In general, many of us here are off-the-beaten path. So, there's more understanding and acceptance of things outside the norm. I love that about DOA. I hope it stays this way.

Nonetheless, I don't want to see avatars of children (who can't truly consent due to psychological/emotional/frontal lobe development) in depictions of sexuality with those that look older than them.

 

A very fruitful discussion. I'm just curious, next time when someone posts a "Bedtime Story" shoot of a naked child and adult dolls together in bed, or a "Sexy Uke" shoot with a young-looking MSD dressed provocatively - will anyone have balls to post a comment like, "Dude, not cool!" or everyone will continue to ooh and aah about how smexy it is?

 

Thirding this. As an active member of my city's BDSM community, I find the idea of correlating child abuse and BDSM offensive and gross! BDSM: it may not be everyone's thing, but when it's done right, it's awesome and fine. And just like any other relationship when it's done wrong, it's crap. Kinky people are not better or worse then others, they are just people.

 

I usually just report it.

I think the folk that are saying "ooo smexy" really need to look at themselves and exactly what they are saying because, seriously... Not Cool doesn't begin to cover it.

 

As far as DoA is concerned they like to keep it PG13 . I myself am not really into showing any of my dolls in any sexual situations or adult situations other than maybe kissing, other people don't mind. I have had my doll with a beer jokingly with my tiny. This is just me though. But I can see where you are coming from. My little doll I say is actually 78 years old. To some part she has the mind of a child and an adult.

Being into the anime community for over 10 years I am used to the "child-like anime characters" who are actually adults. They appear to be short, flat chested, and have big eyes. As a fan of anime I have come to get used to this and understand it. I must say though if you were to do what you say above you must make sure you "preach to the right chior" so to speak. Some people like those I mentioned who have become accustomed to the "anime sense of age" may have no problems with it. Yet in other parts of the world it could be seen as child porn and child rape. In fact I recall one person in the USA being arrested for Japanese comics he bought because the post office said it was child porn when in fact it was those "child-like anime characters".

I think there are some adult situations you could get away with and some you can't. Personally I would find a childlike doll unless they appeared somewhat adult like, doing drugs as a bit bizarre. It just doesn't fit what we as a culture are used to seeing. You don't really see kids age 6 years old going around smoking and shooting up. Even if they were suposed to be an adult the human brain might think of them to be more like 6 years old if they looked that way. But yet an adult situation like fighting or being beat up I probably wouldn't have an issue with. Sadly it's something we see sometimes.

Like others have said though to me personally it does depend on the sculpt/doll. A barbie is tiny but very mature so for me I wouldn't have an issue. For some strange reason i'm really into Pure Neemos and I could see them in adult situations even though they are flat chested little anime characters. But I will admit they are not as chunky and child-like as my tiny.

Although I have expressed my views I will end this as I do sometimes with "to each, is own". If you want to do it then GO FOR IT. There will be others that will love your work and there will be some that hate it. But if you enjoy it and find others do to then that's all that matters i guess. Just somewhere other than DoA, since that PG13 rule and all

But lastly I do want to point out that even my culture and your culture could have slight differences on some of these subjects. And I must say that usually in the US an "adult situation" is often told to us through the media to be a "sexual situation". Thus why some may immediatly think so.

 

Fourthing this, and, well... someone saying "people are being horrible and immoral and even supporting BDSM!" is not exactly helping their case, especially when their argument rests mostly on emotional appeal, as they've just lost all credibility in my eyes as someone who understands what makes something actually wrong. *eyeroll*

A lot of what I've been saying in this thread is not "yay guyz we should make excuses for the child pronz", but rather, "some of the arguments I see here do not seem to me to stem from the right reasons"... Some of you have clearly thought about the harms actually being caused on each side, though, and props to you guys. If I'm not mentioning/responding to that, it's mainly because I don't have as much of an argument with it.

I still think, personally, that the fault is in not labelling one's sketchy stuff, not having the audacity to do it in the first place. And consensus seems to be that around here, people are just showing stuff off not to make art but to get a shocked reaction, which IDK about because I am relatively new here and haven't seen anyone actually post the stuff in question. I stand for the artist's right to do whatever the artist wishes to do, but I do think the artist has a responsibility to label it, and if that's not happening, IMHO that is a problem.

I also personally feel that it's important not to dehumanise criminals, mentally ill people, or those who have desires that could be harmful if acted upon but have the sense not to do so. Because of these things, I have been bothered by some of the insulting and demeaning language used earlier in this thread-- I think we'd speak more kindly of a murderer than we have, in this thread, about pedophiles who might use dolls as an outlet but have never touched a real living child. I think the language that was being thrown around is dehumanising, and risks forgetting that such people are still human like you and me (as well as forgetting that not all people who have pedo urges actually act them out on children). Thankfully, the insulting language has cleared up a lot as this thread has gone on, so I haven't said anything about it... but props to the people who have been mature and have thought about even the criminals as being worthy of basic human respect.

...I think I've said pretty much all I have to say on the subject at this point. Further debate and I'll just end up repeating myself. Thanks to those of you who have been thoughtful on this topic; I respect that.

 

I think a lot of people use the "back" button if they encounter something they don't like to look at and don't want to be exposed to longer than necessary. Reporting offensive material is also one or two clicks.

 

The Dollmore Lusion's official pics are worse than some of the stuff I have seen here! The blonde one is naked and the black one is just in panties!

My tinies are not children at all. I think the youngest I go with doll stories is around the age of 16. Anything that gets gritty their age goes up. Though my tinies are fantasy stories, my CustomHouse is a fairy, Glati is a Greek God, the DZ tinies are trouble makers and demons, along with my HZ Roro, and even my mom's Puki, Claudia was based from Anne Rice-dom!

The only doll I have who would be a "child" is DZ July, and that's because I have taken on her character from my friend who sold her to me. She does accounting and is not like her age at all.

 

I think nudity can be artistic. It's what they're doing WHILE being nude that can make something obscene/offensive

 

That's a good point actually, I've seen msds from official company promo shots posing like page 3 girls, so what does that make them in the eyes of the self appointed moral guardians? I don't know about tinies in promos though because I don't really bother with them.

This debate is quite hurtful in parts (but it's part and parcel of free speech so I'm not trying to get anyone to tone down their views, I'll just cry into my pillow at night ) - I completely understand the offence about tinies in obvious paedophilic situations; but I don't really like being made to feel like I have a lurgy or am morally deficient because I may use msds (who I think represent around 14 - 17 ) to reflect my own culture and liberal European upbringing.