Are the BJDs rather for 'Old Children' (teenagers and adults) ???

I was a miserable and messy child who broke the very first porcelain doll I ever had. It was really pretty too, a gift from my teacher =( I grew up with a fear of breaking dolls ever since.

I think it has alot to do with child maturity. As always, the parents are the best judge of that, and they will bear the responsibility of the what-ifs and if something happens. Personally, I'd never give a child a BJD, simply because its freaking expensive. And although its all the fun in the world, children are more active than adults and like to run around, throw around, and want to easily manipulate toys that will, hopefully, last a long time in their hands. I'm also prone to believe that children (and by that I mean like 8-9 and under) aren't entirely aware of their strengths yet, since it is constantly growing, and might not be able to gage with how much force they should play with their dolls. In the same way children aren't suppose to hold babies, I wouldn't have them play with resin 500$ dolls. I use to be one hell of a strong kid when I was young, and I really wasn't able to tell how much force I was putting in to things.

Anyways, so yes. I do think BJDs are for older kids.

 

I'd like to avoid ageism, and focus more on a smaller percentage of children in general, that may be capable of maintaining their ball jointed doll, with a little help from an adult figure.

Some kids are very gentle, but can be immature. Some kids mature quickly in the book sense, where they might still be lacking motor skills and be horribly clumsy. There's different variants to consider.

I'm not saying 'I'd give ball jointed dolls to my/any kid right off the bat, sure'
I'm saying it's up to the person who wants to give a child a Ball jointed doll, to surveillance the child's abilities and temperaments before considering buying a Ball jointed of any size, for a child of any age.
Know what the child and doll are capable of, and what the childs boundaries and/or limits are.
It's my own preference not to expose my/any child[ren] to unnecessary object that they could have access to at any given time [unless they were grounded and had it taken away for a while to teach them a lesson.]
Knowing what some thing is, and owning it are different things. Just because 5 year old girl knows what a penis is, does not mean I'll let her keep a dildo or soft pecker in her room.

Sharing is generally a nice thing, but there are some circumstances where sharing can/has to be limited.
I learned at a very young age, not to let friends hold valuable pets/items/important things. . . I had Seamonkeys as pets in a fish bowl as a child. My friend asked to hold the fish bowl, to see them. I had often held the fish bowl myself to peer down at them, so I figured I'd share the view.... He killed them.

Depending on the childs size an behavior and understand/commonsense, a starting BJD might be in order, perhaps a less expensive 'tiny'. Or even considering how the child behaves, it may be best to not buy them their own. Like I've said, evaluate the kid and situations.

As we are all into the Ball jointed doll hobby here, I didn't think it was necessary to explain that 'mommy/daddy/uncle/auntie/family friend, has dolls that baby can learn about, before you get baby has their own dolly'

Also, I feel as though I should probably mention this as I forgot to in my previous post;
I don't condone the idea of ball jointed dolls in the kids toys section in Walmart.
I condone ball jointed doll owners, educating their children about them/ eventually buying them their own- if the child seems ready to have *some* of the responsibilities of owning a BDJ.

[PS: I do not own children. As I am a lesbian, but I still have my own opinions of how I would raise a child if I had one to raise.
I don't wanna hear any of that 'Well you don't have kids!' Crap either. <_< ]

 

Like me when I was a kid, had my father known what a Ball Jointed doll was, he would have trusted me with it.
If I had enough interest in that sort of thing, I'm sure he would have tried his best to get me one.
My best memory as a child was when my dad an i sculpted things out of play-doh. Eventually he got me a Pocahontas pottery wheel...
I'm sure had I stayed with him longer, he would have helped me pursue my sculpting further along with time. I was always very gentle and treated things delicate, probably because I-myself was very delicate and fragile. [still am x_X ]

These are the sorts of variants I'm talking about.
Physically, holding/playing with a BJD I'm sure I would have done fine as a child.
But my trust would have been the down side of owning a doll, and probably even my lack of intelligence.

 

I really just think that above all else, the safety factor is huge - I wouldn't care if I had the most trustworthy child in the world who never dropped anything in his life, I would NEVER give him a "toy" with small parts (accidents happen, no matter how "good" a child is - I choked on something as a kid, and so has every kid I've known.) and potentially toxic resin. There are simply safer alternatives. And cheaper, xD.

 

I really believe it depends on the child... I would say that most children would not do well with BJD but if you know a child who would really appreciate these dolls and is mature enough to take care of one why not introduce them to BJD? I wish I had known about these dolls when I was a child, I liked Barbies and AG and all those other sorts of dolls but what I really wanted was a doll as beautiful and with the creative options of a BJD. I wouldn't trust a child younger than 9 with one, though.

 

I think that it would be dangerous to hand any child something that has a potential safety hazard to it. Heck, I choked on a quarter and a stick of gum at around the age of 12.
Though I don't think every child would be as stupid as I have been I still think the responsible adult should mull over it and be prepared for the consequences should something happen.

 

Hmm... I think I should add (if it hasn't already) that Barbies were originally modeled after these dolls from Germany which were modeled after drawings of prostitutes. So in a sense, Barbies were modeled after sexual images.

As far as children having BJD's go... it's like when I saw a kid with a cellphone and she looked to be six. I felt cellphones had no place with children... but who am I to say a kid should or shouldn't have an item of sorts? I guess now that I don't really think much of children having cellphones, I've realized that they can handle themselves quite well. Kids don't get a lot of things in their lives that are all that expensive but when they do, they are quite cautious.

 

The thing is, these dolls aren't made for children. Their marketing is aimed more at teenagers and adults, not children under twelve. An example of the difference between the advertising tactics between say barbie and a BJD is that with barbie ads, it's all about fun, all about sharing this fun, and they show children playing with them. Whereas the marketing for BJDs is for the doll itself, not the fun you will have with it. They focus on the poseability of the dolls, but posing and photographing dolls is very different to how a lot of children play with their dolls. Again, yes, there will be exceptions, but by and large kids want to play, really play. There's countless little girls I've seen with barbies that are half bald, and thats fine because they're getting full enjoyment from it and love it that way, but a BJD is not made for rough and tumble fun in the sandpit/bathtub/wherever.

You can argue all you want that certain children can handle having a BJD and maintaining it - there's always exceptions - but in the end, it's still not a children's toy. Whether an adult chooses to buy an expensive high maitenance doll for their child is their perogative but it doesn't change the fact that they are not made for young children.

Edited to add: Whats with all this "children must not see genitals" talk? When I was a small child I took baths with my same-aged cousin (who is male) and I never thought anything of it as a child. You just take for granted that boys and girls are different. An example where children seeing genitals from a young age is Japan - it's usual for the family to take baths together up until a certain age. Their society hasn't rotted away from the inside with children being overtly sexual from a young age. Genitals are not inherently wrong or bad, they're a part of you and your childrens' bodies. To be honest I think the genitals on BJDs have absolutely nothing to do with whether they are child-appropriate or not.

 

I would say that it's pretty obvious that abjds are not intended for small children--they are more fragile, more expensive, come with more small parts, and are meant to be customized in a way that a small child would not be able to do safely (think resin dust, sealants, paint, restringing etc). This does not mean that a parent can't buy a young child a bjd--there's always exceptions and age guidelines are not hard and fast rules. I would not say across the board that no child under X age can have a bjd, but the intended market is for teens and adults with good reason.

 

When I first saw this topic, I thought that of course little kids shouldn't have these types of dolls. They're expensive and fragile and not really child-proof. But then I thought that maybe a more mature kid would be able to handle one of these. I don't think that I would buy them a super expensive Volks, but I would consider getting them a smaller doll, like a tiny or a MSD size doll. There would have to be some pretty strict rules, but if the kid understood how to handle and play with the doll, I think it'd probably be a great learning tool. They would learn technical skills, responsibility, and all sorts of other life lessons. It would definitely depend on the kid, though.

 

Would I have been trusted with a BJD when I was younger? NO WAY! I broke my American Girl...but it turned out to be a good thing as I have a disability and so did she

As for the genitals thing, my mom was a nurse and we were quite open about being naked until I was older and we all hid from each other. I'm not about to hand my child a big busted Unoa either!!!

I'm a lesbian as well and my child will have to grow up with quite a hard situation...having a mom that loves women and who has significant, observable disabilities.

As I would be a parent who knows about BJDs...I would do all the maintenance myself or commission others to do it (my vision and dexterity are limited). I would probably get an Isabella or another immature tiny...I find the tinies are easier for me to handle personally and my kid wouldn't be exposed to really mature genitals (once again...big busted Unoa!)

Even when I was 19 and got my first BJD my mother didn't trust me...now she's like "ooh your doll's pretty/cute" and I'm the one going "Be careful" mostly because I love them.

Kids DO have a lot of expensive things now...just think about iPods and video games...I had a cassette player and a big-*** grey Gameboy that was my mom's Kids today ARE getting a lot of big-ticket items that weren't even AVAILABLE when I was a wee lass

*says the girl whose Puki took a nosedive the other day when it fell out of her hands*

 

I don't understand what you mean. There's a big difference between a four year old and a nine year old, so where do you draw the age lines in 'children in general'?

Wow. I just...wow. Do you think of doll penis as = to dildo? Beyond that you had mentioned no 'bits' in art. Does this extend to female genitalia as well? Breasts? Butts? I mean, the David is a classic after all. Heck one of the shopping centers here has Greco/Roman statutes with boobs everywhere. Also would you include girl 'bits' in the sanding off, because frankly the girls aren't any more detailed than Barbie except for a bump nipple.

And I'm sorry. Right here...I'm gonna give you the 'You don't have kids' crap. Because you don't. I haven't even given birth to my baby girl yet and let me tell you, things that you were foot down on the ground firm about start to change. You can think about what you might do, but until you're there you're not 100%. I'm already finding out that you don't own children. They own you.

 

I only believe they are for older children and adults purely because of the very small parts, how fragile they are and the price

I don't think the fact they have private parts should have anthing to do with it, baby dolls you buy for £4.99 in the doll aisle in Toys r Us have penises and vaginas, so having a "grown up" BJD also with privates would certainly not be what would stop me from thinking they are child safe.

Edit: and I do have a child, he's 19 months old and I am not about to think that him seeing one of my dolls naked is going to suddenly corrupt him, but I don't generally let him touch them because of the small parts which he could swallow, and also that he might break them. Obviously he is very different from a nine year old, and in that sense I just think that BJD's are a bit too pricey; but if my nine year old son/daughter really really wanted one, and behaved responsibly and helped me out with chores- sure they can have a BJD

 

12-13[ish] is Pre-teen. So 12-under, I would still consider the youth to be a 'child'.
Although really, I've seen some 'adults' [20-32] who are still very much so 'child-like'.
Really what it boils down to is psychological development, Social development, and in other cases 'intelligence' in general... development...
Although physically a grown person could not fall in the category of 'child', I'd say there are some instances where a physically grown adult, could mentally constitute as a 'child'.
Vise-versa. [sadly]

Due to the nature of humans, with their 'Individuality' and all,
I still hold true to what I believe.

Which is, there may be a small percentage of children that can own Ball Jointed Dolls.
So long as what I've said earlier is still taken into account. I hate having to repeat myself so much.

There's not to much detail on female or male dolls, it could be allot worse.
Like that one doll I recall seeing a year or two ago that had soft nipples, and you could flip the penis up so it was erect.
any way back onto topic...
Even with the very little amounts of resemblance to the humans reproductive organs, I personally would still have the nips, and crotch sanded.
As I personally feel as though I would be allowing the child access to soft-core porn, if I was allowing the child to OWN their own ball jointed doll if it was not sanded.
So yes.
I would feel as though I was allowing the child to keep a miniature scale soft pecker/dildo in their room.

You might not feel the same way, we probably might never see eye to eye on this, but that is how I personally feel about the matter.

I don't have children for alloooooot of reasons.
It'd be nice if more countries passed the law of parental/pregnancy licenses.
[Just minus the increased crime rates, because of such a movement.]
I know there are courses you can already take, but I don't think those are hardcore enough. Plus I do realize there are other situations to take into account. Like rape, abortion and other less fortunate countries.
However, this may be going a little too off topic.

 

Infants and Toddlers are different from Children and Preteens.
I would never give a toddler or infant a ball jointed doll. 0_o

 

I admit that I don't get the no genitals thing...nudity doesn't equal sex, and we all have those parts. A naked anatomically correct doll has nothing to do with pornography what so ever, and I have no idea why you would even compare a bjd to a sex toy?! While there are a few bjds whose features are a bit more exaggerated, many are not, and small children are quite aware that people have those parts--they just don't automatically equate them with sex. It's adults that have the tendency to attach that and all the accompanying baggage to it. When I was five, I knew that there was something missing from my female baby doll, and it puzzled me greatly at the time for the very simple reason that she was a female baby doll and didn't have the parts that I as a girl have. And it's not a child owning a penis or a pair of breasts, they're owning a doll in it's entirety--a doll that is meant to represent a human being. I'm not sure how seeing seeing a doll's genitals is actually harmful.

 

As many have said, we all broke things when we were small childs ... not because we wanted to, but because a kid's nature is to be tough and hyper ...

A doll wouldn't survive in a good state with children ...why would you at that age want a doll you can't play? ...

I mean ... they can have one, but it's not the best idea considering ---> $ ...
even Dollzone's box says "for ages 13+" ...

 

Okay soft nipples or a changeable position penis is gross in my opinion...not something I would ever want to have.

This brings up a very interesting point...I'm 21. I'm very smart; I go to college etc but I have a developmental disability and am socially still a kid. Does this mean I should not be allowed a doll? Of course not. Having a doll has actually increased my social abilities while still allowing me to have something I love...I dress my dolls every day and carry the Pukis around with me because it's calming for me.

Sometimes...an adult being childlike isn't as "sad" as RoboDash says it is It depends on the situation...because immature adults make me cringe (I'm not talking developmentally delayed like it is in my case...I'm talking just plain immature)

 

I cannot express how shocking I find the possibility that you or anyone could champion the idea of pregnancy licenses! We would end up with a world where only those who earn x-amount of money, or have certain qualifactions or gosh knows what else being allowed to have children. And who exactly would be given the right to make the decision of who may or may not give children? I am pretty sure that there are many many people, probably myself included, who would not be allowed to have children if a law like that was passed just because I don't own my own home or that I once suffered with some mental health difficulties- yet the truth is I am a great mother and adore my beautiful little boy who wants for nothing (including a dolly with private parts and is not particuarly interested in those bits anyway) and am brining him up in a safe, secure and happy environment. My past experiences and those of others who aren't quite perfect, will help him to be a well-adjustment, sympathetic, and intelligent young man. I also object to the idea that children born to less-privileged families would grow up to be criminals! I and others I know come from a one parent low income family, but I do not commit crime, I gained high qualifications, and am studying a PHD in clinical psychology. *grump*

I couldn't agree more. Sexual parts does not equal sex. I would not stop any child have a BJD just because it had genitals and breasts. I agree that a child would find it odd if the doll didn't have them (I remember finding it weird that Ken had moulded on pants rather than a willy- not cus I was a perv at 6 years old but because I knew he should have one.) A BJD having accurate body part in no way shape or form constitutes a dildo which itself is just the sexual organ and is intended for sexual use.

I think 13+ is a safe age to think a child would be responsible enough for a BJD in the sense of a financial perspective and of course how fragile the BJD's are. Kids do like to play, and maybe a Barbie or the like would be a better introduction until they were about 13 (or slightly younger depending on the childs personality).

 

I have a 4 year old neice and a 3 year old nephew and they absolutly adore my BJD. they are always asking to hold him and they talk to him and say they love him. Of course, i wouldnt trust them with having their own so i guess i do agree that BJDs are for older "children."

But i object to the fact that you say 16 years of age and up. im 14 and i think im a fine doll owner.