Do you believe that some owners mistreat their dolls?

My logic dictates that yes, some owner somewhere does abuse their dolls. Then again my logic is along the lines of "if it exists, people will do X to it, where X is anything that people are capable of."

Have I witnessed anyone deliberately bashing their doll's head into a brick wall or pretending to suffocate them or covering them with sharpie all over like a child would even after being told it's bad or anything else someone might consider abuse? No, I haven't. But I don't doubt that someone somewhere has done those things just because they wanted to. We also have to think that what one might consider dollie abuse is very subjective. Someone might consider simply putting the doll on a shelf to never touch it again, only to be looked at abuse. Others might see that as perfectly normal and logical thing to do with dolls.

Would any of it bother me? Not really. While yes I might think these dolls may be a vessel of something resembling a soul, I also believe that people should be able to do what they like to their things. I would think they were stupid doing that to something so expensive and nice looking, but it's not something I could control. It's a similar feeling to watching somebody formula drift in a new Corvette. It's a crying shame that they'd wanna beat it up like that, but hey they are getting their enjoyment out if it and if that makes them happy go for it. Just because I wouldn't do it doesn't mean someone else wouldn't enjoy it.

 

I would never consider not taking good care of your dolls abuse. But I can understand the feeling of wanting to take care of them, I mean...they're far more expensive than most dolls you see around. That alone will inspire most BJD owners to atleast refrain from taking a hammer to it. That said, from what I've seen, BJD are not as fragile as they look and can be just as good in a collector's hands as they are in a child's. What you do with them is your choice- but taking good care of your stuff is just common sense(or should be.)

 

I don't think you can abuse an inanimate object.

I think people can be stupid with dolls the same way they're stupid with other objects-- eg, get angry, throw them, be compleatly thoughtless of their care and break them because of it. But that's not abuse... that's just ruining a thing you own because you're not mature.

 

if the person buys the doll, they can do whatever they want with THEIR doll. you or i might not think it right but theres nothing you can do about it.

 

Abuse I guess would be when people buy them to look at their "special" parts.

 

Well I believe that people in the hobby most likely will take good care of their dolls but there are people out there that do not know how to take proper care of a doll.

 

Abuse defined differently....For me...Abuse would be keeping a doll in the box for the most of it's life. For some I am an abuser. They get attention all the time and get dirty and get their face ups changed once a year.
Is abuse keeping a doll in a dress made out of sock? or buying more dolls when one doesn't have a wig? Or is it just negligence?

 

I obviously do think that people can take good care or poor care of their dolls (and everything in between,) but I wouldn't call it "abuse" because the doll is an object without emotions.

The abuse of people or animals is wrong because it's causing harm to a person or living creature. It's wrong to intentionally cause that suffering.

Dolls can't suffer, though. Much as we love them, and much as we invest them with character, they're ultimately just things. Dolls only have the meaning that we give to them.

I believe that the owner of an object has a right to do whatever they like with that object, as long as it doesn't compromise the rights of another person or living creature. Thus people have the right to do as they like with their dolls, even if it isn't beneficial to the doll's preservation. It may very well be something I would never do, but I think that calling it "abusive" minimizes the psychological harm that abuse of people or animals causes.

 

If we can abuse rights, laws, and privileges, why cant we abuse other inanimate things?
I think we are so stuck on the word 'abuse' having one meaning, that we are not seeing the big picture.

 

Rights/laws can't really be called 'inanimate things'. They are in place to prevent harm to other people/their property/society in general/nature etc. Breaking the law is not in the same context as willfully breaking your own doll, is it? I don't really see what 'bigger picture' is being missed here...

If someone purposely damages their doll, then its really themselves they are harming, either financially or emotionally or physically if they purposely sand the resin to snort the dust The doll itself feels nothing... hence I don't really think it can be called doll abuse.

 

Well i just looked up abuse in the dictionary and his is what is says:

Main Entry: 2abuse
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈbyüz\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): abused; abus·ing
Date: 15th century
1 a : to put to a wrong or improper use <abuse a privilege> b : to use excessively <abuse alcohol>; also : to use without medical justification <abusing painkillers>
2 obsolete : deceive
3 : to use so as to injure or damage : maltreat
4 : to attack in words : revile
— abus·able \-&#712;byü-z&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective
— abus·er noun

So according to the Merriam Webster dictionary it sounds like dolls can technically be abused.

 

See, I wasnt using those words in relation to 'doll abuse'. I was using them as an example as to how the *word* abuse can be used differently. That is the big picture you missed.
I am sure no one thinks a doll abuser deserves the same punishment as a child or animal abuser. Because they are two Iucompletely unrelated types of abuse!

 

I have to say that as long as it's their own doll, people can do whatever they want... The dolls are not children, they ARE just items (even though expensive items). I don't think it's abuse if people let their plasma tv dust over or don't use the correct wiring or something...

That being said, it makes me really sad. Even a bad face-up can make me cringe, mainly because I want so many dolls, and if it's a doll I'd like, I can't stop thinking "I could treat that doll so much better..."
But I just try to stay clear of any people who don't treat their dolls as I'd treat them.

 

Wouldn't that require, though, that there be some kind of generally accepted (if not legally-based) standard of how dolls should be used, and a clear line dividing that from what constitutes a transgression?

Since that doesn't really exist, how could "abuse" be defined? If people have the right to use their own property as they see fit - which they do - then where would we set a boundary, and why would we do so?

I guess using those definitions I can see someone forming an opinion that a doll is being abused, but I don't see how it could ever be established as objective fact.

 

Ummm... There IS a generally accepted standard on how people should treat luxury items. The definition says nothing about law or legality, so why do we need 'dolly laws' to make abuse fact?
The only thing I know for a fact is that both sides of this debate are opinion.

 

Personally ( and I do mean PERSONALLY ) I would consider roughly handling my dolls as "abuse". It irritates me to no end to have someone pick one up and start jerking it around as if he or she were a stick of wood. To me, they ARE beings. I picked each one out for a reason, worked for the money, and gave them a special place to live. I love some of them enough to bring them to work with me. Maybe this stems from the fact that for many decades I made porcelain dolls. From pouring the porcelain to firing them in my kiln to painting and wigging and assembly then dressing, each one was made INDIVIDUALLY just as the bjds are. Not the cutsey baby doll kind but artful ones. You would never imagine how many very unkind comments were made to me at doll shows by doll collectors who took offense to my elves, wizards, and other strange hybrid creatures even if the particular doll would take a blue ribbon.

Yes, that was years ago but it still stings. These doll were the work of my hands, of my time, of my imagination. With the small number of bjds out there, they too are individiually crafted with great care and difficulty. Just ask any one of the doll artists on the forum and you will see how many good dolls are made versus ones that are not perfect and not saleable. Just because of that alone, these dolls should be appreciated and maybe even, respected. Each one is individually made by someone who takes care and time with them. Bjd's are most definitely a hands on art form.

My bjd habit is similar. The dolls I buy are extensions of my soul that I can not express otherwise and can do or be what I can never be at my age and physical aspects. To abuse them, to handle them with any thing less than respect for the art they represents offends me greatly. This of course, is how I see my dolls. You are free to do with your whatever you will.

This is after all, my humble opinion.
LostKitten

 

What standard is that? I'm not being snarky, honestly curious.

Because yeah, I think people most people would agree that luxury goods should be kept in good shape - although generally for purposes of practicality, I think, rather than for moral reasons.

The thing I don't think people would agree on, though, is the specifics of how the item should be treated or how good is good enough care, which was my point. Without a common definition of what's proper, how could we ever have a common definition of what isn't proper?

Because without some kind of common understanding on the matter, no two people are going to agree on what constitutes abuse, even if we accept the premise that it exists.

Some people would consider abuse a bad face-up or too much time in the sunlight, while others would think that was acceptable but not running over your doll with a car or throwing it against the wall, while others would say as long as it's yours it doesn't matter, and so on...

I don't think it requires legislation, but I do think it requires some kind of common ground about what's acceptable - and I don't think we have that, at least not in any detail.

I'm not talking about sides of the debate, though - I'm saying what is abuse is just an opinion too without any kind of objective standard to measure it by, which means there's no way to define what "abuse" would mean in a way that applies to everyone.

 

As abuse can simply refer to treatment which results in damage, I think it's perfectly reasonable to call it abuse if someone treats an object in a way which is obviously not in-keeping with its intended use, and which results in damage.

I don't believe many people are actually trying to equate simple abuse or mistreatment of an inanimate object with criminal abuse, and there is no need for an object to have emotions in order for it to be damaged.

I most definitely agree with sumomo123, and have said as much previously in the thread. The OP seems to be pretty clear about not equating mistreatment of an object with legal concepts like domestic abuse or animal abuse, as the latter are only specific applications of the word. One need not equate those ideas or anthropomorphize an object in order to accept that one can abuse it.

If you look at the documentation for a limited warranty on many items - things like cameras, mp3 players, or other electronics - they will often list "abuse" as an exclusion, and I certainly don't think any of those companies are trying to anthropomorphize their electronic products or claim that cameras are going to suffer emotional distress. A well-made product is designed to last over time when handled in a way consistent with its intended purpose, but can be damaged if treated in a way inconsistent with what it's designed for -- dolls included.

In this case, I think practical reasons suffice; there isn't any need to attach moral or ethical reasoning in order to agree that an object has been damaged. One could enter that realm if one is approaching it from a sense of respect to the original artists who created the doll, or if one is speaking of damaging another person's property, but that's not strictly necessary.

I would certainly agree, there will be differences of opinion, but I also don't think there's really a need for a strict set of definitions, unless anyone is interested in turning this into a legal issue. (Which I certainly hope we are not.)

I think that if one approaches it from a notion of damage, it can become fairly common sense. A well-sealed but "ugly" face-up can be removed; it falls within the intended use of a customizable doll and does not cause damage, hence it would not be abuse. A Sharpie face-up which bleeds through and ruins the resin does constitute damage, and so could be considered abuse. Taking a doll out into the sunlight in order to get photographs may contribute to yellowing, but is within the expected use of a doll, and would fall more under the category of normal wear. Most BJDs (excluding some art dolls) are intended for customization, including modifications, so modifications would not be considered damage or abuse. Smashing the doll with a hammer or throwing it in front of a car would not fall within the expected use, and could result in damage, meaning it would fall under mistreatment or abuse. So on and so forth.

Not all companies send documentation along with their dolls, but several do - and several of those include instructions on use and recommendations for care. If the company warns directly against doing something and an owner ignores that warning and causes irreparable damage, that could be considered abuse. It is, of course, the owner's right to do as they wish with their possessions, and it doesn't make them an awful person any more than it would if they abused their steak knives by using them to cut down bushes, et cetera.

 

For the record, I'm trained in/work in archival preservation, so to me almost everything people do with all of their possessions is shortening the item's life and causing wear and tear.

I have to turn that thought off most of the time, because it's crazy-making... and impractical. Our stuff is made to be used.

I guess that's why setting a limit on doll play before it becomes misuse seems arbitrary to me. *shrug*

 

All this abuse is in the mind of the beholder!