Dolls, Desire, and the Perception of Reality

And not everyone will agree with "twists" on national dress. Some would say that's another form of cultural appropriation to the point of "butchering" what is supposed to be kept intact for celebrating one's heritage. Kimono or any other form of national dress are not meant to be used as fantasy elements or something just to be "look nice in" - they're worn because there's a real meaning and history behind them. Making up a fake doll world to isn't going to change that. Frankly, I think it's grossly disrespectful to see culture as something to be carelessly applied and ignored for the sake of amusement. Especially when simple research on kimono etiquette doesn't take hours.

You may not mean it to sound derogatory, but it does sound derogatory when you compare changing into a sailor senshi (something that doesn't exist) to having a non-white person (someone obviously real) around. It's like saying non-white people are on the same level as imaginary works. Besides, I don't see how that's on-topic to anything that's been said.

 

youve taken what ive said entirely the wrong way there; i am NOT comparing non white people to sailor senshi ^^; what im saying is, the entire show is silly, so why do other things in it have to be realistic? on topic due to the talks of beauty white dolls, and of lack of other skin colours

i never said they would

 

Every time I hear that same argument sliced and re-sliced, though, no matter how it gets framed, it still always sounds to me like men unable to take what they dish out. It keeps falling just short of convincing me. Once they fix the way women have been portrayed in both the mainstream & underground media, including comics, movies, art, TV, games, etc.-- ever since the dawn of all those industries-- THEN any group of men can have something to say about what women draw & read.

 

QFE Thank you. This is a great thread, which is being hijacked by a yaoi tangent, but i have one thing to add in this direction. Yaoi, and also most slash fiction, exist because women need an outlet for the kinds of relationships they have difficulty modeling in real life because of gender inequality. Like hetero romance novels, they perform a similar function to pornography, whether sexually explicit or not. As such, if it doesn't get you off, well, it's not for you.

Anyone is entitled to protest anything, more power to them. But as a bisexual female with many transgendered friends, gay males protesting exploitation over a romantic fantasy smacks of male privilege more than anything else. i could very well be wong, i'm just skeptical.

 

People can be offended if they like, but not everything is intended to be accurate depiction of the real world. Some people use their dolls as an escape from that. You have to take context into account. If someone is trying to put something forward as being correct and it's not, then there's an issue. If some photoshoot or photostory is intended to instruct or inform and contains misinformation, then there's room to complain. When something is just an outlet or the doll owner's imagination and not intended to be taken as a realistic representation of anything, then if you don't like it (and no one is required to like everything), move on, but don't take it as more than it is. Not everybody is trying for historical accuracy, though if they are they obvioiusly need to do their research.

Not everything has to be 100% accurate at all times--and personally, I would see that as being harmful to the creativity of this hobby. Someone might be inspired by something in the real world, but want to give it their own twist. Just because something is not 100% accurate whether it be an article of clothing, name, yaoi, yuri, hentai, what have you does not automatically mean it's a mockery. I would look at what the doll owner is trying to say, not just the outward trappings.

Earlier, you said this:

But if those giant robots or persocom's where engaged in a fictional fight that was supposed to represent civil rights in the real world, wouldn't that be making a real world political statement?

Just because something looks more realistic, doesn't mean that it is (or is meant to be) and just because something outwardly appears to be fantasy doesn't mean there isn't a deeper "real world" meaning behind the story. Not everything is as it appears.

Yaoi is not really about gay men. That might sound weird of me to say, but when you really get down to it, it's not. It was never meant to be realistic, to portray the concerns of that community, or what that community finds attractive erotica wise. What it's about is what women find attractive in men in general and explore relationship dynamics and themes that are of interest to women (who don't necessarily want to look at a female character in an erotic comic).

We can all pretend to be perfect PC gals and guys (not that I necessarily object to the basic idea of PC, it just gets carried too far sometimes), but the interest in male/male relationships in women and girl/girl relationships in men have been around loooong before yaoi became big. These appear to be pretty deep seated fantasies, and as such, they aren't going to go away. People who think that yaoi, yuri, and hentai are realistic depictions of people and relationships need to be corrected--they are obviously operating under some pretty big delusions, but I think most people take it for what it is--not a depiction or comment on reality. The response to yaoi among gay people isn't monolithic. I've heard complaints that it's not realistic enough, but I also know of gay men who enjoy it too. The same thing goes for hentai--not all women are morally opposed to it and some enjoy it.

People will be offended by anything and everything and there are some things really worth getting worked up about. However, sometimes it's good to take a step back and examine the situation before crying foul.

(and if you think its just us Westeners screwing up depictions of Japan and Japanese culture, some of the depictions of Western culture, history, and places in manga is pretty amusing. People like what's foreign and cool, but don't expect them to get everything right East or West)

 

Maybe this is a naive position but I am guessing that people who are fans of yaoi and yuri do eventually reach a level of maturity and experience which leads them to understand the real world is usually not like a manga or anime. In other words they turn eight or nine.
Or maybe they understand this already and wish to revel in a world of fantasy.
I would like to understand how it hurts anyone if a person would rather read or see imaginary pretty boys or girls in love than view the reality of say a homosexual couple who resemble a pair of low rent proffessional wrestlers, or even the couple who are physically attractive by most standards.
I want to know where the damage comes in to the real people. Further, how is it harming others if a bjd owner creates a doll family of effeminate and beautiful boys who are supposed to be in love with each other.
I am really not a fan of this idea that we must all think alike in regards to others and must cleanse our minds, our art, and our world of anything which might offend someone, somewhere, on some level.
It is strange to me, who actually lived during the time of real hippies and the Apple revolution, to see how we have come around once again to a time of removing the individuality of people and reshaping them into mindless automatons.

 

I completely disagree with this. National dress can, in fact, be worn just to look pretty. I happen to own a kimono, sari and kaftan and know next to nothing about their histories and cultural background. *shock horror* Am I being disrespectful to these cultures? I don't think so. Not when the sari came from a nice Indian lady who insisted I buy it because it matched my eyes, or the kaftan came from a Moroccan flea market and the kimono from souvenir street in Kyoto. Many countries go so far as to exploit their national dress as a commodity to be sold to tourists, heaven knows there are enough places selling cheap shoddy knock-offs of them as well. And living in Japan and having spoken to my coworkers and students, I can tell you that (if the ratio holds more or less true) many Japanese people do not know the proper etiquette either (nobody could tell me how to properly tie the obi! As long as it "looked ok" it was fine).

Quite frankly, if people are doing all that I do not see why people can't make something that looks like a country's national dress for their doll, even if they get it a little wrong. I also don't see why some people treat some countries's national dress as some sort of holy cow that cannot be messed up, but very few people will defend other countries (like when African dress is done poorly, in fact, I have NEVER seen it done accurately, but it is still pretty). Are we not allowed to have dolls whose characters stem from there unless we research? Fair enough. But when you remove those elements into a fantasy setting...

I think that is my main point. More often than not dolls are fantasy. Fantasy is, by definition, not real. Yes, people get offended by fantasy, but its actually ridiculous. People will be offended by anything in the realms of the fantastic (look at how some people reacted to Harry Potter), but their reactions are often biased and not evenly applied (didn't see those same people complaining about Cinderella and other stories with magic and witchery). The basic problem is that fantasy is unbridled and people are trying to force others to reign in their imagination. Why should they? Unless it is actually harming someone in a measurable way or breaking a law, people should be allowed to do what they like with their personifications of their fantasy realm - their dolls.

 

This would apply to me. I have a male doll, and no way could I dress like he does - he's tall and skinny - I'm short and fat - and female to boot.

I like making clothes for my dolls (mine and my kids' dolls) and dress them in something that is occasionally quite outrageous (but looks good).

Having studied lots of gay porn (heh .. purely scientific research and all the usual excuses.. nah.. I make gay porn in 3D for money...) I can tell you that it's of course as unrealistic as ANY porn. And no, you don't see flabby old guys in gay porn either (except in very few very specialized genres) - it's the same ideals as in any porn: People should be good looking with huge ... appendages.

And it can be transferred to dolls quite easily: They ARE idealized sculpts.

what I find interesting is that almost all same-sex pairings I've seen with dolls have been with two males. I contribute that to the fact that most of these photostories are made by heterosexual females (just like most slash fiction) and to a heterosexual woman, the idea og two women together just doesn't DO anything for her (I know it doesn't do anything for me. I don't have anything against it, it's just. ew. boobies... kinda thing to me)

The last bit I wanted to QFE messed up somehow, but let me just say that the idea that you're somehow disrespectful if you dress a doll up in a kimono without knowing the whole cultural backstory of kimonos.. is absolutely rubbish. It's like you can't have an asian looking doll if you don't know any asians yourself...

 

Is it easy to see
BJD portraits what we like .....either fantasy or reality.
Having Kimono does not mean we need to know its history, it can be just because we like it. If we really care about history, nationality, BJD is not the thing we begin to think of.

 

Mmm. Hijacked by yaoi. Same argument that went on with slash. I don't claim to know what's going on...

If you're going to put a character in kimono, you can learn how to do it and have a doll in a well done kimono or not and have a character who can't put on a kimono. If you can't tie a tie, you can have a guy doll who can't figure out how to tie a tie and has to have a helpful bystander do it for him. It's courteous (and much less grating to a certain kind of person) to have it done right and learn why but you aren't obliged to. Some people might really like a badly tied tie. It's kind of cute. Same with portraying a gay relationship- quite a bit of yaoi (and a lot of English language slash too) is fantasy fulfillment and to be honest, shameless. It's part of what makes it fun. Being fiction, it's a place to be free. I've got more than a few gay friends. I'm on my happy GLBTQQAA mailing list. And in my brief experience, I have not met asingle genki boy with cat ears, no gorgeous ice prince rich boys with a dark past and certainly NO white haired prettyboys. (Pretty MEN on the other hand... rawr. Grey hair.) In my experience of hanging out with straight teenage girls I haven't met a single one able to transform into a Sailor Senshi or transform into an alternate personality after a bump on the head or anyone who has ever fallen through a magic well. Tropes like that are all good and well in fiction but they occur rarely-to-never in reality.
Expecting real life gay couples to behave like yaoi boys or yuri girls is to me as presumptuous as expecting a real life straight couple of any age and race to resemble Sailor Moon and Tuxedo Mask. People come in every possible permutation, every shape and size, every possible pairing of colouration and temperament. Redheads aren't tempestuous. Blue eyed blondes aren't all-American. Pale brunettes aren't depressive. On the whole, of course. If you treat reality like it follows the laws of fiction, well, you're either mistaken or deluded. I have the urge to quote OpheliaB from a way back, but hey...

 

Awesome discussion topic, whew.

I totally indulge my fantasy world when I involve myself with abjds. I absolutely detest the 'real world' in most circumstances... it does not reflect my inner reality. In fact I often dont understand the real world due to peccadilloes of my psychology, like synaesthesia. And so, when I make art, engage in relationships and fill my presence with beautiful things, of course I strive to adapt the real to my inner visions. In fact, if it werent for stuff like yaoi and abjds and fantasy novels and the like, I think I might be a shivering, dribbling idiot in some hospital. Its the only way to reconcile my warped worldview with reality, and its also the way to acceptance of my own idiosyncratic nature. I would not be the person I am, someone who is fairly strong-willed and outgoing, if it werent for the fact that a fantasy - yuri anime to be precise - helped me accept myself as an androgynous female... accept that such a state of being can be attractive and fulfilling, not just a life sentence to being loveless and reviled.

I also think an interesting aspect of this discussion is the concept of alter egos... do we fill our desire to live another life, a 'more perfect' life (by this I mean the ideal for our individual selves), through the characters we develop in our dolls? I dont own one yet, so I cant truly comment... but I am definately guilty here when it comes to characters I have written for novels and manga, and my persona in the SCA, and in my artworks, and on SecondLife.... So many ways to walk in this world that allow you to become the ideal of yourself. I personally belive alter egos and the drive to inhabit them is not escapism, nor is it a lie or an attempt to falsify your identity. Every alter ego you adopt simply represents another facet of your individuality... We're full of people just clamouring to escape. A different form, like an avatar, persona or doll, simply makes us free to project that truth out of ourselves and into the real. If I could have any body I wanted, any hair colour I wanted, any culture I wanted, any voice I wanted.... who would I be? (Probably one of my dolls. XD)

So yeah, I definately I escape into my own reality through ABJD. Honestly I wouldnt be even an iota as attracted as I am to them if I couldnt use them as a door that way.

Oh yes, and:

{Maybe this is a naive position but I am guessing that people who are fans of yaoi and yuri do eventually reach a level of maturity and experience which leads them to understand the real world is usually not like a manga or anime. In other words they turn eight or nine.}

HAHAHA. Beautiful. XD

and:

{I completely disagree with this. National dress can, in fact, be worn just to look pretty.}

I cant help but bring up people like me, in the SCA. I may not be a 9th century persian alchemist/horse breeder. But I can damned well have fun pretending to be one!! heehee.


*ALLY*

 

@ clea and JennyNemesis: You bring up very interesting points about male privilege. Totally agreed; it'd be nothing short of hypocrisy if that activist didn't acknowledge the other social inequalities that happen within Japanese society. It reminds me of all the nasty little -isms that happen within activist circles.

@ Taco: As much as I'd love to see anime like that, I think using direct human symbols usually evoke a stronger reaction than non-human symbols. And believe me, I don't go out of my way to look at bothersome photostories; otherwise, I'd have a membership at ConDoll. It's just that even mainstream groups are saturated with problematic imagery. I think your point about "correcting misinformation" and "not everything has to be 100% accurate" is rather contradicting, though - historical inaccuracy is a form of misinformation itself. As for doll depictions of homosexual couples - how much can you distort before it becomes a parody? A lot of the times, yaoi is about rape and abuse so I can't see how it's just about exaggerations of pretty cat-eared gay boys or reflections of female relationship fantasies.

To everyone else on the subject of fantasy, national dress, and cultural appropriation: I think there needs to be some reading on the subject. Flea markets and street vendors don't serve as a blanket representation. As you've explained already, they exist solely for the sake of making money off tourists because tourists are the ones that create the demand for knock-offs and culturally appropriated artifacts in the first place. If they didn't feel that they were entitled to cheapen a part of a country's history, this wouldn't be an issue. Just because some governments condone the practice doesn't mean it's locally agreed upon or that they act in the best interest of the people. Not going to name names because that's a tangent in itself.

In other words, the aforementioned things don't speak for hardworking seamstresses who devote to making authentic pieces of their culture and they won't waste their time by setting up in a tourist trap. There are Indian seamstresses here who are disgusted by the idea of selling a sari to those who don't even speak Hindi. There are Nigerians, Egyptians, Kenyans, and other African nationals who resent being shoved under one giant umbrella of "African culture" with a single "national dress" consisting of leather skirts and shells or something. There's a stark difference between taking shortcuts on obi-typing and doing something outlandish like wearing a kimono backward, wearing the wrong one for a certain occasion, kimono cross-dressing (unless your doll is meant to be a crossdresser), and trying to pervert what people consider to be an important part of their distinct history and ethnic identity.

And to tie this back to the original point of the thread, I don't think people are addressing my other point about social responsibility and the boundaries that BJD collectors give themselves. In case you missed it:

It seems there are double standards on what is considered enough "human enough." People obviously like human-looking dolls enough to give them human names, emotions, genders, sexual orientation, races, nationalities, etc. but when it comes to taking responsibility for what you've created, it's "oh noes it's fantasy." At the same time, plenty of people are disgusted by depictions of excessive gore, violence, pedophilia, overly sexual scenes, tasteless social stereotypes, and other elements that are reflective of human crimes and vices. DoA policy itself filters out offensive content, so I don't see why it's so shocking to ask people to think of unintended objectification when they adopt certain aspects from another culture.

Social/cultural insensitivity comes across as nothing but apathy and downright laziness when you don't go that little extra step and make sense of what you're perpetuating here. It's the creator's responsibility to properly convey the message of their choice; not the viewer's burden to have a single-minded interpretation to make the creator comfortable. How can you apply something as obviously real and tangible as human culture and claim that it no longer has significance once you put it on a doll? You are essentially stripping it of value if you take away its meaning and sarcastically trivialize it as a "holy cow."

This isn't something that's exclusive to dolls, either; you wouldn't get away with using things like blackface or overt depravity in cartoons just because animated pictures "aren't real." There is a mainstream attitude for enforcing for coherent fantasy and regulated portrayals of human beings because "not real" is not a self-validating excuse. There is a human behind that medium using fictional humans and expressing human qualities, and fantasy is ultimately derived from reality. Hence, why certain subjects still disturb people although they do distinguish between real and fake. This seems to be a common theme in other controversial threads in the Dolly Debate subforum (45/60, to name one). When your form of escapism goes beyond being a magician, a fox demon, a cyborg, and delves into perpetuating gratuitous violence or demeaning social minorities, what does that say about you to other collectors?

And unless you have been born and raised in a non-North American society (or seen both sides of the story as I have), I don't think you can try to speak behalf of all people who oppose cultural appropriation. Personal experience shouldn't be used as the only supporting piece in a debate, but there are going to be key differences when it comes to the perspective of a native culture vs. that of a foreigner. You aren't going to truly understand if you haven't been immersed to understand from an insider's point of view.

And just to clarify, you can have Asian dolls, kimono, homosexual doll coupling, etc. without perpetuating cultural ignorance or stupid stereotypes. You can appreciate a culture without appropriation. And no, there is a world of difference between having an Asian doll without having met an Asian yourself, and just thoughtlessly acting on what you think is "Asian" without doing the research. Frankly, the "I'll be a mindless fangirl of x culture without respecting their ways" mentality is something that stigmatizes BJD collectors or any fan of Japanese/Asian culture as yuppie foreigners or weaboos.

 

Well here's a point that's been driven into the ground over and over again, but I'll reiterate it here. Rape fantasies are relatively common. Lots and lots of women have them. There is a lot that goes into that, and it's scattered around in plenty of the debate threads around here. HOWEVER, yes, the tragic angsty pasts are in fact an extension of female fantasy. Also if you look at the history of the genre, originally all (or almost all) of the relationships were doomed. It has to do with the "cherry blossom" mentality--because something is fleeting and delicate, it's all the more beautiful. So the moments of happiness are brief, making everything more intense.... Do you see where I'm going with this? Yaoi has very very little to do with gay men and gay culture, and it has never claimed to nor wanted to. There's erotica for gay men, and then there's erotica for women with men in it. Neither one is claiming to be the other.

Isn't that just close-minded of the seamstress, then? I know the very, very basics about a sari, but let's say I was actually quite well versed in them. But I don't speak Hindi. And what makes that seamstress so much more right than the one who WILL sell to interested foreigners?

That's a real double-edged sword you're holding there. You can take the protection of your heritage too far, when you won't allow anyone to share it or be inspired by it. (Japan's isolation much?) Besides, if cultures never mingled, we'd be so much worse off. If it weren't for the British taking bits of Indian culture, we wouldn't have chicken tiki marsala, to give a silly example. Japan borrowed their writing system from the Chinese, who were not terribly pleased with it, by the by.

Basically, it's silly to say that no one can be inspired by something and mix it into their own creation unless they have a deep, meaningful understanding of it. If I want to make something out of sari fabric because I think it's beautiful, but it's not a sari, I will. A user here makes absolutely gorgeous kimono-ESQUE clothing, that are not particularly accurate--that doesn't make them any less beautiful. It doesn't have anything to do with disrespecting a culture; this is aesthetics. Inaccuracy isn't inherently derogatory.

 

:: nodnodnod ::
If everyone had to have a couple college degrees in something before they could use it as part of their creative process we'd be in a sorry state. Why is it OK for say, someone who's of Italian descent to show a deep interest in Scottish culture, dig men in kilts, research the history and then squee about their favourite bands where it's OMG a MAN with an ACCENT in a KILT and OMG- and not get jumped on because hey, get a hold of yourself girl, you're not Scottish- or for a person of Korean descent to be a rabid fan of victorian Britain, and not be told they must have a fetish or something- but people who show a similar interest in Japan get called weeaboo?
Oh yeah, because that last one 'makes us look bad'.

 

Name names, by all means Your post is quite impressive and thought-provoking. I do find it hard to imagine people go shopping in a foreign land with the idea in mind of being entitled to cheapen the country's history. Although it is amusing to think of a Japanese tourist buying Southwestern art and privately enjoying how he has just cheapened the Americasn West.

I idly wonder if the French and the British should be up in arms over the Gothic Lolita people getting it all wrong in the matter of dress. Maybe our American Goths should also be upset.
In the anime Strawberry Marshmallow Miu is corrected by Nobue for wearing her hakama wrong, which is to say she had the left over the right, and would bring bad luck. I tend to think that if people get it wrong in matters of other cultures someone will point this out and education will have taken place.
Perhaps we should inform the creators of Excel Saga that Pedro is a stereotype, although he may be an honest depiction of immigrant workers in Japan for all I know.
I do sympathize with people who know the mostly correct order of things and see this order trampled upon by thyoughtless people who just do not know, or who just want to create issues.
My problem with arbiters of social responsibility, taste and sensitivity is that often they are self-appointed.
Would it be insensitive if someone were to display a doll in blackface and in response to a question, said: 'Oh. this isn't fantasy. This is a recreation of a vaudeville entertainer'.
What if the owner told you they just found blackface very amusing? Or their blackface doll was a ganguro?
A few years ago a black artist who performed in blackface many decades ago was on NPR talking about how incensed he was that modern people considered his work demeaning. People do not always know what they think they know about a subject, I've learned.
My opinion is that I would rather have controversial things out in the open although not necessarily all over the media. I would rather know that someone who dresses their dolls as Nazi furries has many admirers. I would rather know there are millions of females who enjoy depictions of abusive yaoi relationships (even if it would give me pause). Because then we can talk about the why of such things, if we wish.
Another opinion: the majority is not always right, the community is not always right, if there really is such a thing as right or wrong.
We talk about right or wrong as if somewhere there exists The Big Book of Right and Wrong to which we could refer if we only took the time. In my life I have come to think right or wrong is generally a matter of who is in control of resources, power, and armies.
By the way, is it always wrong to objectifying people or things? Does this perhaps give us a sort of safe distance from which to examine how we feel about a matter? Just a thought.
This is all opinion and subject to change, of course.

 

That doesn't mean that non-human symbols cannot provoke a reaction--maybe you need to try thinking a bit more outside the box? The world is filled with "problematic imagery" because we humans are a problematic species--there's nothing neat and perfect about us. And what is problematic for one person may not be for someone else, and there's different levels of what is problematic. You're making this way to black and white.

I was also not being contradicting--you missed my point which was:

If something was intended to be an acturate depiction and was described as such and is wrong, that is a different issue than something that is not intended to be accurate from the beginning. It is not necessary for everyone to have the intention of absolute accuracy. However, according to much of what you say, in order to be completely respectful of others and not to offend it is necessary to strive for 100% accuracy all of the time. That is a very very heavy burden to bear and completely kills the idea that these dolls provide an outlet for the imagination and as away to escape from reality for a bit.

Out of curiousity--how much do you know about yaoi? Besides the fact that its male/male and can sometimes be non-consensual? It seems that you are only taking the genre at face value. This is ok, not everyone has an interest in it or wants to know more. However, if you're going to seriously critique it, you might want to try looking at it a little more in depth (which is what you've been telling everybody else to do anyway).

I find it interesting that you think all the burden is on the viewer. As an artist, I've found that most of the burden falls on us never to be offensive, to never to create something that could be taken the wrong way etc. A viewer always has the right not to view something they don't like. I don't feel that people have to like everything that's out there, or to always feel comfortable with things, but the creator has the right to move beyond what's safe and comfortable. We have the burden to appropriately label what we put up so people can avoid contraversial material if they choose, we have the burden to follow the rules of what ever forum we're posting on. We do not have the burden to make sure we don't offend anybody.

Maybe the meaning isn't always being stripped away--maybe it's being interperated differently than the way you would interprate it. Perhaps in your attempts to open everyone else's minds you're running the risk of closing your own.

All things can be taken to an extreme--including your desire for social sensitivity. Respect is great and I'm not anti-research, but you have to be realistic in your expectations. Why? Because we are all people and don't have perfect understanding of everyone around us. You have to give room to let people be people. People who are otherwise friendly law abiding citizens, but might have goofy sexual fantasies, or not get foreign clothing styles 100% right (but is not meaning to be rude). People who are probably very nice human being if you gave them half a chance. I also find it interesting that you spend a lot of time discussing what horrors Westerners perpetuate without addressing the fact that non-Westeners do the same things.

I'm not saying that there aren't people that get carried away or behave in ways that are silly, but I worry that by your criteria there's almost no chance of being seen in a better light. I'm also not lazy or apathetic (nor am I particulary insensitive), but you don't actually know me, just as you don't actually know the other people you are debating with. Another thing that you might also want to take into account is that on this forum there is a very wide variety of ages and education levels which can also affect accuracy levels--it's hard to hold everyone in a community like this to the same standards. And again, for some people a particular article of clothing (for example) is merely a jumping off point where they then develope their own fantasy world that is not subject to the laws of planet Earth and the cultures that live on it.

I think your desire to create understanding and respect between cultures is a positive one, but I'm not sure you're doing it a lot of justice here.

 

i would like to suggest that a certain amount of cultural appropriation is inevitable in our modern electronic age. Worldwide, the same technologies which enable us to see and acquire ABJDs provide us with the cultural exposure that leads to mashups. It's not just the internet, or just visual arts. It what artists do when exposed to new, exotic art. All artists, all humans do this, not just westerners or non-Asians. And it can be justly critiqued, but not stopped or scolded out of existence, because it's the essence of creativity.

i had a discussion once with a friend who is a blues and rock musician. He hates "world music" with the hatred of ten thousand blazing suns. It's not really an aesthetic judgement, he feels when traditional music styles meld, their distinctions tend to disappear. And he's absolutely correct... except he's a blues musician. Which means the 'pure' form of his music, if there is such a thing, is perhaps a few centuries old, and created by upended traditional African and European musics. And then he plays rock, which mixes everything up yet again. When a musician travels to another land and plays with someone with an entirely different musical form or style, both musicians are often changed forever. Recorded music and performances, rapid worldwide travel, and broadcasting and electronic media accelerate the melding of styles and blurring of traditional distinctions. When the first wax recordings and radio broadcasts began, the die was cast. Music, art, languages costumes, all fall to cultural cross pollination over time. You can't stop the signal.

If you care about preservation of traditional ethnic costumes, by all means support those artisans who teach about and make traditional clothing, who serve as archivists and resources. Ask about origins and traditions, educate yourself and others. But it's unreasonable to expect that everyone tiptoe around imaginary and constantly moving cultural borderlines in what is essentially a form of creative adult play. Gay men's lives are not being demonstrably damaged by the fantasies of schoolgirls, and kimono and saris are not vanishing from the planet because people in the west dress their dolls, or themselves, funny. Traditional Asian clothing has lasted a lot longer than the things most of us are wearing in North America

 

Since we're on the topic of cultural appropriation, and I happen to be Egyptian, can we talk about how much Egyptian culture was appropriated by the Ancient Greeks and Romans? And then how many other ancient cultures appropriated other ancient cultures? Yeah, it's not new--many of the major Roman deities are just Greek deities with Roman names. Hell, the Romans made cultural appropriation their national pastime. "We take over your country, appropriate your culture so you feel at home, and then set up camp as your new governors."

Not only that, let's talk about how much Western culture has been appropriated by the Gothic and Lolita fashions in Japan. Sure, it's been given a Japanese "twist," but who cares? Punk wasn't exactly the national dress of England, and Lolita is just a twist on Victorian-era clothing. But it's still a cultural appropriation of sorts.

Hell, if I got mad every time I saw some slack-jawed yokel wearing a dime-store kaftan with some nonsense hieroglyphs on it, I'd never stop crying about it. No one here is claiming that they're trying to re-create a culture, and no one is claiming that they invented the kimono, or the kaftan, or the sari. I own several salwar khameez, am I appropriating Indian culture? Should I not buy a sari because I'm not Indian? Buying a kimono, or being interested in cultural pastimes, is not necessarily cultural appropriation. I welcome people going to Egypt, buying the kaftan, seeing the monuments--it means they're actively TRYING to be open-minded, learn something about the culture, and try something new and different that they wouldn't have done at home.

For crying out loud, let's not resign ourselves to our own bubbles and forbid people from doing something outside of their own culture.

 

Just a general response, because too many people are replying without reading the previous posts and causing unneeded repetition:

As I’ve said already, people of any group are offended by the act of being fetishized, whether it is based on age, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, etc. People may act as if yaoi is some single-minded entity that likes to post “gays need not apply” signs to the fandom, but as always, others will sympathize and relate to what they see as representations of themselves. You can't have rape fantasies (which is more of a powerplay issue anyway) without it being a sensitive trigger for some. You can’t have the yaoi without the gay factor (and yes, I’ve studied yaoi long enough to know that it isn’t just about having one type of author or audience anymore).

It all comes back to how you can’t have human-looking BJDs without people having positive/negative reactions to the visualization. You can’t write a poorly written novel and blame the audience for saying it’s crap. The locked 45/60 cm thread is at the very end of this subforum, and the post on the last page about Lolita (the book) really conveys what I’m trying to get across when it comes to BJD and perceptions of reality. Too many people are stuck on the cultural appropriation aspect without considering all the taboos that people don't like being acted out on dolls. If you're going to discount one as a stupid and overblown fantasy, you might as well discount them all. After all, they're all human responses to something that's "not real."

The “why aren’t you criticizing Westerners” is interesting, albeit a red herring and something I expected given the trend of two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy in any debate. Yes, non-Asians can perpetuate cultural appropriation of their own. But for the sake of being on topic, how do any of these comparisons relate with dolls and the context of Western BJD collectors who think they should be free to create a bastardized version of someone’s culture? Why bring up punk and Lolita if they have nothing to do with appropriating national dress?

Unless you can point out a major phenomenon of Asian BJD collectors making ganguro girls, blackface minstrels, and raggedy versions of colonial doll outfits going “lol this is an American,” it’s only going to turn into a general race/ethnicity debate and will probably get the thread locked. Otherwise, “but but they do it too!” is irrelevant and drawing false conclusions from non-existent arguments; I never said anything to support the opposite. Westerners tend to initiate the most contact with foreign cultures, and therefore their role in cultural appropriation on a worldwide basis has more impact than clashes between different ethnic groups. Besides, this forum is about the Asian aesthetic and it’s rare to find owners who haven’t given elements of Asian culture to their dolls.

And the last time I discussed the possible cultural biases that drive certain trends in Asian BJD sculpting and collecting, there was pretty much a consensus of “omg dont criticize them it’s not Asia’s fault because they’re so nice and insular and we shouldn’t impose our values on them.” Then surprise surprise, some random “poor meee” emoing got the thread shut down (a part of the reason why I won’t go into tangents about which countries are irresponsible when it comes to acting in their citizens’ best interests).

I don’t see how I’m looking at things “black and white” and “not thinking outside the box” if I’ve obviously acknowledged that both human and non-human symbols can provoke a reaction, and when I’ve taken the time to consider how people on the receiving end feel when they’re told that they shouldn’t be upset that their culture should be freely manipulated for some stranger’s entertainment value. It’s ironic how I’m being told to open my mind more in a sea of the same people agreeing with each other over the same things. If people do consider their culture to be enough of a serious “burden” to be taken seriously, then who are the foreigners to criticize how they handle their history and tradition? If the BJD collectors are so adamant on having artistic freedom and respect for what they create, then it makes no sense to “re-interpret” and disrespect something that was never theirs to begin with. The fact that people are full of misunderstandings and flaws does not mean they’re entitled to continue making a mess for others around them.

So if anything’s black and white, it’s how people are so quick to defend and slobber over anything Asian (a stark difference from genuine appreciation) while there are those who aren’t receptive to the fact that many people don’t like how Westerners are trying to idealize, define, and dissect what culture is supposed to mean for them. It’s seen as arrogant and patronizing, ignoring the fact that culture has entirely different implications in a heterogeneous society and a homogenous one. Countries like America, Canada, and Australia have no distinct “culture” with a unified sense of national dress because they’re an amalgamation of immigrant societies.

On the other hand, countries with a dominant ethnicity tend to celebrate culture as something exclusive and special, not something to assimilated and divided for every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes along. “Treating x culture as something serious is silly” really doesn’t count for much when you consider how that opinion hasn’t even been formed within the proper cultural sphere. Most people already consider it ignorant for people to tattoo Chinese characters on themselves or their dolls without knowing or caring what they mean, so what makes distorting national dress or other cultural artifacts any different?

There’s a difference between isolationism and a desire to preserve traditions. If people didn’t try to butcher what is meaningful to a culture, perhaps there wouldn’t be such hostile feelings in the first place. Take the historical meaning from a piece of national dress and you have just another piece of clothing, which defeats the whole purpose of national dress in the first place. One example of extremely damaging cultural appropriation came from white prostitutes in the Canadian West who wore kimono, which ended up sullying the image for local Japanese immigrant women. In the end, it’s their identity and values at stake, not yours. If you had read the previously linked articles about Native Hawaiians or Australian Aboriginals, you’d see how having thousands of years of history means nothing when it comes to modern tourism and foreign contact.

If you’re taking the time to realize that cultural artifacts are not gimmicks to be cheaply replicated, then you should realize that my argument does not apply to you. I’ve already outlined the difference between appreciation and appropriation. Thus, the indignant “if I do x am I appropriating culture?!!?” complaints are pointless and redundant.

 

Okay, here's something I can agree with, and a very good point.