Dolls, Desire, and the Perception of Reality

bunnydots- Agree.

Iikaya- I do agree with you one some point, but pointly, after reading over those who 'over' think this topic, and 'rant' endlessly about their point of view, was enough to turn me off of reading about those who 'really' speaks what they think on it. Do you get where i'm coming from? It like your enjoying a nice view of a waterfall, when 'bam' downs from the thunders and rain endlessly.

Nereina- Once more, upon readin your reply, Point proven of how it all taken so....'litterly' As stated, it about our 'doll' not 'our' feeling, but 'doll' and how it 'reflect' not how we 'feel' but 'reflect'...I think I'll stop now, I'm starting to feel like i'm ranting endlessly, or speaking to a wall...ahem.

Sorry all,for offending anyone on this...but like i say 'our' doll are stress reliver from the bunder of everyday life, and our view of homosexuality is all due to our enviroment and how we are raised...So indeed, all mixed debate,and look at here I'm still going off topic...a bit...Well, over and out!

 

OK, I just want to jump in here.

This is a debate thread. Nereina is Debating. Of course you are in no way obliged to agree with anything she posts but she's hardly out of line by rebutting your arguments. Just as you can do the same.

Isn't that the point of this subforum?

 

I think the point that I and several other people are making is that this debate has become about something far different from the original proposed topic. When that happens, debaters have the right to opt out - this isn't a presidential debate where you're forced to stand up there for a half hour and try to respond. The person stating their opinions is of course free to keep on stating them for as long as they like.

I would not normally make the point about why I was not responding but in this case, statements have been made suggesting that we're just not trying hard enough to see the other person's point of view, etc. My point is that the person here is debating in a way to make efforts at a response to them, futile. As Mephistol suggested, it is like "speaking to a wall". And with that, I will leave the topic.

 

The overall debate has gotten off topic many times. The person in questions who make long winded responses have been the ones who most of the time have been making off topic posts.
There is nothing wrong with stating an opinion as long as its on topic.

 

@ Iikaya: While I wasn’t thinking of you when I spoke of people not going into detail (I should have acknowledged that, and for that I apologize – I’m accustomed to being on boards where short posts consisting of “I agree” are considered spam), the problem is that some people were dismissing concern for cultural misrepresentation without as you said, having been in the position to defend it. There were assumptions made about the personal qualities of people who do see importance in setting a degree of realism in the BJD hobby. The lack of exact discussion topics in the original post aside from examples of BW sculpts and girly boys is exactly why I’m trying to avoid tangents and establish parallels to existing debates. Instead of discussing why people are inclined to propagate abusive yaoi or cultural appropriation, it turned into more of a “pfft yaoi and cultural appropriation aren’t bad to me” tangent without considering how they have an effect on other people.

As for your original point, it’s something that I’ve been thinking about for quite some time. I think a lot of us have been brought up to know that some things are disturbing by default, but when it comes to considering offensive portrayals of a cultural or social minority, people don’t know all that much, or are convinced that it isn’t an issue anymore. I think that’s what makes it easier for them to silently acknowledge that doll depictions of nudity, sex, pedophilia, violence, gore, etc. are negative triggers for people, but subjects like LGBT objectification and cultural misrepresentation makes them defensive. The latter two aren’t things that are commonly discussed or included in a person’s education or upbringing.

Even yesterday during the Day of Silence, some heterosexual people were acting as if LBGT individuals didn’t deserve that 24 hours to themselves because being homosexual, bisexual, or transgendered were things one could simply choose according to their opinion. It’s uncommon for a “dominant” group to examine their privilege without feeling like they’re being held liable for something. Of course it doesn’t obligate anyone to join activist picket lines, but I think a part of being a mature person is knowing the kind of things you can inadvertently perpetuate against your fellow citizens. Any idiot can say anything under the protection of free speech (private venues and public disturbances not withstanding), but it takes something else to have a responsible and justifiable message. Like I said, they can have their rapist dolls and their trashy representations of someone’s cultural/religious traditions, but free speech does not validate those concepts by default. If they aren’t prepared to be held accountable for what they’ve created (or the lack of labeling/explanation) and thinks anyone who criticizes them should shut right the hell up, then there’s no point in appealing to “free speech.” If they couldn’t care less and aren’t bothered about being potentially perceived as a troll or a jerk; again, my point doesn’t apply.

There’s also the issue of the internet creating safe havens for people to the point of desensitizing them and making them feel as if deviant fetishes are perfectly okay. I would’ve thought the idea as ludicrous myself until e-drama occurred over real pedophiles on a very large PG-13 site I frequented. They weren’t just rampaging trolls, but people who openly advocated sexual relations with children. By hijacking enough threads in the debate forum and making pseudo-scientific arguments about why child-adult relations were logical, they actually got a following of people (both adults and teenagers) who believed in and condoned the concept. The mods eventually instituted a mass bannination, but they’re still petitioning for the right to talk about their deviant fetishes (though they agreed to the ToS, which makes them subject to censorship and membership revocation at any time).

I think it goes back to your point about fear of how some people come to accept what is patently wrong; if mere text on a screen can influence such skewed views about living children, then what can one say of dolls, visualization, and added descriptions? People who depict children as sexually active people may just be dabbling in fantasy without having actual pedophilic thoughts, but there’s no denying that fantasy takes its shape from reality. Otherwise, anthropomorphizing wouldn’t be so popular, and anything fictional would just be a colourless, shapeless blob with no projected personality or emotions. “omg a real child is being hurt” is an illogical response to pedophilic doll content, but refusing to see its roots in a very real world problem is just as worrying. I do acknowledge that people who engage controversial doll art can form their own sandboxes elsewhere, but I don’t believe in trying to change an already established sandbox to accommodate a totally different mindset. It’s the same way that I wouldn’t be here if DoA was clearly hostile to international members, religious differences, social minorities, or anyone who is far removed from the prescribed Western norm.

 

@ Shitori: The same could be argued from the opposite; as I’ve noted above, privilege and activism are often taken for granted to the point that people seem to think that yaoi fandom, the city of San Francisco, and a few countries with same-sex marriage makes it easy to be a LBGT individual. I hear enough racist, classist, ethnocentric, homophobic, and gendered epithets in real life that I prefer not to see that kind of ignorance and apathy ascribed on to a doll hobby. It’s the same reason why I usually avoid watching movies and TV unless there is a social gathering; there’s nothing entertaining or thought-provoking about gratuitous violence and sex to me. Some people go to specific online venues to get away from all this real life saturation while others go to different venues because they don’t get enough and crave that kind of imagery. I think most of us acknowledge by this point that people in the latter category can generally do what they want as long as they’re not hurting real people, so it’s rather exasperating when one gets told that they shouldn’t voice their objections at all because they’re essentially meaningless (when voicing objections =/= telling people they can’t do x and breaking their doll/sewing machine).

The “activism” issue on DoA is also a matter of equally reciprocated free speech; if people don’t want to put up with social commentary, then perhaps they should consider why their work is attracting said commentary. The “it’s just a doll” argument could also be said from the other side; people who just want the hobby to be about sculpts and the beauty of the doll, rather than having to ponder about an owner’s artistic vision behind male dolls “seducing” each other through sexual assault or worry that their boss is going to have their hide because he/she also saw the unlabeled 45/60 photostory you accidentally stumbled upon (moral clauses allow the searching of home computers in some jobs).

I do agree that age and language barriers factor into the equation, though I’m inclined to think that younger members are less likely to have such expensive hobbies due to parental discouragement and labour laws that usually prevent people under the 16 from getting part-time jobs. Even then, I think it can go back to my other observation about how impressionable minds can be desensitized with the right kind of conditioning. I don’t think we’re obligated to do anyone’s parenting for them, but it doesn’t hurt to exercise some discretion when it comes to content and emphasize the importance of separate venues. And at one point, those kids are going to have to learn that many people don’t see youth as an excuse for ignorance and will expect them to be accountable for their expression.

As for your take on culture and Japan; I’d say respecting its preservation isn’t anywhere close to appropriation, as opposed to trying to absorb Japanese culture into a Western context without value. It’s the difference between actually learning the language, and running around yelling “KAWAII DESU!”

I think it can apply in a general sense, but I also think it’s best to narrow down examples to this community since existing discussion threads about realistic perceptions provide tangible evidence of how people interact with BJDs. It prevents the debate from getting too personal with “Well I don’t see realism when my dolls depict x so no one should” statements. It comes down to a question of venues anyway, since forum rules ultimately dictate what belongs and doesn’t belong no matter how much people think depictions of deviant fetishes, violence, cultural/religious disrespect are tasteless. I guess the rundown of the combined premises would be that:

a) Plenty of people do see dolls as a reflection of their human fears and personal views, which may explain why they are attracted to relatively tame PG-13 venues instead of 18+ if they don't care to see certain images.

b) Realism should matter to some extent, since straying too far implies an inability to cope with the fact that doll portrayals are grounded in triggering experiences thousands of people go through on a minute basis. If any medium of visual communication can evoke an emotional response, then it’s unreasonable to expect people to hold dolls up to a different standard. Nonetheless, people have the right to play by their own rules in their own domain (if the KKK can have their own website&#8230.

@ bunnydots: I didn’t get the impression that you were really tuning in to begin with, because then you’d know why I had to repeat my arguments on several instances. But thanks anyway; I personally don’t see being nitpicky as a vice, considering what I have to deal with in terms of written standards. If there is a sentiment that I’m trying to have some sort of a monopoly on the debate, I could easily flip that around and say “most people are jumping on the one person who has a stark contrast in views, zomg.” Except I won't, since it wouldn't be much of a debate to concede for the sake of maintaining an agreeable atmosphere.

Dolls are often a reflection of our sense of reality, which is obviously going to mean a reflection of our feelings, opinions, and personal beliefs as well. It's how a religious person would likely avoid committing iconoclasm or blasphemy through their doll. I think you've simply misunderstood the given premises, and the purpose of a debate at that. Again, people are always free to not participate or take temporarily breathers instead of agonizing out loud over whether they're really leaving or not.

 

*point down below* There should be a stop sign in noe writting somewhere. Again, old broken record playing the same tune, start to just pass over one head after a while.

 

Your keyword there is 'often' Sorry to brust your bubble there, but my boys, are in no way connect to my 'reality' (trust me, reality is boring) but all exist within the realm of fantasy. Of course you can agrue with me that fantasy is also base upon me...which, i'm sure in some way it all reflect some part of me...but it also isn't me. It might be the me who like to enjoy a world different from the daily(Sp) life of work, home,work,home. Which i live in, they are my stress reliever...and that is as far as it go. I do admit, it 'fun' but not in any way, reflect upon me as a person...Because, there is a line between reality, and fantasy, and I do know where that line is. But i must admit, not all do.

My Dolls are my modles, my art, but i'm not obsess enough to say they all reflect me, because can i list of a millions of other intertesed that i'm hook on just as much as my Dolls. Art being the base of me having these BJDs in the first place, so I can draw my characters.

Well, let me stop as that, because i'm sure there someone can always find some falut in what i have to say, and twist it around.

I say all what i have to say, and see it pointless to write a ten page thread 'ranting' on, and on,and on, about me...and that subject that spins about like a whirlpool.

P.S.

I'm start to feel like a old broken record player that repeating the same thing, over, and over, and over again.

 

back to the thread because it's very interesting.
only once i planned a character for my doll, and it was a disaster, i think they choose it, don't know how to explain it.
i got 4 boys and one girl. i'm bisexual. they're all ns. people ask me sometimes looking at my boys :"it's a boy? no, you're kidding, i see it's a girl, come on". so i realised that my rl preferences are also in my dollfies. i prefer girly guys. i don't like mens, muscles , short hairs etc etc /what is strange it's not bother me when it comes to girls - i only don't like when girl looks like a guy/. maybe i like the feminine side of life. and you can see it looking at my dolls. my friend also aksed me once - "why you don't buy only girls", and my answer was: "i don't know, or maybe i don't do it because i would make her as a perfect girl and no one in rl would never be so perfect as she". so why i buy boys - i laughed once i need to repair them, i need to make them prettier, they are not perfect so i need to do something. my gay friends never told me they don't like it or anything. maybe only : "he's not my type " ha ha ha. i always preffered girly boys so i have girly looking dollfie boys. ok. enough with my broken english

 

Alright. I wasn't born in the US and I come from a country where we have more races and different cultures than I can count on both hands so based on Nereina's earlier words, I should be able to give some insight to how those in the East feel about cultural appropriation. This is pretty much off-topic, but since it was brought up for a large part of the thread, I'll just throw it in as well.

Once upon a time, majority of Asians were very much possessive of their culture. Let's not even consider wearing a kimono, cheongsam or sari wrongly. Having a Westerner wear our traditional clothing would be shocking enough. Worse yet would be for an Asian to actually wear a Westerner's outfit! How disrespectful to your own culture! Needless to say, it's not like that anymore. Sharing our culture has become a lot more important than keeping it to ourselves and keeping it right and accurate only for ourselves.

I can't speak for every single Asian out there. But among the people I know, (Chinese, Indians, Malays, Japanese, Thais, Taiwanese, Koreans and...I'm blanking at the moment), the majority of them would not be too fussed about a model in New York strutting her stuff in a sexy version of our traditional clothing. It's part of culture exchange and also, a lot of us are well aware that there's a lot of difference between actual, historically correct interpretation of our culture and inspiration from it used on clothing. I won't say that there won't be people who would find themselves offended perhaps, but I also would really like to deter any belief that the majority of Asians are going, "Why are you ruining my culture?!" at the sight of an outfit that is worn differently from how it used to be.

When I watch a film about ancient China, I love it when the costumes are accurate. I am disappointed and annoyed that they haven't done the research if they get it wrong. When I see doll photos in the gallery with accurate outfits, I am impressed. If they get it wrong, I am less so impressed but neither am I offended as they are not meant to be an educational program of how the Chinese used to wear their headdresses and the type of brocade used.

To boil it down...we're playing with dolls. This is a place for us to kick back and relax, let the imagination run free. Some of us put a lot of work into what we do with our dolls, but ultimately, even that involves enjoyment on our part. And unless there's a poll conducted now that shows the forum-goers believe everything presented over here as a way of life, I'm going to remain highly skeptical that people believe kimonos are traditionally worn with breasts hanging out and gay people only communicate through S&M because dolls are shown doing so.

Last but not least, Nereina, you bring up the point that 60/45 relationships was faced with some disapproval from DoAers, so clearly dolls reflect to some extent, how we feel in reality. And also, that we don't seem to hold gay relationships presented on the forum by the same standard. I just want to point out that there is a difference between a portrayal of something that is illegal in real life, and a badly portrayed relationship (gay relationships = BDSM).

 

I'm amused about this mostly because there's not a single polite thing about it. That's like politely asking if someone cut their own hair. Or politely noticing someone has gained weight and should have considered a longer dress. The amazing phenomenon "I think I should tell you because I clearly know better than you do" overrides "I will not openly call attention to that unfortunate gaffe because it is unnecessarily unkind," wins yet again.

Other than that, LKJ, I am in complete agreement with your statements.

 

The way I look at it, I don't really care how people would like to have their dolls. It's when a person starts wishing for a partner of child with BW skin or something... Then I should get worried.

I had a huge crush on a anime figure with metal limbs. I was really in love with him and I asked a friend if she thought that I was mad. She said something very wise "I start worry the day you would start to search for a real boyfriend with metal limbs, I know that you know this figure is fiction, but when you start to believe he is a real person, then it's too much". And I think it's the same here. I don't think someone is racist just because he/she has only BW dolls. If a person has only BW dolls because he/she is a racist, then I think it's just really really sad.

And last I want to say that I totally believe what LKJ is saying.

 

I'll bring up again that the original questions in the original post didn't ask 'why people are inclined to propagate what they do' as they rather specifically asked 'Are our dolls reflective of our perceptions of reality and how much should it matter'.

Considering the perpetuation of certain stereotypes, I sometimes think that it seems like there should be a 'good reason' for this perpetuation - that the persons perpetuating the stereotypes have in their own mind very specific and very realistic vision of those stereotypes, BUT.

For many people, their dolls play out fantasies - fantasy fictional characters in a fantasy fantastical world - and so in knowing that their dolls and their dolls' lives and lifestyles are NOT realistic/NOT meant to portray reality/NOT connected to reality, the question of 'Why do [they] keep perpetuating certain stereotypes' is quite possibly simply overlooked or even becomes negligible. After all, reality is reality and fantasy is fantasy and like many people said, their fantasies are NOT their realities. Additionally, if their fantasies were their realities, they wouldn't be fantasies anymore.

Like someone else said much earlier in this discussion, fantasy involves imagination and the road away from reality. Unlike an academic presentation which relies entirely on research and hardcore facts and 'getting the facts straight' and presenting the facts in a way that is undisputable and true, a photostory about fictional characters living in a fantastical world relies on the power of the fantasy and the ability of its audience to sidestep reality and to dream and fantasize with the one who created their own fantastical world.

Fantasy for many is the abandonment of the rules of reality and with the abandonment of reality comes the abandonment of the concerns related to reality and this, I believe, includes concerns related to issues like 'Does my protrayal reek of stereotyping and is this a bad thing?'.

In concluding this string of thoughts, I believe it's the very nature of fantasy that brings up the whole sense of people seemingly not caring how their portrayals affect other people. It isn't that people are apathetic, but the very nature of fantasies - a sidestep from realities - creates the counter question of 'why SHOULD my fantasies be subject to the rules of reality' as fantasies, once again, are departures from realities. In this same vein, people who are genuinely attempting to realistically portray something put themselves into the reality category rather than fantasy, which by default subjects them to the 'rules' of reality because they are playing with reality rather than fantasy.

As to exactly WHY people keep perpetuating certain stereotypes...

Again, for the people whose portrayals are NOT reflections of their senses of reality, I think this relates back to fantasy and what they find personally appealing to their interests or intents versus what is 'correct' or 'following the rules' as again, fantasy need not and often does not follow rules.

If people are attempting to portray reality, the issue with accurate portrayals becomes much more poignant as the portrayals ARE, then, reflections of the doll owners' realistic perceptions.

There's more thought related to this, but I'll stop here to collect my thoughts some more.

 

Nereina
Within the context of an international forum, with many children, you are equating, more or less, images of dolls which might be interpreted as heavily influenced by yaoi's depiction of pretty boys and some types of stituations in yaoi , with images of rape, abuse, child and adult relationships (which most people would agree are out of bounds here), and further placing images of dolls dressed in kimonos and the like which display some ignorance of the culture from which it was borrowed on roughly the same field as the types of images I mentioned. You are arguing essentially for more awareness in the doll owner in regard to all stereotypes , particularly the ones we seldom question. Would this be a fair summarization of your position?
Do dolls reflect the owner's sense of reality, do dolls depict a person's view of the world? Sometimes and sometimes not, judging by the responses here. May I ask if you are convinced that dolls always reflect reality in some meaure, of the owner's perception of reality?
Should it matter to this community if it does? How does it matter? Should we be concerned with a member who borrows heavily from a yaoi storyline to do a photo story? If we are concerned how should we handle it?
Should the administrators contact a member and question their intent or require explanation for every cross-dressed boy doll with effeminate features?
Should these things matter to the community? Yes, but I do not know how much. I don't know where to begin to draw lines except in obvious cases of stereotypes or illegality. Of course, one person's stereotype just might ba another person's accurate historical or current representation of truth. I would for instance have no problem with an SS officer uniform on a doll if it were a recreation. If the doll was posted with text embracing of Nazi values,there is a problem.
Certainly there aren't many bjd owners under the age of sixteen I would think. Well, that may be a false assumption. Not all bjds cost hundreds of dollars. However, a nineteen year old is generally a child in my eyes simply due to a lack of long experience. I hope no one is offended by that. I agree that young people, and actually most anyone, can be desensitized.
It doesn't really bother me if someone only posts agreement. They are taking a public stand; I rather see it as applauding or the "Hear, hear," you might find in a public debate.
The Star-Spangled Doll incident made me feel a bit sorry for the seller. I can imagine his line of reasoning when he decided on that name. I think China is still learning when it comes to American markets.
I just thought of something: when I was growing up, and to a lesser extent today, girls had their Barbies and such dolls and boys had their GI Joes and Johnny West. You might say these were dolls which reflected the child's perception of reality,or taught them something about reality. Yet that imaginary world does not seem to have been taken far outside the realm of play. Girls did not grow up to be Stepford wives as a rule, and boys did not grow up to run amok with military weapons. Mostly.
This may not work as one thing is child's play and another is adult/play/hobby.
In my opinion most of the bjd owners here are quite capable of separating the accepted definition of play and fantasy from reality, and these are the people who are having the most trouble with you.
Some people may wish for and express a desire for something very wrong, in some people's opinion, through their dolls and other hobbies. Generally, whatever people believe, it is not possible to change the world to mirror the darker sides of yaoi, for instance. No matter how hard one works, it is a fact that not all men,or women, are stunning and desirous of being taken by force. On the other hand, it is quite possible to make acceptable at least some very wrong things. As Iikaya pointed out.

 

I think a doll can reflect what we likes and could be even reflect a 'reality'.. anyway.. i don't see this problems.. there's cute dolls, about fantasy or reality, don't matter, the important thing is that we like what we create... they are art...
But even in the real life, I prefer males with long hairs and more female's type of face .. I appreciate very much a little shadows in eyes I think males are more beautiful.. what is the better look for humans? I don't know who stabilish that female needs longs hairs and make up and male needs short hairs and no make up.. it should be both of them, so I think to be more' beauty' is what we all wants.

For all the other things: rape, and things like that I think is a bad image for children who have these dolls..

 

I won’t have internet access for a week due to a trip, but I still look forward to seeing your responses.

Yes, the keyword is “often,” which is obviously not an absolute qualifier like “always” or “never.” It denotes that something occurs regularly, but not to the point that anything opposite is non-existent. So no, you haven’t “burst my bubble.” The fact that you do set a line between reality and fantasy indicates self-imposed limits, which fits into the premise that reality does, and should matter to an extent in doll-play.

Seeing how I was talking about insular Eastern countries that still don’t have a wide range of different races and cultures to this day, I don’t think your insight would be fully relevant. The perspective of someone who is immersed in a melting pot or a mosaic is going to be vastly different from that of someone who lives in a country where foreigners only make up less than 1 to 2% of the population; many of whom have no standing as actual citizens.

Which again brings the fallacy of arguing from ignorance into question, not to mention that there’s a stark difference between S&M and frequent mentions of actual abuse and rape. Unless you can provide evidence against everything that’s been said about misrepresentation and bothersome portrayals (as in, not just that one minuscule part about belief), doubt and “it’s just dolls!” are immaterial in terms of actual debate.

Seeing how 45/60 is supposed to feature 45cm dolls who are adults, it’s not even about illegality. It’s the implication of smaller, shorter, and less developed bodies next to bodies that are the opposite. If the mere implication of that image and the “baggage” (to quote another user) that viewers carry with themselves can elicit such a response, then it’s no more or less valid than the “baggage” that someone else carries when they see gay doll relationships with a history of abuse and rape (which are illegal, and again have nothing to do with BDSM), regardless of owner’s written messages of how they’re mutually in love.

Why is clarification impolite? It’s like how labeling is encouraged when it comes to 45/60 relationships even when it’s established that the 45cm doll is 18+. If an unlabeled photostory with no explanation of the characters has a 45 cm doll that looks like a child, dresses like a child, talks and acts like a child, but is clearly engaged in an intimate relationship with an adult 60 cm doll, then it’s going to raise some eyebrows and call some clarification into question. It’s the same with people who do see a deceased character when they see a kimono folded in the opposite direction, since they might find it interesting/unnerving/whatever that someone made a dead doll that has relationships with the living. Then there are the incidents of owners who heavily cross-dress their boy dolls to the point of no distinction sans labeling/explanation, and then complain that the viewers are referring to them by the wrong female pronouns. After all this talk about free speech, I’m amused at how it still isn’t going both ways, and at how clarification is supposedly offensive.

As I said to Mephistol: “Dolls are often a reflection of our sense of reality, which is obviously going to mean a reflection of our feelings, opinions, and personal beliefs as well. It's how a religious person would likely avoid committing iconoclasm or blasphemy through their doll.” The question of “why” is inevitable when you’re analyzing the examples and the thought process behind how realistic perceptions matter to a doll owner. If you take into account why people don’t care to perpetuate certain things through their dolls or voice their objections on DoA because it’s against their culture, spiritual/religious beliefs, upbringing, or moral system; doesn’t that answer whether or not their dolls are a reflection of their reality?

I do acknowledge that people consider their fantasies as a be-all and end-all at times with no apologies, that dolls are used as creative outlets and tools for escapism.

But in terms of arguing how much of that and realism should matter, the arguments about safe havens, fetishism, desensitizing, different venues, and misrepresentation come into play again. It’s when people insist that their fantasy has no basis in reality at all that it becomes problematic; again, it begins to look like apathy and at times, outright delusion. People have dolls who are non-human, ageless, unnaturally coloured (eyes, hair, skin, and such), elf-eared, horned, etc. but at the same time, I think plenty of them set their own realistic restrictions on select parts of fantasy they play out and would be bothered by things like non-consensual acts and excessive gore. From people who don’t set such limits on their fantasy and truly decide that children are ideal sex partners or that homosexual rape is really romantic, claims of how their fantasy supercedes the reality of human misery and the reactions people have to visual examples really sets off a lot of alarm bells. Fantasy may not have rules for them, but their fantasy is often not other people’s fantasy and this forum’s policies are a fine example of that. At some point, I think some people need to step back and realize that fantasy is not a self-validating principle.

Or to reiterate my response to Shitori as a shorter version: “Realism should matter to some extent, since straying too far implies an inability to cope with the fact that doll portrayals are grounded in triggering experiences thousands of people go through on a minute basis. If any medium of visual communication can evoke an emotional response, then it’s unreasonable to expect people to hold dolls up to a different standard. Nonetheless, people have the right to play by their own rules in their own domain (if the KKK can have their own website&#8230.”

 

Basically, almost everyone here in the forum aren't qualified to speak about their experience, right? Including you?

I do know people who have lived most of their lives in India and Vietnam, but I don't know if they would fall under your stated category. And I lived two years in a hostel with Koreans and Japanese who had, for the first time, ventured out of their countries. These are the same people I was talking about previously. They might not be insular enough for your point, I suppose.

Based on your point of view, because I come from a 'melting pot', my experience on social integration or appropriation is irrelevant. It's only relevant if I come from a mostly one race country. Curiously, would that mean my culture is less important, less precious, would have less need for any safeguards from appropriation?

I used the words 'communicate through S&M' lightly. Feel free to replace it with 'frequent abuse and rape'. I'm not sure why you thought so, but I was not saying that S&M is the same as abuse and rape. Let me replace the phrase in the sentence to reiterate my point: "I'm going to remain highly skeptical that people believe kimonos are traditionally worn with breasts hanging out and gay people only abuse and rape each other because dolls are shown doing so." (Edit to add: From what I recall, 'abuse and rape' in yaoi manga used to be an often-used theme, though not the only plotline existing ever. But I think it's fairly different on DoA. Especially with the rules, abuse and rape aren't actually the norm in photostories.)

Let me see if I understand what you're asking. And I'm sorry if you're repeating yourself but as this debate goes on, the points raised and the sentences used are getting rather convoluted.

You want me to provide evidence that...there's no misrepresentation or bothersome portrayals happening on this forum? If that's not what you're saying, please clarify.

Anyhow, I have not once said that there is no misrepresentation. This is fantasy. Fantasy is not a representation of reality. Fantasy could be in some ways described as a misrepresentation of reality. Also, my argument was never about 'it's just dolls.' My argument is that fantasy played out using dolls does not always equate actual representation of cultures or documentaries of relationships. Does fantasy have some basis in reality? Sure, why not? Whether it's 0% to 100%, that will vary based on the individual. That doesn't mean that this portrayed fantasy is supposed to represent to the world how a culture or relationship works.

I don't have girls hanging out of kimonos and I am highly uninterested in abusive relationships be it involving heterosexuals, homosexual or bisexuals. And I'm not saying, 'it's fantasy - that's a be all, end all reasoning for everyone to post whatever they want, wherever they want without following the rules.' Definitely not. You play in their sandbox, you follow their rules. When I bring up the argument of 'they're dolls, this is fantasy/fictional', it's mostly in response to your saying that by playing with dolls in such a way, we're misrepresenting a culture, a sexual preference, to the point where other people adopt this misrepresentation as reality.

Here's a question though based on what you said earlier:

If you're asking for evidence, I too would like evidence where the people on a doll forum, due to exposure to doll photostories, now believe that kimonos are worn with breasts and legs seen and gay couples are often violent and abusive.

 

This is what I feel too, thanks for being brave enough and posting it because there is a mass majority of these types of characters in BJDs. But then again, I cant tell people 'This is must mean they think gay men are like that' as I dont have evidence they do. However, there are plenty of replies in threads saying how 'sexy' this type of character is and is desirable in a partner (for example 'Hes got a sexy body, I wish I had a boyfriend like him' etc) which worry me,and personally put me off visiting the board at times (because of the mass amount of this same character, not because of the content) but then what do I know? They may be not taking it as seriously as I am!

 

Nereina:

1. This is BRILLIANT (especially the first sentence)! "It’s uncommon for a “dominant” group to examine their privilege without feeling like they’re being held liable for something. Of course it doesn’t obligate anyone to join activist picket lines, but I think a part of being a mature person is knowing the kind of things you can inadvertently perpetuate against your fellow citizens. Any idiot can say anything under the protection of free speech (private venues and public disturbances not withstanding), but it takes something else to have a responsible and justifiable message."

2. I do not agree with everything you have said, however, I appreciate the role you are playing in this debate and look forward to reading your thoughful posts. Without your input I am under the impression this "debate" would turn into a mutual masterbation session with everyone nodding at one another in agreement!

 

Originally Posted by Nereina

As a person who has never posted a photostory, or owned any girlyboy dolls, i'm not taking your repeated dismissive and inflammatory comments in a directly personal way. My objection is far more general, and goes back to the idea that there are two ways - your way or the highway. i'm also unclear as to what you would have us, or the board, do? Are you satisfied with what is actually allowed and disallowed here, or not? And do you draw any distinction whatsoever between what people think, and what they do?

In creative endeavors, there will always be a gap between the person who makes up the thing and the audience. Some of the audience may meet the work more than half way, others may be offended. The more personal the creation, the less likely it is to clearly, directly carry a political or social message. Because that isn't its primary purpose or function. And the job of the creator is not to anticipate every conceivable offense, no matter how remote, before proceeding. If such were the case, all imaginative efforts would be expended in those speculations, and nothing but the least challenging forms of sermons would result. Personal fantasies in artistic forms have deep value to very many people who play with dolls. PLAY with dolls. When you have your planned dolls, and you work out your personal ways to relate to them, perhaps this will become more clear.

The fact that you can extrapolate, using your imagination, actual harmful effects in that play to others, absent any substantive proof, is undisputed. You have every right to do so, and i agree that being conscious of a broader message and the feelings of others is always a good thing. But simply because you don't value a narrative or character doesn't make its creator apathetic or delusional. And, by the way, people who "truly" think that children make ideal sex partners or that any rape is romantic didn't "decide" it at all - no more than a person "decides" their sexual orientation. Those are sexual behaviors and fetishes, not fantasies, but deciding doesn't enter into it. Behavior we can and must limit, but fantasies won't be denied. If i imagine something in any context, i don't decide, "this can't be on fire", "we won't have blood", "this is nonconsensual", "yegads, don't put THOSE two dolls together". That's why it's fantasy, not reality. And, yeah, fantasy isn't a self-fulfilling principle, because it isn't a principle at all. It is an activity, an action of our unconscious. It exists in a world of metaphors and allegories. It doesn't have rules. It has bunnies, kittens and rainbows, it can also have rape, terror, blood and kink. That's why the board has rules, not because fantasy is bad, but so that the broadest possible number of BJD lovers can share their hobby. Hopefully we edit or censor our fantasies after the fact, so we can share them with others on this or other more appropriate boards. But if we make everything for everybody, we make everything for nobody.

And the rules on this board, which you keep alluding to, exist for a very good reason. On this i think we agree. That is the intersection between peoples' wildest fantasies, and other viewers who might not like what they see. There is a great deal, here, and elsewhere on the internet, which i don't care to examine. It seems to me that this board has evolved some pretty good systems for allowing me to see what i wish while avoiding what i don't care for. So if we agree, why i do i always feel after reading one of your posts that you disapprove of all, or most of us?

Intent isn't everything in this world, but in the arts it is much more important that you allow. People who dress and enact scenes with dolls depicting catchall costuming, gender swapping, crossdressing, size discrepancies, fill-in-the-hot-button-issue aren't usually doing it to oppress people of other lands, sexual orientations, or children. They are enacting the voices of their unconscious, working out things in play using extreme activities as symbols. You're showing an admirable empathy for people who are largely unaware that our hobby even exists. For an experiment, you might try putting yourself in the place of the people who produce such images for themselves and other BJD hobbyists, and imagine what kind of pain and joy would produce such provocative imagery. Because i really don't see that we're as bad as all that.