Dolls, Desire, and the Perception of Reality

*take out some oil to fix the old broken player that keep repeating itself*

I think my eyes just start swirling and all i'm seeing is darkness...for a little post I get a like ten page reply ** now where is that wash cloth for me to help sooth my buring eyes.


alright....last time, i swear...I think, let hope so

How does i know the limited between the role of boring old reality of work and work and pay your bills, mean self impost limits to the world of fantasy where dragon fly, and merman/mermaid swims in the open sea...not to mention the unicorn and lord those lovely elf and vampires.


So your saying that, for me to know that I live within the world of fantasy with my boys, who are indeed my muses for my alt and whatnot, that i force it upon myself? Listen if i set limits to the world of fantasy, then I might as well be dead, when i say i know where to draw the line, i mean i won't start saying

*oh look, I have wings let me show you how to fly, and jump off a building thinking that pixie is going to blow happy dust on me...nor would i take out my *magic* staff and wish away all my problems.* Reality is reality,and fantasy stays within our realms of mind, not upon the everyday life nor action we choose to do....sorry i didn't spoon feed it to you for it to become clear.


and I think i went a bit off topic, and type a bit to much, so over and out, and i feel like now I join the group of writting ten page of defense for other to see it my way...gah how low i sink (and only those who know it true, would take offend to that)*Waddles off to see if that old broken record replayer that repeats the same tune can be fix*hint, hint*

 

In a nutshell, yes.

I can’t make that kind of generalization, since my examples came from specific threads in the forums. I can only observe that many owners choose to set realistic limits on the fantasies they perpetuate, though the idea of people who choose not to do, or are incapable of discerning between reality and fantasy isn’t all that impossible.

I don't think awareness should be about enforcing if we’re going by precedents (after all, photostory labeling still isn't a rule), especially when cross-dressing is nowhere as controversial as romanticized rape/abuse in yaoi storylines. It really comes down to courtesy and common sense. Viewers would be better off it if they didn’t actively seek out content they find offensive for the sake of complaining. Artists would be better off labeling and explaining their work, or taking it to another venue if they don’t want negative feedback. Otherwise (as I’ve said before), the artists should not be surprised if someone addresses their heavily cross-dressed boy by the wrong female pronoun.

The least expensive BJD seem to be in the $200 range, which is still a lot to save in terms of minors who can’t legally obtain jobs.

Actually, the seller is American. It's just that he chose to have the dolls made entirely in China, which was the cause for the controversy.

There are these two famous studies that examined children and the way they interacted with toys. They did not impact the children’s perceptions of reality, but their perceptions of reality and behaviour impacted the way they treated the toys. I think a similar thing can be said of adult BJD owners. Dolls alone usually do not change the way we think of reality (unless someone else uses them to convey a seriously convincing message), but we often project our perceptions and expectations of reality on to them.

What do you mean by "almost everyone?" and "you?" I was under the impression that this was an international forum, and that you possibly couldn't know anything about my experience or ethnic background beyond what what is on my profile and previous posts. Instead of asking loaded questions and focusing on anecdotes, perhaps you should provide actual evidence of claims as expected in a debate.

And here we go with the lack of context again. The point was that people from a melting pot/mosaic area can't quite speak for the cultural experiences of a homogeneous country unless they have facts to support their claims, the same way that people from a homogeneous can't quite speak for the experiences of a melting pot/mosaic without the same kind of tangible proof. I don't think I've ever said that it can't go both ways.

Those rules weren't created until 2007 (meaning those themes were frequently played out enough to be shut down) and even then, "vague mentions" are allowed. They may be muted now, but they haven't disappeared altogether. From what I can gather, there are still many subtly written backstories that romanticize rape and abuse. The vamp/femme/gay/raped El with a tragically sordid past is still a large part of archetypal BJD jokes. Then there’s the fact that ConDoll alone has over 10,000 members, many of which are already a part of DoA. Touchy subject matter in this hobby may not be a “norm,” but it’s very much popular.

Frankly, representation and misrepresentation are two sides of the same coin. The end result still has a [skewed] reflection of something that exists in real life. The artist may claim that an existing culture/religion/orientation doesn’t work a certain way in their fantasy, but that doesn’t mean members of said culture/religion/orientation are going to be perfectly peachy with being depicted as such. It’s like telling a pagan BJD owner “I know your religion doesn’t work that way, but in my doll world, you people are heathen savages who worship dead myths.” The disclaimer will likely do jack in terms of dissuading people from being offended at the fact that an important part of their reality has been distorted. Is there some kind of privileged unwritten rule that a culture/religion/orientation must happily agree to being appropriated and treated as a mere element of someone’s imagination?

One, it's rather poor form to ask for evidence when you haven't presented any. Two, you've ignored context again, as well as other people’s arguments in response. The general premise was that since misrepresentation and lack of education in fandom, media, entertainment, and communities can affect how uninformed individuals think of things like homosexuality and foreign cultures, it’s not impossible to believe that other mediums of visual communication (BJD in this case) can affect how people view things that are unfamiliar to their knowledge and upbringing. This forum’s rules already take impressionable minors into consideration when it comes to regulating content. Even if people don’t believe misrepresentations as reality, there’s still the matter of making it “okay” to perpetuate things that warp someone’s valued identity and culture. You’ve said so yourself that you do not deny misrepresentation, so it’ll be interesting to see you disprove the aforementioned arguments with adequate proof.

 

@ mclamm7: Thank you, I really appreciated that.

If you thought them as dismissive and inflammatory, then it's rather obvious that you have not paid attention to why I chose not to incorporate rainbows and puppies into my posts. There’s something about having to put up with constant repetition, personal judgement, and assumptions that attempt to undermine the validity of my doll collecting that leaves me unimpressed with the standards of debating this thread.

Then what would you have me do in a debate, exactly? Nod along with every naysayer who comes along because otherwise it might offend them? I am satisfied with DoA policy. I am not satisfied with the conduct, inconsistencies, and tasteless misrepresentations I see from some owners, and judging by the responses in various threads, I'm not the only one. A part of this gigantic argument wasn't about trying to formulate new forum rules, it was about how people were being "dismissive and inflammatory" (to quote your words) about cultural disrespect and yaoi, while being mum about every other subject that is considered offensive on a international PG-13 forum. I used the rules and other threads as an example of people whose perceptions of reality do influence how they view and judge taboo doll subjects, and I honestly don't know how many times I can repeat this.

I’ve already addressed the intent vs. result bit. Short of some interesting mutations in human neural processes, no one is a psychic or a mind reader. You can have all the interesting thoughts and intentions you want, but you only have yourself to blame for negative responses on a publicly viewable venue if you don’t bother to express it. Or to copy and paste: “I've already gone over this and explained how a lack of intent does not translate into a lack of damage, how it's their prerogative to apologize or not, and how it's their responsibility to handle the resulting backlash. Anyone can claim they didn’t intend something and backpedal out of criticism, accidental damage, or just lie about something they did intend to do.” Obviously I set a distinction between thought and action, but how those two are prioritized are a different story. To reiterate the starving dog hoax example, the initial reaction to images of suffering isn’t “oh I wonder what brilliant thoughts the artist had to come up with this,” but “someone should starve this pathetic piece of trash instead.” People normally react to what they see and feel, not what they assume of someone’s oh-so noble motivations.

Yes, which once again can easily be addressed through the “take responsibility for what you create as per the two-way rule of freedom of speech, and take it to the appropriate venues" rule because it does not translate into "don't ever do that ish" in anyway. I think the fact that one sentence can effectively address that paragraph demonstrates how much the "artist's right" counterargument has been laid out for me. It’s great that the creator has some kind of magnificent vision that the unenlightened masses can’t possibly understand, but it’s also not the viewer’s job to put up with politically/socially ignorant messages, acknowledge offensive fantasies, and walk on eggshells because some people don’t care to label or explain their work properly.

I have played with many dolls. The fact that they were not made of the almighty resin at first does not invalidate my experiences of relating with them, and to claim otherwise would reek of the elitist tripe that this hobby is stereotypically renowned for. In fact, anyone can personally relate and anthropomorphize through other mediums of art and communication. Perhaps you should make this debate less of an attempt to psychoanalyze my doll collecting and give me an actual argument I haven't heard already, especially when debates are supposed to be about objective observations and facts; not “more dolls than thou.”

I don't know what you're exactly construing from my posts, but the section of the post you quoted dealt with the harm in being unable to separate fantasy from reality. We have institutions set out for people who have problems discerning the two, and yes, we call them delusional. It's not about devaluing a narrative or character, it's about the creator's capacity to understand what they're perpetuating on a real-time basis. Are they realizing that they’re acting out scenarios that affect everyday people, or that it’s just all fun and games with no connections to real life?

Yes, I'm sure most of us know that people can't exactly turn their sociopathy switch on and off. However, they do have the power to decide that their deviant fetishes are deemed wrong for a reason and have the resolve to not normalize said fetishes through doll play. Once they (and other people who normalize non-consensual relationships) convince themselves that it's okay to gratify yourself through that child-adult imagery, it can bring about the desensitizing effect that was mentioned before.

Principle. Concept. Idea. Plain semantics.

It seems as if you've contradicted yourself. If certain fantasies weren’t considered “bad,” then the board wouldn’t have rules against them. No one’s telling artists to make everything for everybody; the point is that not everyone is going to force themselves to like the darker aspects of life so the poor artists don’t feel oppressed. They have their labels. They have their venues. What more is there to complain about in terms of expression and censorship?

You’re the one who is personally judging my argument based on what, a near-empty profile and post history? You tell me. Apparently you know my life, doll collecting, and innermost thoughts better than I do.

Funny, I wasn’t aware that non-BJD collectors were the only ones who had sensitivities to certain social taboos. Did the number of BJD collectors who don’t care to see triggers of their personal trauma or distasteful images in general suddenly drop off the face of the earth?

Unless you happen to have a condition where you cannot tell fantasy apart from reality, I don’t see what you think you’re being persecuted about. You’ve already stated that you’re not taking my comments on a personal level. And no, I don’t have to put myself in the shoes of some pedophile with child and adult dolls to know what I’m talking about. Not only because an argument that relies on anecdotal evidence alone is pitifully weak, but also because no one is obligated to pretend to lack a moral compass to participate in this hobby. If the people who produce such images are free to disregard political/social sensitivity and participate in their own venues, then there’s no reason why I should have to pay attention to what I consider to be tactless and disgusting.

@ Mephistol: I’m not sure how a few paragraphs of responses can suddenly turn into ten pages, but perhaps it’s a sign that you should actually take your own advice instead of repeating over and over about how you plan to leave. You don’t seem to be talking about anything other than yourself and how much you’re tired of this debate.

 

Yes, this is an international forum. But no, this does not mean that the forum is represented equally by every race and culture out there. You will find there are definitely more people from certain countries compared to others on this forum.

As your location is stated as 'Canada', I had assumed that it is unlikely that you are also in one of the 'insular Eastern countries that still don’t have a wide range of different races and cultures to this day' that you mentioned earlier. However, perhaps I have a mistaken impression of Canada's location and society. If you have in fact migrated from an insular Eastern country, it still sounds like you don't qualify to speak of your experience based on your own guideline. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Rather than avoiding from answering the question, perhaps you can try a little less prevarication since it doesn't exactly go unnoticed in debates. I'm debating a point that you brought up yourself. When someone spoke up, you said they weren't qualified based on their experience. When I spoke up, you said I weren't, changing the basis of qualification. Surely you can tell us what is your basis of qualification to speak of such experience. You also previously brought up an anecdote of a seamstress friend of yours so I thought it is relevant to bring up one of my own, but now it seems like it is in your opinion again that we shouldn't speak of anecdotes. This weakens your earlier point somewhat.

It seems we're both playing the 'take each other out of context' game then because I'm not arguing that people will never be offended just because it's fantasy. (To note, I did mention earlier that the Eastern people I do know would not take offense which is still different from what you seem to think I'm saying.) There is no privileged rule that a culture/religion/orientation must happily agree to being appropriated and please note again that I have never said that there is one. However, it does not negate the fact that the imagination and creative process is not limited to only subject matters that are inoffensive. I am not denying people the right to be offended, but I am not denying people the right to create whatever they want either.

My argument earlier has always been that fantasy is not a representation of reality. Perhaps you say it's a skewed representation or reflection of reality, but nonetheless, it is still not a documentary or a factual education of a culture/orientation (which was my original point, but seems to have been taken out of context).

One, you were the one who demanded evidence previously without providing any of your own so you seem in danger of being in poor form as well. Two, I have not ignored context. I simply did not think that in debates, we're supposed to make assumptions that oh, because the media affects how uninformed individuals think about homosexuality and foreign cultures, it means that doll photostories will have the same effect. This is a very poorly made hypothesis with little to no basis in fact or evidence. If your hypothesis is based on assumptions, then adequate proof to disprove it can be based on assumptions as well, I believe, which I will happily provide in the following.

It is not impossible to assume that since DoA has laid down its rules, the lack of obviously violent or graphic content will mean that there is not enough to make an impression and cause a person to wholly believe in gross misrepresentations of culture and orientation. I also assume that the media such as the television, radio, newspaper and magazines play a larger, constant role in our lives when it comes to assimilating information and these are the key influences of what impressionable people will believe in (I also think that it is highly likely they'll believe something they've seen in any of the above media over something seen in a doll photostory). Another thing is that there actually exists photostories that portray normal (or what passes for it in this society) relationships between straight/gay people and others that provide accurate representations of a culture. I believe that even if an impressionable person would be to view a fictional misrepresentation on this forum, they also stand a good chance to view an accurately portrayed representation on this same forum. What they will believe in will depend on the individual, but I also believe that having encountered the differences and if it is foreign enough for them to be uncertain of what is reality or not, they will have other factual resources to fall back to. Therefore, it stands to reason, that the chances of a sheltered someone believing in gross misrepresentations due to a doll photostory in this forum is remote to none at all. I can actually provide a lot more reasoning if need be.

Another thing is that I've somewhat lost track of the point you're trying to make. From what you said earlier, I'm surmising that you're saying it's wrong to perpetuate a misrepresentation but you're not demanding for changes to be made because of that, am I right?

 

Clea wrote "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."
This led to a tiny ephiphany or at least opened a door. Your dissection of the following is welcome.
Mostly it seems we have been talking in terms of fantasy and fantasies.
Should we be more cautious of the too-quick application of labels of perpetuation or offensive to real world based photos or photostories?
Particularly I am thinking of the yaoi issue and why and how people might be offended.
Let's say a picture is posted here of a male doll named Oscar, wearing a business suit, with a short neatly- cut wig, and describes the doll as a teacher who is only interested in romantic relationships with other males. Very nice positive image for the same sex orientated crowd.
However, imagine if Oscar is posted with another doll named Sam, who is cross-dressed, with a very feminine face, and long hair, and the owner explains Oscar is in an abusive relationship which he wants to end, yet as much as he hates being abused he is more terrified of what Sam might do to his family or friends.
Some might find the story titillating for whatever reason, but it is the people who call this, and nearly any such media, a perpetution of stereotypes, and unrealistic, which bother me because to do so might be seen as denying such things occur.
It is understandable, given the history, why the members of the LGBT community might want only positive images out there, and may even feel somewhat entitled to at least a honeymoon in that respect. But it is also a slap in the face to people who are living in such circumstances. For a long time spousal abuse was not talked about openly in this country. Until that issue was acknowleged we did not have resources and aid for people who were living in abusive relationships.
More so than others, I should think people who pursue same sex relationships should be aware of the harm in denial, pretence, and dissembling. I agree one might get a skewed reflection of something that exists in real life from misrepresentation but it asppears we have the burden of learning when something has been misrepresented.
Although a doll owner might be justly accused of glorifying rape, abuse and child-adult relationships in their photos, it seems to me, based on my experience with other boards and forums, that glorification often has the effect opposite of what the poster intended. And often leads to intense discussion of the controversial subject matter.
I think here at least, we have to be respectful and civil more so than in some other hobbies. Dolls seem to attract an intense level of emotional investment for many. When it comes to culture alone I think the less confrontational method of educating by example would be preferable to simply telling someone their doll's dress is all wrong.
Well, there is another problem-many of us are anime fans and we sometimes take our cue in doll dress from anime and manga, which comes from Japan (ignoring Chinese and Korean efforts as I do not know what they call their animated work). The answer to that would be consider the source, I guess.
Something else: we have to be careful of making assumptions about doll owners based on their dolls. Such as dismissing an owner as a typical yaoi fangirl simply because she or he has a feminine cross-dressing boy.
You were right: the Star Spangled doll poster is located in Nevada. Somehow I had the distinct impression the poster was from China.

I would guess there are a number of delusional members here, as well as apathetic and lazy ones. There are undoubtedly many young members who still have a few things to learn about real life. Maybe this is unrealistic but I am inclined to think most members are generally capable of enjoying rough yaoi fantasy or even suggested Lolita relationships (if that is their particular thing I might add) while knowing such things are idealized fantasy with no real world consequences. For the sake of those who could be led astray I would guess it is the job of the discerning ones to sometimes provide a little nudge back toward reality? Even if the nudge brings down criticism.

I think this is quite reasonable.
On the subject of minors owning bjd's, perhaps I am delusional because I would not find it remarkable for a parent to spend two hundred dollars or more on a birthday present for their child, unless we are talking about people falling close to poverty guidelines. Earning the money for themselves would indeed be difficult. Mowing lawns would probably do it in the course of a summer, I would think.
Anyway thank you for taking the time to respond.

 

As intriguing as such a session sounds I don't think it is a matter of Nereina against everone else. I don't believe everyone is opposed to her and solidified against her. Admittedly she was quite the underdog for awhile there by all appearances. But I appreciate and respect her posts and she has been quite patient towards me. I'm sure other people appreciate her work as well even if they are at complete odds with her and even if they just aren't saying so as you did.

 

And what personal and cultural experiences of mine can you quote from this thread? The only thing I have said is that I&#8217;ve seen both sides of the story. I used various cultures (including non-Eastern ones) as external examples instead of something other the lines of &#8220;I&#8217;m <insert heritage> and this is my story.&#8221; In fact, the reason why I didn&#8217;t disclose my ethnic background is so people wouldn&#8217;t whine and go off on a tangent about me supposedly pushing a personal agenda. For all they know, my location could be based on studying, working, or vacationing overseas, rather than permanent residence. Race itself is a social construct, which has nothing to do with nationality. How does the saying go again? Right, to assume makes an ass out of &#8220;u&#8221; and &#8220;me.&#8221; Though I shouldn&#8217;t be surprised at that kind of tactic anymore, given how my doll collecting has already been called into scrutiny.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of an anecdote before you accuse people of using it, because bringing up an example of cultural clothing done by another person (as per request of another user) is not based on my personal experience as a seamstress. Or would saying &#8220;this is the work of someone from an advanced sewing LJ comm&#8221; have magically made a difference in the historical details? Speaking of multiple cultures&#8217; experiences with appropriation is not based on my experiences, unless you&#8217;re tragically convinced that I&#8217;m trying to be Hawaiian Native, Australian Aboriginal, Japanese, Korean, etc. at the same time.

Being Swedish doesn&#8217;t mean you can speak on the behalf of all Swedish people, nor does it fit within the context about insular Eastern countries. Attempting to speak from the perspective melting pot/mosaic still does not fit within the context about insular Eastern countries. I never claimed to be speaking on behalf of insular Eastern countries in the first place, especially when Eastern countries were not the only examples of appropriation that I specifically linked to. Even then, I (and other people with similar premises) didn&#8217;t try to claim that all members of a certain group were offended by x, but pointed out occurrences of some members who were indeed offended by x. So what is different about the basis of qualification? Once again, I would love to see where I supposedly talked about my experience as x ethnicity. Or to quote an old response to this matter:

I&#8217;m well aware of your original point; it&#8217;s been reiterated by countless other people. In response, I&#8217;ve stressed that one doesn&#8217;t have to see something as an attempt to be a real reflection to be offended by it. I brought up privilege and the pagan analogy because the implication so far (from other posters as well) is that because someone&#8217;s offensive work is not meant to be a realistic representation, the viewer should adhere to the artist&#8217;s subjective standards of a harmless fantasy. When someone brings up intent, it&#8217;s usually for one thing and one thing only: to defend their actions. Of course, the intent bit has been beaten into the ground by now.

Sorry, but I don&#8217;t think I should be responsible for other people&#8217;s failures to go back and read what was said before. Since the general premise is based on misrepresentation and dolls, your burden of proof lies in disproving the previously cited cases of misrepresentation in yaoi fandom, linked examples to cultural appropriation, other threads about BJD and realistic perceptions and taboos owners set for themselves, the historical incident with kimono-wearing prostitutes in Western Canada, desensitization through online safe havens, the textbook on western civilization, etc. Only then can you assert with validity that my argument has &#8220;no basis in fact or evidence.&#8221; Because contrary to what you may think, applying patterns of existing phenomenon to predict a similar pattern is completely valid in science and falls within the definition of a valid hypothesis.

Also, the media was not the only example of an influential medium of communication, so you&#8217;re being oddly selective in your wording. The &#8220;larger, constant role&#8221; argument is rendered null and void when you consider how exclusive and non-mainstream things like fashion choices for prostitutes, online venues, and yaoi fandom can have a negative effect on how people view people or certain subject matter. According to your own logic, the dominance of non-prostitutes in real life, social stigmas against violence/pedophilia/etc, and plausible homosexual relationships in fandom should stop misrepresentation or desensitization from happening, but the evidence states otherwise.

Your argument also fails to take heteronormality and other social privileges into account, and in a way, continues to support my own points. If people are not exposed to fair depictions of foreign culture or LGBT couples through media and entertainment, then on what basis can they apply the same thing to their dolls and prevent others from being negatively influenced (especially when critique is not allowed in photostories)? How can they determine what &#8220;normal&#8221; is when mainstream media and entertainment do not provide fair and adequate coverage of the aforementioned issues (which debunks your claim about having factual resources to fall back on)? BJD owners themselves don&#8217;t exactly broadcast &#8220;o hai, these are my pictures of realistically featured dolls unlike your craptastic fantasies.&#8221; You&#8217;ve claimed so yourself that this forum lacks equal representation in race and culture. And if most people took the time to do avoid mainstream sources of communication and do in-depth research on what was unknown or questionable to them, then I don&#8217;t think we&#8217;d be having this discussion. Anomalies tend to stand out a lot more than accuracy, which is likely why subjects such as romanticized rape/abuse with gay dolls are featured disproportionately compared to real life. Once people immerse and isolate themselves in that kind of idealized view through encouraging safe havens, it&#8217;s not hard to genuinely adhere to a distorted set of standards (as observed in yaoi fandom). And once you remove the DoA element of censorship, your argument loses general application.

As for your last point: yes.

 

My previous question was are you qualified to speak of your own experience. I did not say that you have spoken of your own experience. I'm merely pointing out that you would be unqualified to speak of them as well, and I point this out because every person who has spoken up about their own personal observation, you have shot down as unqualified and when I asked for clarification, you have responded with defensiveness. What on earth is this about your doll collecting being called into scrutiny? If it's happening, I'm not the one doing it. If something is inconsistent in a debate, I feel inclined to call it out. It's not some underhanded 'tactic' to beat you into the ground. It's a debate.

My, my. Attacking my understanding of words. Perhaps you should consider your own then.

What you said:

What I said:

What you said:

It is ironic that you are correcting me when you made the same error. When I spoke of my many friends who would not feel fussed about improvised versions of their traditional clothing, it was my opinion, an observation and not based on my personal experience unless you&#8217;re tragically convinced that I&#8217;m trying to be Chinese, Indian, Malay, Japanese, Thai, Taiwanese, Korean, etc at the same time.

Other than that, would the Indian seamstresses mentioned be the ones located in Canada? Because that does not seem to very much involve insular Eastern cultures either.

What I said:

So yes, I'm well aware of that and I did not say that I can speak on behalf of all Swedish or any type of people, thank you for not putting words in my mouth. I would say the same thing about 'assumptions' back to you but it's pretty trite and a tired old insult.

You are aware of my original point. Thank you. You have reiterated your original point many, many times already as well. Unfortunately, you have reiterated these counter points at me, for points that I have not brought up.

Good of you to say that to me, when I again, did not bring up the point about intent.

The same goes for you. I am not responsible for the fact that you aren't reading what I'm saying since this is the second time I've said that I am not arguing that the yaoi fandom sometimes, often, whenever, misrepresents reality. Cultural appropriation, taboos, kimono-wearing prostitutes, these are not my points. You have been for the past few times you responded to me, asking me to defend the points brought up by other people or yourself in this thread.

Yes, but contrary to what you think, applying patterns makes for great comparisons but does not make for actual evidence. You can use it for predictions, but it is still not evidence. I am well aware of how scientific hypothesis are formed. What I am challenging of your hypothesis is that you are very firmly and loudly applying patterns to two different circumstances without considering any differences in circumstances and at the same time, speaking as if research on existing phenomenons can be suitable substitute as evidence for a different phenomenon.

Firstly, fashion choices for prostitutes aren't the most exclusive or non-mainstream thing anymore when TV, the internet and books have been increasingly prevalent in such portrayal. Secondly, which online venues are you talking about that are exclusive and non-mainstream and have a negative effect? What type of participation is required in such online venues? Are they actually exclusive in this time and day? Thirdly, I'm not sure the yaoi fandom can even be considered non-mainstream or exclusive anymore, especially in Japan.

What you're saying is that the mainstream media fails to represent foreign culture and LGBT couples fairly and thus, the doll photostories will further influence the thinking of impressionables? I have to disagree because I don't think you're taking into account the realism of photostories (the lack thereof, in the sense that few photostories are actually very expertly produced), how much publicity photostories get (again, the lack thereof) and the scale of balance between the photostories that misrepresent LGBT couples and cultures as opposed to the photostories that are closer to accurate. Also, the doll fandom is still much less mainstream than even the yaoi fandom, which is why I believe there will be far less impact on a person's beliefs as they will be far more exposed to various possibilities on TV, in a comic store or on the internet as opposed to doll photostories. If there is any influence on a person's psyche, I would think that the mainstream media will still hold sway over a doll forum. And if mainstream media influences someone's thinking for the wrong or better, than the fault or credit goes to the mainstream media.

I would also say that you have to take into account the overlap of the doll fandom between yaoi/slash/Japanophiles fandoms. How much do doll photostories influence as opposed to outside media bringing in influence to the photostories.


To be honest, this debate is getting tiresome because half the time, you are providing counter points to points that I have not raised. I feel less like I'm in a debate and more like I'm simply providing you with another side so that you might enjoy reading your own posts as you reiterate your own points, regardless of what I'm saying.

 

Part 1:

Which once again reinforces the fact that you were asking an irrelevant and loaded question, not to mention waving around a red herring. If I did not speak of my experiences, then there is no other reason to bring them up. If this isn&#8217;t about personal scrutiny, then why else would you espouse unnecessary criticism about things that were never said? A debate is about analyzing the arguments laid out in front of you &#8211; ie. pointing out existing cases of inconsistency, as opposed to launching pre-emptive remarks against potential cases of inconsistency. There have been no groundless anecdotes on my part, therefore there is nothing to clarify about said anecdotes. If people are compelled to point out a debating flaw that hasn&#8217;t even happened yet, then I&#8217;m going to see it as nothing more than a personal hang-up on their part.

Can you link to written accounts of their insight? Do they have the same kind of relevance as experiences from insular countries? Then no, I haven&#8217;t made the same error of attempting to use intangible anecdotes within a completely different cultural context. Your original statement was still about your insight on Eastern cultures/friends as a non-American nationality &#8211; ie. observations that are based on your personal experiences and relationships alone without any supported documentation. I could easily say &#8220;my friend is a culturally conscious seamstress&#8221; but it wouldn&#8217;t mean a thing if I didn&#8217;t have a visual source so other people could judge for themselves. And when I said &#8220;the perspective of someone who is immersed in a melting pot or a mosaic is going to be vastly different,&#8221; it wasn&#8217;t just about you, because a qualifier consisting of &#8220;someone&#8221; obviously does not discount the ethnic groups in your example.

If you had read the entire paragraph, you would&#8217;ve seen that the example was about both insular and Western contexts: native Indian seamstresses who do not set up in tourist traps, as well as Indian seamstresses in Canada who still don&#8217;t feel the need to cater to those who have no understanding of Indian languages or culture. The latter also doesn&#8217;t deal with the level of immersion that was specifically mentioned. Perhaps I should take this time to outline subtle differences between a mosaic and a melting pot, and partially concede that mosaics usually have a better chance of keeping cultural communities intact.

Again, why bring up your insight as x nationality and comment on your contact with members of x cultures if it wasn&#8217;t meant to be a statement of validation? It&#8217;d be different if you had tangible proof, but none was clearly provided.

Then what is the point of making general remarks about the intent behind one&#8217;s work, exactly? &#8220;Fantasy is not a representation of reality.&#8221; Were you not expecting this statement to be debated? You are speaking about subjective intent behind one&#8217;s work, which is inevitably going to bring up the following discourse about why it does/doesn&#8217;t matter and how it doesn&#8217;t represent the same thing for everyone. Otherwise, it&#8217;d be another opinion-sharing circle with no debatable material whatsoever. I said that &#8220;when someone brings up intent, it&#8217;s usually for one thing and one thing only: to defend their actions.&#8221; You have done nothing to dispute this. And when someone brings up the same premise each time with no indication of deviating from the same meaning, then I&#8217;m not going to provide a different answer each time.

Whoever said that a hypothesis is meant to be evidence itself? The evidence is within the statements themselves. The point is that if you&#8217;re going to attack the hypothesis, then you&#8217;re going to have to attack the evidence that forms the patterns of comparison in the first place. If your argument is based on how small sources of influence cannot possibly affect how people think about orientations, cultures, or controversial subject matter, then you&#8217;re going to have to discredit said small sources of influence in the first place. You still haven&#8217;t proved that there are enough realistic and positive portrays of the LBGT community in mainstream media to discourage stereotypes in any kind of fandom.

Why are you even mentioning the present when the prostitute example was about Western Canada in the past? Your argument is that non-mainstream things cannot impact attitudes on a larger scale. Yet, something as non-mainstream as kimono on Western Canadian prostitutes managed to negatively sway the community&#8217;s views on Japanese women. So where&#8217;s the relevant counterargument? This is why I specifically said that discrediting the evidence is crucial to discredit the comparison itself, which is something you still have not done. Even if I were to address cultural clothing and prostitutes in a modern context, there's still the fact that those mediums of communication deal more with the dominant society at large instead of foreign cultures.

I&#8217;m talking about little niches on forums, message boards, blogs, and the types of interest-based communities you see on Livejournal. They usually require a membership of age 13, or 18+ to view some of the more explicit material. The settings can be manipulated to hide the content to non-members or non-friends. Even then, they can be banned according to the wishes of site administrators (as noted in the desensitization & pedophilia example to Iikaya, which was about Gaia Online - it's unique in the fact that accepting attitudes developed online despite the prevalent stigmatization of pedophilia in real life). Livejournal itself went through a massive purge of questionable content in response to parental complaints (though it wasn't conducted with much thought). Compared to the millions of others that don&#8217;t subscribe to online fandoms and tune into TV, movies, and other forms of mainstream media, those kinds of venues are still a minority when you consider that they reach only about a few thousand members at maximum. Exactly how is yaoi a part of &#8220;mainstream&#8221; entertainment?

And does the popularity of yaoi fandom in Japan make it easy for homosexuals to come out of the closet? Has mainstream yaoi fandom evolved to be based on actual homosexuals, as opposed to the unrealistic fantasies of heterosexual fangirls? Does the presence of yaoi fandom contribute to social awareness and legislation that are in favour of homosexual rights? Again, are there enough realistic and positive portrays of the LBGT community in mainstream Japanese media to prevent the legitimization of stereotypes?

Either way, it goes to show that your argument seems to be standing on a very frail leg. If you&#8217;re trying to discredit the possibility of small-scale influences that have negative outcomes, you have no proof. If you&#8217;re trying to use large-scale influences as a way to disprove the legitimization of stereotypes, you still have no proof because there isn&#8217;t an influx of diversity and social consciousness in mainstream media.

 

Part 2:

That&#8217;s quite a logical leap you&#8217;re making there, not to mention a complete sidestepping of the questions and another failure to take heteronormality and privilege into account again. Again; &#8220;how can they determine what &#8220;normal&#8221; is when mainstream media and entertainment do not provide fair and adequate coverage of the aforementioned issues?&#8221; I&#8217;d really love an explanation as to how impressionable people who have zero grasp of foreign culture or homosexual issues are supposed to magically discern between real and glamourized perceptions in real life, let in yaoi/doll fandom. Repeating the same old &#8220;well they have TV and stuff&#8221; argument is doing nothing in terms of answering anything. If anything, it serves as another timeless example of privilege and activism being taken for granted.

I&#8217;m fully aware of the overlap of those fandoms, which is why I&#8217;m arguing about how easy it is to perpetuate ingrained stereotypes. Yaoi fandom is largely made up of heterosexual females who are notorious for having unrealistic portrayals of homosexual men to the point of genuinely believing in them. The same stereotypes are then transplanted into doll fandom. The two fandoms still do not have a strong basis of reality to adhere to, simply because there are no TV shows, no massive internet movement, and no mainstream source of awareness to teach that homosexuals do not act according to preconceived notions or myths. Attempts to dissuade harmful depictions usually erupt in flame wars and defensive reminders of "my venue, my rules." Is this really a complicated concept? Is it that hard for people to step outside of the heterosexual cisgendered normality box, and believe that the ignorance and lack of knowledge perpetuated by the same real-life dynamics can contribute to the popularity of unfavourable depictions (namely rape/abuse) in a fandom, and that said fandom can continue to perpetuate the ignorance because of the social cycle that makes people oblivious to LGBT issues in the first place? It&#8217;s great that the media is getting blamed as a singular entity and all, but it doesn&#8217;t change the fact that as long as doll fandom is influenced by the same kind of ignorance, it&#8217;s still a part of the problem. There is no mutual exclusivity.

The exact same thing goes for foreign culture. If people are not exposed to a wide array of cultures in mainstream media, then the next logical conclusion would be that they have no basis for forming intelligent opinions on customs and traditions that are unknown to them. Therefore, the cultural aspects they act out through doll play often have no real-life basis, and because there is hardly anything in real life or doll fandom itself to correct their misusage, the cycle continues. Shitori made a good point about anime fans and misguided views of Japan as well. Sometimes, it takes an actual exchange trip or vacation for people to realize that the country is nothing like the ideal paradise they see in anime/manga. And again, if you&#8217;re going to argue that doll fandom is too insignificant to do anything substantial, then you&#8217;re going to have to argue the same of yaoi fandom and every other case of misrepresentation brought on by a small, non-mainstream source.

Likewise, I feel as if I&#8217;m mostly surrounded by people who don&#8217;t know how arguments are dissected in an actual debate, and are so far absorbed in their privilege that they have no choice but to keep repeating the same points based on non-existent phenomenon in real life. GG.

 

The cross-dressing and feminine features may be called out as a stereotype (especially when many members of the LGBT community object to the "guy" and "girl" roles that are defined by heterosexuals), but that kind of genuinely fear-filled relationship is actually something that isn't seen much in yaoi fandom or doll photostories. Abuse and rape are often depicted as activities that the victim grows to enjoy, or random plot devices to make him "tragic" or "angsty." Sometimes, it's even depicted as the trigger for making someone "gay" and promiscuous; the characterization is very one-dimensional and motivated mostly through romanticized suffering. But in your example, there is a set message that sets violence as a very wrong thing that should not be perpetuated.

I do understand your point about overly positive imagery being a "slap in the face" to those who live in such circumstances, though there is a fine line between glorification and a moral message. With the LGBT community, there simply isn't enough equal representation in real life, let alone specific resources and counseling for abused LGBT individuals (cross-dressing and "passing" can be a very stressful issue for transgendered people in particular). There needs to be a balance of healthy relationships to counter the saturation of one-sided portrayals, and something as unfamiliar as domestic violence within the LGBT community is going to have to be addressed with a lot of tact instead of just "gay doll A is raped by gay doll B." Even if the abusive situation is set realistically, there are still people who wouldn't want to be exposed to triggers of their personal trauma.

I personally find most mainstream fandoms to be restrictive and closed-off to discussion, simply because they don't want any naysayers in their safe havens. Most of the time, it's about how many voices can drown out the dissent because the growing numbers make it hard to maintain any kind of decorum. I will say that I respect the right to separate venues, but that doesn't mean I have to like what goes on in said venues and what they perpetuate.

Agreed. Then again, I've noticed that the level of emotional investment within the doll owner her/himself sometimes makes them defensive towards critique in the first place (in the Critique subforum, no less!). With the immense popularity of doll kimono, the most common response is that it's wrapped wrong. The owner does not always heed the correction.

It is ignorant to make the assumption (the owner may think the sculpt is better suited with a female look, or they're just having dress-up fun), but I can see how people form that view when feminine cross-dressing tends to carry the "yaoi" implication; especially when the doll is seen with another boy. The "Dolly Crossdressing" thread in this subforum is an interesting read in itself.

I guess it depends on each individual's family traditions and socioeconomic status. From what I read in General Discussion, many minors stated how their money was saved up from a series of birthdays, Christmases, and chores, while a handful of others received dolls (or the full funds for them) as outright gifts. Thank you for your responses as well.

 

When I see images of the girly boy BJDs I have never thought "looks gay", only "looks girly".

As my reason for wanted to acquire three BJDs, it is to represent my fictitious characters, and as they are not girly looking (although one of them is gay and one of them is fae) it has taken me about two months to find a look that fits. And I have only found them through this group, so kudos to DoA!

Having said that, Souldoll IZE (who will represent Cappy Shirakawa) might look a little girly, so he will represent Cappy at a younger age than he appears in the books. All I know is, at the moment I saw the photos of IZE I felt I was looking at Cappy. Quite a moment for an author to have one of his characters stare him in the face!

As for beauty over reality, in my opinion this is an art form which is still developing. Look at the ancestors of BJDs - the porcelain and wax dolls. Some of today's BJDs still carry elements of their ancestors, but as techniques improve, I think realistic looks will become more common.

 

Taking a long-handled grappling hook and trying to drag this thread back on-topic...

The question is... do dolls reflect our perception of reality? If so, how much should that really matter?

This is really a two-part question, so I will answer each issue separately.

Do dolls reflect our perception of reality? Everything we do, and everything we create, to a certain extent, will reflect our perceptions, whether in a direct or ironic fashion. For instance, if you want to create a doll that is the "stereotypical" goth (black hair, white skin, black makeup, Hot Topic-y clothes, fishnet stockings, radical boots, et al.), you are going to deliberately play to the stereotypes, even if you believe that "real" goths simply don't look or dress like that. This isn't a reflection of your beliefs; this is your own perception of what someone else's beliefs might be. Even so, that could be considered to "reflect your perception of reality". I hope that made some kind of sense...

How much should that really matter? Prejudice and stereotypes are wrong. They are also, sadly, unavoidable. Anyone who says they have no prejudices at all is a damn liar. It's human nature to believe that all fire is hot, all water is wet, and all [insert ethnic group here] [insert characteristic/behavior/activity here]. Even animals have prejudices, that's why robber flies and false monarchs exist. What puts humans above animals is our brains. With our brains we can overcome prejudice, and by that I mean we can overcome our own prejudices and reach out to people of different appearances and cultures to try and understand them better...and through them, to understand ourselves better.

Finally, remember that you can never really know what's in another person's mind when they've created a doll, so don't assume that just because their latest creation looks like a "girlyboy" with BW skin doesn't mean they're (a) gay or (b) a bigot.

This was very rambling, but I tried to stay on-topic.

 

Personally, I like the way a thread can develop and go off in other unforeseen directions (like conversation), but I also recognise they need to be whipped back on course once in a while.

To the question: ... do dolls reflect our perception of reality? If so, how much should that really matter?

I think it is more a case of creating our own micro-reality. And it would only really matter if we immersed oursleves into the micro-reality to the exclusion of the ... erm ... real reality. Dedication is healthy, obsession is not.

 

Oh! Phew.

I was going to answer the question and then wondered if I'd be offending someone by doing so

If I could take a camera and whip it around my community really quickly, and then compare it with a picture of my dolls, you'd know without my poor words that the only resemblance between my "reality" and my dolls is variety. There aren't many sword-wielding assassins here, nor men wearing dark lipstick (not in public, anyway...not here!), nor pointed ears. We DO have multiple skin colors, hair colors, and tattoos.

I don't want my dolls to reflect reality, thank you. They don't represent racism, intolerance, poverty, disease, cruelty, rudeness, a deliberate blindness to historical fact, or most of the ills flesh is heir to. I have enough of that to deal with every day, to say nothing of heaping helpings of plain old stupidity. Why would I want to bring that home with me? I mean really!!

My dolls are my poor, stifled, neglected-for-decades inner child finally saying "hurrah! we can PLAY now!" and "ooh! Pretty!!"


Oh... and oddly enough I don't give a flying fig about my dolls' sex lives. Whatever they do, and whoever they do it with, they do it out of my presence. I often wonder what greatness we might achieve in the western world if we didn't spend so much time obsessing over other people's privates and what they do with them

 

=D
I want this on a mug or something. It sums up the whole reason why I make dolls and why I have dolls. Everything else on top of it counts as play too.
And as for dollie sex... that, hopefully, is make believe too. It's like the difference between setting up Barbie and Ken on a date and actually believing you're dating Ken. One of them's play, even if you get really into it, and the other one isn't terribly fun at all. Besides, isn't Ken's plastic hair moulded to his head?

 

Baakay: I love you so very much right now.

 

If it's an actual conversation and not a p***ing contest sure, but more often than not, it isn't.

Back to the question, though

Part 1. Not in the least, they are pure fantasy based loosely on periods in time, but absolutely fantasy. There is vintage along with some epic fantasy. Reality is what you do when you aren't playing. Dolls and hobbies to me are playing.

Part 2. It shouldn't matter at all. Not a bit. Fantasy and play are all about creativity and imagination, they shouldn't be limited in any way shape or form as long as no one is hurt by it. Be aware of your audience, what and where you are sharing, but other than that - create whatever kind of world around them you wish. It's really not anyone's business nor concern.

 

This is going to ramble a bit; my apologies for that, but there's a foundation to be laid.

At a tiny little convention, back when you could walk through a dealer's room with plenty of space on all sides and maybe two people browsing a table at once in the 80s, I stumbled across a gorgeous book by Yoshitaka Amano. (It was Maten, for anyone specifically curious.) I instantly fell in love with it -- instantly. It was only later that I really figured out why.

Now, I'll ask this, since I'm reasonably sure many people on the board are familiar with this artist -- he did the designs for the Final Fantasy series and Vampire Hunter D if you don't recognize the name -- would you question his work as being 'guilty' of stealing any influences or changing them from their original form? Doubtful. Highly doubtful.

If anyone has a copy of this book especially, or some of his others, flip through it. Count the times you see the influence of Klimt, Mucha, Froud, Burne-Jones, or any one of a dozen Pre-Raphaelites. (And yes, I loved them as a kid, too, grew up on them.)

Personally? I thought it was brilliant. It was a well-crafted synthesis of a variety of styles and elements of artwork that I loved on their own, and adored even more when combined in this fashion. I didn't clue in to this until I was older. I just took one look at this book and my jaw dropped; someone had perfectly summed up all the things I thought were beautiful in one place. There's a word for this, and it's not 'cheapening' -- it's 'synergy'.

I still can't bring myself to care if those paintings are somehow 'culturally impure' or somehow 'less' because they strongly demonstrate the influence of other artists from other cultures. There is that old saying about 'bad artists copy, good artists steal', and it absolutely applies in this instance -- just as it does in fashion, in architecture, in graphic design, in writing, in costume design, and yes, even in how we express our creativity through our dolls.

I fell for Soom's dolls hard because they look like his illustrations from that period to me more than any of the others I've seen, though I couldn't tell you if I thought there was any direct influence and wouldn't even guess. Should I be upset with Soom, as they are not Japanese, and they created the dolls? Or should I just be incredibly grateful that, hey, someone else shares my idea of what beautiful is, and they're making them available to me for sale? ...and I'm not Korean, oops, there's another layer of separation there!

Thing is, I see art -- in whatever form it takes -- as the playground of the imagination. It can be beautiful, ugly, scary, insulting, horrifying, brilliant, or dang near anything else. You don't have the right to be not offended by what's going on in someone else's head. Sorry, but you just don't. Does that mean they should inflict it on you without warning or consent? Pfft, of course not! But it really is that simple.

I made up the world my dolls will live in. It's an ephemeral, strange, dangerous, hopeful, and luminous place with a lot of what-I-think-is-beauty in it, where anything is possible.

...and I don't honestly care if other people don't like it. It doesn't mean I don't treat living human beings in the really real world with common decency and respect. It's the really real world, after all, not Dee's Weird Doll World. If I ever post pics that someone may get twisty about for reasons I can think of as an oversensitive type myself, they'll be labeled for content, which, to me, is a matter of demonstrating that 'respect' thing mentioned a sentence or two ago.

 

Couldn't have agree more!!!! perfect, and oh Yea. D is breath takingly beauitful, I love the dhampire! and his hand, don't forget the hand