Is it "wrong" to let younger kids have BJDs?

i wouldn't give a bjd to a child. if she wants one, save up and get one herself just like how i did for my first doll (at 18!)...
if my future kid wants one, that's what i'll tell her. i don't believe in indulging kids with such expensive things regardless of how well they can take care of them.

 

Acually my cousin "introduced" me to BJD's
and shes only 8
And she already had 3 and she treats them like there are her babies
she is a wonderful doll owner

 

i'm agree, A bjd is not a simple Doll:
due to the price,
the material
how she was made (an artist, a companie,a price).

And then, some BJD got more body's details than a Barbie or an other kind of doll make for child.

 

I'm a mom of two. So I perhaps may have a laid back opinion on such things. I would have no problems giving a child a bjd.

Once a child is passed the "stick everything in their mouth" stage, you can start teaching them about taking care of important or expensive things. If they do well with the lesson and learn to care for the doll, then great! Another generation of doll collector to keep the hobby alive! If, on the other hand, the child seems to be unable to be careful enough then you put the doll away until the child is a little older--a little more mature. That maturity comes at different ages for different children. There may be a 7 year old out there ready to care for a BJD thoughtfully, and then another child might not take good care of it until they're 15.

But certainly the price of the BJD is not an inhibiting factor in giving a BJD to a child. Some children are given expensive doll houses at early ages. It's the same thing. Doll house parts are produced for customization just like our BJD's are.

I bought a high end doll house kit and assembled it, painted it and decorated/furnished it. All for my daughter when she was 6. It cost a small fortune--more to assemble, decorate and furnish than my two largest BJD's combined. Heck, if you favor BESPAQ furniture, you can spend thousands on one doll house. And yes, some folks do that for children. As for my daughter, she was very rough with the house--a risk of giving the gift. So I put it away until she was a little older. 2 years later she was great at caring for it. I didn't regret spending the money and I didn't regret the wear and tear on the house. *shrugs* I think people get too hung up on the cost of BJD's. Their cost does not automatically make their acquisition some merit based quest. In the end of the day, expensive or not, they're still dolls. And all any person need do in order to deserve a doll is to want the doll.


Anyone who's ever walked into F.A.O. Shwartz has been prepared to ignore the money quotient and delve into the joy of play for it's own sake. And no one would say that a $400 doll from F.A.O. Schwartz shouldn't be gifted to a child. It's a bloody toy store--things you buy there are toys for children, no matter how much they cost. BJD's aren't any different, once you reason away the cost of them.

 

I would only by a kid a BJD if they were willing to do their own face up and sew for it, otherwise it would just be like a big barbie.

 

Personally I think that it depends on the child. My four year old daughter would love a BJD but I know that she isn't old enough to take care of it. I recently bought her a mini pullip doll, much cheaper but still cute.........she is happy (for now)

 

depends on the kid. Some kids take good care of their things- some don't. In the end, it comes down to whether the kid can care for said doll or not.

 

I wouldn't make the child sew for the doll and do the face-up. Heck, there are some adult collectors who don't do that. If there are some grown collectors who commission face-ups and buy clothing--why would a child have to do those things to be worthy of owning a BJD?

 

I... don't even understand why this is an issue. How can it be morally wrong to give a certain kind of doll to a child? Many of us had delicate porcelain dolls as kids, and bjds are sturdier, and I don't see why that's a moral question anyway. Why is there such resentment of children having dolls? Why is it anyone's business but the kid and her/his parent(s), anyway? I don't understand this apparent need to have "rules" for the hobby.

If there are some grown collectors who commission face-ups and buy clothing--why would a child have to do those things to be worthy of owning a BJD?

Obviously those adults aren't worthy of bjds anyway. I say they should just donate them all to the rest of us and we'll give them dollar store Barbie and Bratz knockoffs instead.

 

If parents let toddlers have iPhones as pacifiers no one is in any position to stop them from handing over a $1000 doll to be used as a tack hammer. It's not our place to judge how someone else will use an object they own unless it will hurt them or someone else. Teaching the child to sew the clothes is a great idea in any case, never hurts to learn how and 100 years ago dolls were all about teaching little mommies, and lucky daddies, the skills needed to take care of their babies and households. It's a wonderful feeling to know you can make something for your doll.

My only criteria would be if the kid would physically break the doll incase it shattered or made splinters. My sister and cousin Shyla are the kind of children who shouldn't have anything breakable ever in their life times. We had a collection of statues in our house until my sister learned to walk and run in to things. A child like me or cousin Tyler would stand a better chance at taking care of a breakable doll, some of mine are in loved but whole condition after 30 years.

 

Well, depends on the kid's age and skills but:
The point why many let companies or skilled people give their dolls a face-up is because they aren't able to do so. You need patience and experience, which younger children can have but mostly don't.
Children too want to have a nice looking doll in general so why let them handle chemicals or let them try their finger paint on it, when there are other possibilities?
Also: not everyone can sew what they want. And children often tend to go the easiest way.
This dolls are worth a lot of money. And you want youngsters making experiences with scratches from needles or scissors on their dolls or let their dolls wear sock clothes because they're the easiest to make?
Then I think barbies or other cheaper dolls are better to let them get some experience.

 

That doesn't make any sense--not all adult collectors do their own faceups or sew. There's lots of ways to enjoy the hobby, faceups and sewing are just two. And anyway, bjds aren't Barbies no matter what you do with them since they are completely different aesthetically, they feel different, they aren't articulated the same, etc etc (this isn't meant as a swipe at fashion dolls btw).

 

This is a bit of a logic fail to me. I have no issue with the fact that you play with your ball-jointed dolls by painting their face-ups and sewing clothes for them, but why, if that was the entire purpose of it, would the factory face-up exist? And why would people be able to sew and sell clothes if people who bought these only made their own?

Even the Barbie slam doesn't make much sense considering her purpose is style and dress-up, an aspect grossly present in BJDs, only a BJD expands on that with greater customization.


I wouldn't worry about giving a capable child a BJD. If you're concerned about damage, then they clearly aren't ready for it. But if price is the issue, buying a brand new video game system and some games for it can cost a good amount more than getting a BJD and a few accesories to start out.

A new Wii, a second controller set, and a new game cost $350 last year when it was what I recieved from my family for Christmas, a price that a hundred different sculpts of BJD are less than in price even after a wig, eyes, face-up, an outfit and shipping are if you shop smart.

 

QFE -- I neither sew nor paint my own dolls, but I'm not at all of the opinion that I own 'big barbies'. Not all people -- adults or children -- are artistically inclined, and limiting ownership to those that are really isn't fair to anyone.

At any rate, it's not for us to say whether it's 'wrong' or 'right' as it's a case-by-case thing. It's not for us as a hobby to say anything is 'wrong' or 'right' beyond the behaviors that are rather universally frowned on and usually against the rules here -- harassment and so forth. If I choose to give my small child a BJD for Christmas, for instance, then it is nobody's business but mine and my child's.

 

Neither do many adults. That's the point. The inability to do a face-up has nothing to do with whether you should have the doll or not.

I don't know about other folks, but I never put paint on my dolls, even at a young age. A doll was a doll, painting time was painting time. And even if a child would use finger paint on the doll, it would come right off. Finger paints are non toxic and a far sight easier to remove than face-up paints. Any chemical that would ruin the doll would be dangerous to the child and therefore not an issue because the child wouldn't have access to it. Heck, I got sharpie marker on mine last week. It came right off.

Again, I know many collectors who don't sew a single thing their doll wears. It has nothing at all to do with whether you're fit to have a doll yet--regardless of your age.

Nonsense. We have adult owners on this very list who have talked about using sock clothes on their dolls until they could buy the suit they wanted for their dolls. So what if some child's BJD has been made sock clothes. (Oh noes! The world will end!)

And let's not forget the moders chopping on dolls for the first time, making apoxie sculpt parts and gluing them in place as vampire teeth and horns and elf ears and "third eyes" and all manner of thing--all for the first time--forever changing the so called value of the original, unblemished doll.


(a) The value of the doll is intrinsic in its appeal to its owner and has nothing to do with whether it's been altered or in what it cost--because they are made to be personalized, modified and played with. And (b) pin and scissor scratches happen. They just do, even to adult collectors. As well as accidental dropping of the doll, pen stains and a myriad other things. How is that different from a child accidentally scratching the doll with pin or scissor? Do we start determining that if you've ever done anything accidental to mar your doll you aren't ready to own one yet? Because I gotta tell ya--If it came down to that, I'm not fit to own a doll.


Or is it that you only can't accidentally harm your doll if you're young. Older owners are allowed all the accident quota they need? Quick someone! Make a BJD hobby age related rule book explaining who is allowed what kind of accidental marring of their dolls at what age. The penalty for age inappropriate accidents with your doll, of course, is that the dolly police show up and confiscate her/him.

Frankly, it's no one's business whether I give a younger child an expensive BJD anymore than it's anyone's business if I buy it and then mod it to heck and back, or make it into a hybrid or do any one of tons of things some people think (for SOME reason) reflects badly on the hobby.

Folks need to get over the money issue. It's the source of a lot of "Is this or that wrong to do with a BJD" issues within this hobby. If it's legal and doesn't cause harm, it's fine to do with a BJD. Period.

You paid for it. It's yours. If you want to bestow it on a child, then go for it. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

 

No, it's not wrong. I gave a 10 year old an MSD 2 years ago. She's now 12, still plays with the doll constantly, and amazingly enough, only the MSC coating is suffering slightly on the faceup. (It also probably needs a restring at this point, lol.)

It depends on the kid.

 

Elfkin, please calm down a bit.
Of course you can do what you want with your doll, it's yours. Give them to children, let them wear socks, throw them away, I don't care.
I never said it's WRONG!!! I said it depends.
For chemicals I meant sealings like MSC or thinners. But hey, if they use paint that comes right off there is no use for those. So, yeah, don't mind.
And no, I won't get over the money thing. I'm not bathing in it so I want to be careful with them to have them around a bit longer. I also sew for them but I'm careful not to scratch them and so they have no scratches. If I wanted to make a mod on the other hand, I would to that. But I want to have them as they are.
That's merely MY opinion on that, to underline it. ^^

 

I am clam. No insti-capslock in any of my posts to indicate I'm not. I was using hyperbole to express myself in part of the post. But that doesn't mean it wasn't done calmly.

When I mentioned wrong, I was referring to the title of the thread. Which is: Is it "wrong" to let younger kids have BJDs?

I would presume that giving a doll to a child too young to use such things would mean giving them a doll already faced-up. And if not, it would most certainly mean sealing it for them.

By getting over the money, I was obviously referring to people using cost as a reason to limit who should have a doll--in this case, children. But in broader terms, it relates to the whole "Us vs them" issue I see crop up that always surrounds the issue of Money. There's an elitist behavior stemming from how expensive the BJD's are. Truth is, just because BJD's are more expensive than most Barbies, doesn't make them better. Just different. People do all the same things with Barbies that we do with BJD's. They do custom costuming (there are super special limited lines for Barbie, from artisans and companies that specialize in customization, just like we have), custom face-ups (there are countless artists who've made a name and business for themselves doing Barbie face-ups--just like in our hobby), they change their hair (not wig changes always, but also rerooting), they even mod them by installing eyes sometimes. And there are some Barbie hobbyists who spend as much or more on their hobby as we do ours, so admonishing that the child shouldn't be given a BJD but rather given a Barbie is a completely skewed viewpoint.

Cost is never argument alone as to whether a child should receive anything as a gift. Specialty toy venders send their own kids to college riding on the back of that truism. The person who saves up $600 for their own BJD doesn't really deserve her doll any more than the 10 year old girl who was gifted hers by someone who thought she should have one. It's a doll--entitlement isn't part of the vocabulary, and neither should be cost.

 

Well said, Elfkin.

Why is it OK to spend over $100 on an American Girl doll (which also have carriers available and expensive clothes and accessories) for a child, but "wrong" to spend that much on a BJD for a child (most children I've seen with dolls start out with ones in that price range - Bobobie 27cm's and such)? There are TONS of BJD owners on here who do not sew, do not do faceups, and readily admit being terrified to so much as take their doll's head off. There are people on here who genuinely want the company to send them their doll dressed, wigged, with the eyes they want already in, so that they never even have to undress them. There are owners on here who have dolls who are naked and blank because they can't paint them or make them clothes, or afford to buy those things. There are lots of owners who keep their dolls in their boxes, rarely or never taking photos of them, taking them outside, or even taking them out of the box. It's OK for these people to own dolls because they are presumably adults, but it's not OK for a child to own a BJD because they might do these exact same things?

They're dolls. People's money is THEIR money. If they want to spend it on an expensive doll for a child, it's their business and no one elses. If they want to gamble it away in a casino, it's their business. If they want to donate every penny they have to charity, it's their business. As long as it's legal and they are not harming someone else, I don't see how anyone else has any business even questioning what people do with their own money. It stinks of entitlement and perhaps jealousy. And when you get down to it, ageism.

 

My answer was related to wolfmanny so I don't get why you're jumping on the face-up thing. ^^
And of course for many money is a factor when younger children are given BJDs. And they are different. The off/on topic questions is not in vain here. They are dolls, sure. But they're still worth a lot more and are not too endurable which is I wouldn't give them to just anyone. Money is a mayour point. You can't look it away. There are different dolls that are worth this much but also those aren't mostly bought for children but for older people and collectors.
Of course you can also put your money in LE 1965 babies, no question. But since this thread is referring to children and children depend mostly on their parents' money I think all you can say is that it would depend on the child's behaviour and not how worthy he/she is to own a doll.
I don't judge people doing anything, I would have to know them better than that and don't be merely in a forum with them. But I know general facts and I'd like to add my opinion to the existing ones and don't want it to be seen as nonsense.
And to put dolls that cost 100-1000+ in sock clothing and - even if accidently - have paint get on them or drop them by accident is out of the question for me, but I don't care if anyone does this because it's their doll, their money. ok? Peace? ^^