Representing your doll sexually?

I think there's too common a misconception that sexual=inappropriate.
People express themselves in all kinds of ways and a little open mindedness is often necessary to understand. Ive seen the word 'trashy' thrown around in this thread a lot and I would like to know what people define as trashy; it sounds a little judgmental. Personally, I think that a person, or in this case, a doll, that is very blatant or open with their sexuality is fine. Nudity and sex are not dirty, shameful things, they're natural. And the photos are not hurting anyone.
I guess I'm in the 'if you don't like it, don't look' boat.

 

Being an artist myself, I have learned over the years and from others that there is a difference among various erotica - sensual, sexual, and smutty. Sensual is romantic and very intimate - soft touching, sexual is the energy and representation - can tell there's something going on, and smutty to where the content just gets out of hand and turns away from artistic value.

To be honest, I will view any of these and try to take an artistic eye to it. If it's a horrible picture, it's a horrible picture, and I'll move on, but I find myself intrigued by a good image of any sort. Yes, there are some topics I will steer clear from (and this being a pg13 board, will not mention), but I just move on.

I would like to think, that if I take photos of my dolls, I would have the freedom to express the characters for who they are. My first doll is going to be my character Luke. He's a very curious young man and sensual lad, and within time, he's going to end up with a boyfriend (or several depending on my budget over time). Already I can see rather sensual images of him, being soft, sweet, shy, curious, and romantic. ... That's the image type I really enjoy, when you can tell the relationship between two characters and feel their love for one another.

As for others, I really don't mind whatever they decide to post, especially if they try to put artistic value to it.

 

The characters for the first two dolls I want (one isn't my design, the other is) are both sexually uh...null? I guess you could say "null", like not interested. Well, actually, I guess it's sort of complicated in the latter's case...

Point is, I anticipate my dolls will be a lot like myself: pretty damn repressed. lawl. Think snooty dolls in elaborate outfits, high society types where the whole subject is just too taboo!

 

This. Sexuality is a part of life, and I don't see what's wrong with photographing dolls in that situation. I'm not going to put a "trashy" or "non-trashy" requirement on said situation. After all, that sort of thing is really in the eye of the beholder. One person can look at a nude painting/drawing/photograph/whatever and call it art, and another will call it pornography.

I agree with the few people earlier in the thread who say "if you don't like it, then don't look at it."

Everything is subjective.

 

What is distasteful, and to who?

I have taken porno pictures of dolls, it was so much fun! And I would do it again when get the chance.
Why should I not do that, when I try to portrait them in any other way?

 

My doll collecting has evolved with my photography, to me, they are inseparable.

At first I was basically just learning how to use a camera and it was enough for me to be able to take a pretty picture of a pretty doll. But if doll photography is to be considered an art, like any art, it cannot remain static.

While I originally had no particular intention of taking erotic pictures of my dolls, even laughed at those who did so, once I started acquiring larger, more mature dolls, it seemed almost inevitable.

These dolls are made to look sexy and are marketed as such. Most of the clothes sold for them are also sexy. So when I finally got a doll with beautiful body blushing, I succumbed to the temptation of naughty pics.

The majority of these dolls come from Asian countries and each of these countries may have very different attitudes toward sexuality and it's expression. Dollmore's Lusion, for example, is non-arguably a child, and yet is marketed in very sexual poses and attitudes.

It is Volks, I believe, that sells a "sexy nun" outfit. It may be related to some anime character, but this does make me uncomfortable.

But erotica, in general, if done well, is as engaging as any other art. Remember, many great and famous writers have also written pornography, either for love or money. Personally I consider my own sexy pics a phase until I find some new style to interest me.

 

Yeah, exactly-- I'd add, "You have eyelids. Use them." Browsers have Back buttons for a reason. If your Back button doesn't work, close your eyes. You can't un-see it, but you'll live. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, as Freddie put it.

Also, some of us LIKE trashy and smutty. Forget about all the classifications, & forget trying to elevate it with different labels. Trash and Smut can be awfully fun. You don't always have to have True Love With Simultaneous Orgasms, roses and candlelight, and a solemn boudoir ritual with the lights off... Not when a quick boink in the bathroom at a party with a handsome stranger makes for just as entertaining a story! Sex was made to have fun with (if we weren't meant to enjoy it, orgasms wouldn't exist, and none of the human body's Happy Zones would be located within reach of our own hands).

And yes, a lot of these dolls do come to us pre-eroticized, & many of them are designed to be very mature.... It's only natural that some of us like to portray these dolls in a grownup way. They do lend themselves wonderfully to erotic photography-- or to being just plain beautiful nudes. I think the lovely sculptures & resin-glow skin effects make some of them come out way artsier than I'm even capable of being. ^^

 

Interestingly, in Japanese doll circles I've heard the term "manamusume" for the girl dolls owned by males, which means "beloved daughter" . . . which gets a bit weird if it's a super-sexy DDDy, but then I occasionally feel weird dressing a 70cm ab-ulicious SSDF lad like he's a little kid who needs help dressing. But I've seen male owners acting quite paternal towards their manamusume at Dolpas.

People representing their dolls sexually doesn't bother me. I've yet to do it myself beyond a M/M kiss, but I may at some point. I don't care if it's "artistically done" or not; if there's a body of aesthetic criticism of ABJDs somewhere, I haven't seen it. As has been pointed out, taste is relative. And frankly, the most gorgeously photographed female nude doll, whether "tasteful" or "trashy," is not going to interest me. Skilled photography or any other form of artistry can still be deadly boring. It can still be offensive or anything else.

And to be honest, even if people want to take their dolls to bed, that's none of my business and I don't care. I empathize with the many owners who speak of and appear to think of their dolls as children or other living things, because my characters both in resin and out do have a sort of life of their own in my brain, but in reality there's no victim here and therefore no need for social approval. The only legitimate reasons I could see for complaint are improper labelling or the actual breaking of forum rules.

 

I'll second that the only things which really need complaining about are thigs which people have labelled badly - If something is properly tagged as NSFW, and lists exactly why (Since, let's face it, some things can be very specific triggers) it should be enough to keep people who don't want to see it out.

I've never represented my dolls sexually, since they're frankly not to my sexual taste - They're all either quite crudely sculpted, very young, or too stylized. That said, if I did get a doll which I thought would look good in a sexual situation, I'd probably set it up as such and photograph it. To me, at least, they're just toys that I can project short-lived personalities onto when I photograph them - A doll that represents a teenager one day could be a shopkeeper the next, and a doctor the day after that. And I can't see anything wrong with representing them sexually.

As for depicting uncomfortable or even criminal actions (Again, providing that they're labelled properly), I'm just going to quote a bit from Lost Girls by Alan Moore (Edited to remove some graphic details that don't need airing in a PG13 forum);

"It is the idea... It it quite monstrous exept that they are fictions, as old as the page they appear on, no less, no more. Fiction and fact: only madmen and magistrates cannot discriminate between them... They are uncontaminated by effect and consequence. Why, they are almost innocent."

 

Honestly, I feel like it's very difficult to present dolls sexually without making the entire thing look extremely awkward and downright odd, typically because (in my experience anyway) bjds are quite bad at creating natural looking poses that originate close to the body. In any case, I'm not really big on that sort of thing, and I've only ever seen two things that hinted sexual content without making it look silly. Both artists kept it incredibly tasteful and subdued, and it was beautiful. Personally, I doubt that I'd be able to present the subject better than that, so I wouldn't bother.

 

I think that's basically the crux of it; That there's two big questions here.

Question one is something along the lines of "Is there something morally wrong with representing dolls in a sexual way?", with the corollaries of "What about if it's a sexual practice that's illegal?", "What about if the actors are children/underage-in-their-country?", "What if it's rape/abuse?".

Question two is more like "Is there any merit, aesthetic or visceral, to representing dolls in a sexual way?", with its own corollaries of "With what amount nudity?", "What levels of realism?" and "In what forum?"

The answers to both of them are probably going to vary wildly from person to person, which is what makes establishing an adult community standard (IE- Not a standard for DoA, which is PG13, but a standard in the age-restricted boards) so difficult.

 

I must admit that I recently took a slightly sexual picture of my girls. I thought they were tasteful in a playful way, and since they're Pullip dolls, they don't have anything to show off, really. I know the pictures are actually very very innocent, but I felt all naughty taking them. xD The pictures clearly show off the doll's individual personality, and in that way I think it's okay.

In a more general perspective, I think it's weird if the dolls are childish in appearance. Not just weird, a little wrong, actually.
Other than that, I actually don't care much about dolly "porn". I don't want to look at it, but if others like to take photos like that, I don't mind. I'll simply just not look at it. xD

 

Mm, someone was traumatized when Barbie met Ken...

 

Considering the person who started the thread mentioned Dollfie Dreams, I think it's worth bringing up there seems to be a decent portion of DD community that are males and well... some of them do post provocative pictures of their dolls on other sites pretty regularly. Occasionally people will post very sexualized shots of their dolls in a way that mimics pornographic poses. I don't have an issue with it usually but I have on occasion found DD posts on other sites that struck me as overly gratuitous because of how the nudity was handled. Not cute, playful, artsy or well composed... just overtly objectified in a way that really only says porn. I never thought that I'd feel at all offended considering that I don't care too much what other people choose to do with their dolls. However, it's a bit much sometimes to see when browsing a site. I sort of get what the original poster is saying. I could see how it could bother other owners when the same poster is then referring to the doll as his daughter. 'Daughter' is just out of the 'musume' title some japanese owners use, so I don't think they are being sick- just that they don't want to call them their 'dolls' and are mimicking what they've seen. In the end, I don't personally tend to have a problem with doll nudity. However, the way a doll owner approaches it is important to whether or not it's going to offend others and it would be nice if more DD owners took that in to account on some sites.

 

To me, there are two different kinds of sexually based images: Pornography, and Erotica.
Erotica is tasteful, has some artistic merit, and is interesting or emotional to look at regardless of sexual interest. You can draw or photograph a very intimate moment in such a way that it tells you something, but it takes tact and tease. Pornography is aimed strictly at being fan-fantasy material. Erotica with dolls? Sure, go for it. It can be interesting. Pornography with dolls? This is the INTERNET. If you are staring at doll nudie pics......well then you're probably old enough to be looking at something better.

 

No, it's not that hard! But it does take practice, as well as a good eye for composition. In that regard, it's just like real porn..... if you have a good director, your eye & imagination sees two people making a connection with each other; but if you just throw some naked bodies together, the result looks like a pile of badly-lit toys.

Probably you have only ever seen BAD doll porn. There is better. xD Since this IS the internet, the law of averages says there is both good & bad doll porn, just as there is good & bad people porn.

Also, the correct definition is likeso: "Erotica" = "porn written by people who don't like the word 'porn'".

 

I never said "they shouldn't or should” or that no one has the right to "feel or mean anything"
explicit or sexual (or non sexual) toward anything that they please. I said I can't understand why...
Because that's the type of weirdo of a person that I am, but just my very personal opinion in the end.
I wasn't claiming that people can't or can feel sexually aroused by inanimate objects, just because I don't get it. ^ ^;


- Enzyme

 

I like Gloria Leonard's observation also, "The difference between pornography and erotica is lighting."

But this is my favorite comparison, "What is pornography to one man is the laughter of genius to another." --D. H. Lawrence
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD="class: quote_source"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

Spot-on, D.H.! He knew what he was about.

(And Gloria, too. Really-- good lighting is the difference between the "before" and "after" pictures in those quack diet-pill advertisements, and its power to make-or-break also extends to the Naughty.)