Representing your doll sexually?

doll are objects, and if u an owner, u do whatever u want with them. But people do have their right to have an opinion about that, "say nice things only" kinda stuff is so childish. Funny to see how people cannot handle different point of view from their own, n say "have nothing nice to say - say nothing". Why so? U do ur thing, I say my word. Nice or not.

 

BJD dolls for the most part have vaginas, penises, and breasts. Of course someone somewhere will sexualise them -- real people have these things in order to have sex, so, naturally, a doll with breasts or a penis could be seen by someone, somewhere, to be sexually active.

It's just natural. *shrugs* If it didn't have any sexual organs, I guess that's when it'd be weird. But, I digress.

 

I've only ever done one sexually-themed story with my dolls, but in no part of it do you see anything other than shoulders, and part of the male's torso -- I couldn't bring myself to do anything more explicit because it didn't feel respectful to the characters, whom I love very much.

But it had to be done; the two of them are desperately in love with each other, hadn't seen each other for a year, and well, what would YOU do if you hadn't seen your significant other for a year? A very tender, exploratory, and yet full of desire trip to the bedroom was quite necessary for these two.

It was a very difficult shoot and I'm not sure it was completely successful, but there was no question what was afoot. And one does not need to have rotating parts that stand at attention to do a sexually-themed shoot (that's a different doll, and the darned thing keeps falling out of his PANTS) You don't need to show organs at all to tell a story. But as others have said much better than I, it takes practice to make it work.

 

Jaida is my little pin up girl, so doing slightly sexual but tasteful shots is common with her. I wouldn't do that with Andy because she's not a sensual girl. But it suits J and it's fun, so I go with it.

 

My Ash waited almost 2 years to get his Chris. Chris happened to come with a surprise 'working' member. I took at least a hundred extremely explicit photos and I enjoyed it. I even planned to do that beforehand, even before I knew Ringdoll made dolls that could do things like that. XD They're lovers. I'm a photographer. It just all worked out nicely. Hehe..

 

I think it depends on the person. I can't say that I wouldn't or would do it since I don't have a doll yet but, if I wanted to see what that particular pose would look like, I might take a picture of my doll in a sexy pose, as long as it was tasteful to me. I hope that made sense.

 

Its not what you do but how you do it. There is porn and there is art. Artistic porn there isn't. One is designed to titillate and the other is to fascinate ... a world of difference.

 

My dolls are too daggy to be represented in a sexual way. Probably because the idea of portraying sexuality in any way bores me. It's everywhere. I prefer the other, and the mysterious. As for people and their doll tastes, I don't really have an opinion.

 

My dolls are my children, but if they do something sexual - hopefully not with each other, they're sister and brother - I may take the pictures but I'm not there as their mother.

 

Pretty much the above. If I ever take pictures of my dolls without clothes, it's because I've usually made an item and I want the focus of the photograph to be on that rather than on the doll - the doll is the model and no more.

 

I have nothing against people doing those kind of photos with their dolls. It's not my thing, though and I also don't have characters like that. I'd feel weird doing this.

 

I think it's wonderful when such a project makes you discover what a doll's engineering & sculpt can really do! There are poses or attitudes you just never stopped to think about replicating in a doll before, and you find out, "Hey wow, that can be done". And I don't mean just option-parts & Kama Sutra positions, either, I mean like the first time you see serious human tenderness/longing/intensity expressed between two inanimate objects? That is cool.

Also yes-- if two dolls are lovers, why not make them look like they love each other?

 

In my case, whether I take such pictures will also depend a lot on the doll. If the doll is obviously a child or it's just not something the dolls character would do, then probably not. If the doll is supposed to be older and the personality makes them comfortable with such pictures, then I say go right ahead.

 

I agree with these quotes. I see my dolls as characters I created and pretty things I put on display, not my children. There's a line between an artistic nude and a doll spread eagle in a picture and the camera zoomed in. I understand that some people call their dolls "children" but I think some people are using the word incorrectly with quotes like "Papa please these poses are too sexy" and the doll laying there nude..

As most have mentioned, label your posts correctly because its not like most people are looking for these pictures, they're misplaced.

 

I myself love taking pictures of my dolls nude, but that is because I admire so much their realism and sculpting, not to mention the movement and posing compared to other dolls.

However, I don't enjoy porn shots, or pictures taken with the sole purpose of being distastefully erotic, in and out of the hobby. I won't even mention what I feel when I see MSDs or dolls that resemble kids in those kind of shots...

I also agree with Freezaframe:

 

I don't really see the clash between referring to your dolls as "children" and photographing them sexually (provided they uh, sort of look to be of legal age). For one, maybe the owner jokingly calls them children, perhaps to poke fun at their own silly hobby (or maybe it's even a cultural thing). And even if they're not joking, it is very possible that they are KIND OF like children to them; I will, for one, fully admit that my own characters are children of sorts to me. Oh, no, not the ones for whom I'd buy a Christmas present every year and I'm convinced that they exist on some kind of an astral plane and I really (!) gave birth to them or other such nonsense. But they are my brain babies, I came up with them, developed them, gave them a life and a personality. I do not, however, see a moral dilemma in perceiving my adult "children" as being allowed to possess the common human trait of sexuality and sex appeal. When a child grows up it becomes an adult and enters the adult world and all that good stuff; and I have some VERY sexual adult characters, including (but not limited to) incarnations of both Lilith and Eros. (Here I should probably point out that someone who photographs their dolls in sexual situations may not actually do it for the jollies; it may be simply because they find tasteful sexuality to be artistic and challenging, or because such a situation is very befitting the character's personality and story as perceived by the viewers).

My child-like characters are obviously completely off-limits, but entirely because that's just squicky and kind of (very) illegal; not because they're my characters. I've gotten into numerous discussions on this topic, but I do think that regardless of what the character's age may be, the appropriateness of sexual representation of the dolls should ONLY be determined by the age a reasonable stranger would provide based on the doll's looks. I'm considering buying a Chibi Unoa to be a chibi version of one of my characters; however, while the actual character is very much a near adult with fancies and sexual attractions, I would NEVER consider photographing the chibi version in a very obviously sexual pose (though sassy is definitely on the table). I realize that Chibi Unoas are pretty ambiguous in terms of age, but I for one can't see them as anything other than cutsey and stylized, and I don't really think it meshes well with sexuality. YMMV.

That being said, when I look at other people's doll photos it really depends on how the doll is photographed, and how I perceive the owner's intent. While I'm not necessarily going to think it wrong or immoral, I think I would be more than a little bit creeped out if it felt like all of the photos were the owner's material for activities of the very private sort, or if it revealed some rather disturbing opinions and interests possessed by the owner in relation to real human beings (just as an example, the opinions of the owner regarding the rights and purposes of real human women for their perspective, although it is definitely not limited to that). I think presentation is definitely the key feature that distinguishes the tasteful and somewhat sexy but artistic nudes (even if they're of VERY sexual nature) and some quick shots meant for purposes that do not really need to be shared with the world at large.

 

In life children do grow to be adults but parents don't take sexual pictures of them because they're old enough so I don't see why owners call the dolls children it just does not make sense if you're going to do those things with them. Children just does not seem like the right word to use in those situations.

 

In my opinion, You are taking issue with dolls being called their "children" by their owners and then those owners taking sexualized photos of their dolls?

These dolls are not real people.

They are resin, plastic, with fake hair, plastic eyes. They don't live, they don't eat, they don't have real emotions. They are toys. They subject to playing out whatever fantasy their owners subject them to, because that's their purpose. Either it being a Child the one moment or to an adult model the next.

Really, what you are arguing about sounds a lot like a little girl trying to dictate her friends on how they should play with their barbies.

You play dolls your way, I'll play mine my way.

 

Who cares what someone else calls their dolls? I find the "my dolls are my children" thing a little weird, but it's not my place to dictate to other people what they may call their dolls or how they may play with/interact with them. They're dolls, not people, so it doesn't really matter what their owners do with them, aside from maybe bludgeoning another person. These dolls are not anyone's *actual* adult children, so feel free to ignore those people if it bothers you, since those shoots are not hurting any actual, living humans. You can't expect them to change what they choose to call their dolls because you find that it's wrong/weird/makes you uncomfortable because of the kind of photos they might be taking.

Yeah, this.

 

I do believe I touched on this, however:

In certain cultures, specifically Asian ones, it is appropriate to refer to dolls as your children (or some word that translated into "children"). (At the very least, it is commonplace and acceptable) Kind of how in English people may lovingly refer to their toys/dolls/beloved possessions as their "babies" without experiencing the desire to warm up some milk to body temperature for them. English-speaking owners sometimes pick up this practice as well, because a variety of reasons at which I won't attempt to guess for fear of putting words in other people's mouths. That doesn't mean they think of them as their children/babies, or even children/babies at all. (Mind you, I do not really have the habit of referring to my dolls as "children"/"kids"/"babies". They are, however, representations of my characters who do owe their entire independent existence to me, and therefore in certain situations they do sort of become my parthenogenetic brain babies)

The reason I brought up adulthood in the first place isn't because I was trying to draw some bizarre parallel between parents filming their adult children in a pornographic film, but because some of us who cherish and love our own adult characters do not have a problem with understanding that there is nothing wrong with presenting them as sexual beings if that is in fact who they are. Statistically speaking, an adult human character will be a sexual individual in an overwhelming majority of cases, and there is nothing wrong with accepting that part of them, as their creator; it does not have to be motivated by some kind of sexual desire for my characters, and in fact I might not actually find them "sexy" at all (which for me is true in the vast majority of cases).

Although I do agree that it's a bit bizarre to refer to your dolls as children while happily parading them in lingerie in front of a large audience, I wouldn't necessarily jump to conclusions about what exactly the owner means when they refer to their dolls as "children" (i.e. in an incestuous or pedophiliac manner, to blatantly point out the big fat elephant in the room)