Representing your doll sexually?

That is not what I'm saying at all. If you're not making a point or bring anything constructive to the argument then its ad hominem.
Furthermore, maybe Im playing devils advocate here but, I would argue that most adults understand the line between family and objects of sexual desire. Even if the person photographing their "daughter" in sexual positions claims that there is no connection between the two. Its naive to ignore the clear sexual connotations.

 

And I say it's clearly none of your business on what other people think of their dolls. And to judge people who do so is not nice it makes you sound like your accusing BJD collectors of having pedophilia tendencies.

There was a reason why your thread in the GD section was locked by the Mods:

 

I honestly dont care what people think of their dolls. It is their business. My point was that; at the very least, not admitting their is a connection between the two (intentional or not) is ignorant.
Anyways Im done debating this with you because you dont seem to know how to debate facts... the only way you seem to be able to make a point is by attacking others personally to ruin their credibility. Ironic that you were calling me immature...

 

I am merely defending others who don't find, as you termed it: "raunchy" photos of dolls offensive but as something interesting to do with their dolls. A majority of BJD owners are adults, with adult interests, if taking sexual photos of their dolls is part of it, then so be it.
If you take offense at such photos you don't have to look at them. To me, your comments are suggesting that you think owners who do this are some kind of sexual deviants.

I love reading about a good debate, but I know that one's artistic vision is not always accepted, or respected by everyone.

I think what we've learned here is exactly that.

 

But that's what we're all trying to tell you. There doesn't need to be a connection. Cultural norms aside (which I have now brought up twice, and you have twice ignored), just because they call their doll daughter and put her in a sexy pose does not in any way, shape, or form have to imply pedophilia or incest because [I hope] the doll is neither an underaged human nor of direct biological relation to the owner.

And yes. Yes there are people who like various fetishes that may or may not involve using parent/child names with their partner. That does NOT mean that they are attracted to children, their own children, or that they wish to be in an incestuous relationship; they are no more likely to want to engage in illegal activities than any other individual, this just happens to be something that makes them tick, in an irrational kind of way. Maybe they like to call someone "daughter" because a father is a strong figure that protects, cherishes and spoils his daughter, and those feeling of protectiveness and responsibility is what they wish to recreate. Maybe they just really like pigtails and pink. Maybe these interests end up carried over to their dolls, because people naturally recreate what they like in doll form. Or maybe they just happen to be from an Asian country and English is their second language, and so they think it is completely normal to translate the way they refer to their doll as "daughter". I do recall some Korean individuals and companies mention that they didn't realize that English-speaking owners find referring to dolls as children a little weird. Regardless, that doesn't mean you're even in a position where you are entitled to pass judgement or make up reasons behind other people's preferences.

That said, yes I do find it slightly uncomfortable when I feel like someone is posting photos because they want to share their fetishes with the rest of the world. Not because I find the notion of the particular fetish uncomfortable (even if I don't like it, or even personally find it a bit gross when applied to myself), but because I feel like something like that should be shared with people who are in an intimate enough relationship with the individual to know private things like that. Friends, lovers, family (if they're so inclined) - fine. Strangers on the internet? Pushing it a little.

As an aside, I hate to say it, but I think Elysion gear is responding with such a tone to you because you yourself are coming of as very inclined to slinging personal insults as well. Sure, you're not saying it directly, but it's very obvious between the lines of your posts that you want to call out everyone who posts sexual pictures of their dolls as perverts, pedophiles and child molesters, which are pretty heavy accusations to make. (And just to clarify, no, I do not find this particular fetish to be enticing, nor do I refer to my dolls as children and/or photograph them sexually, so I'm not necessarily personally invested in this matter)

And as another aside, even if someone is a sexual deviant, there is nothing wrong with that so long as they're not engaging in illegal activities or otherwise harming non-consenting individuals. I don't necessarily want an ear(or, er, eye)full of whatever it is exactly that they enjoy, because that sort of puts me into the uncomfortable spot as a participant (in some way), and I'm not interested, but if they do like it - all the power to them. I think that's the main problem with sexual photos that are not artistic and creative. It feels like you've stumbled on someone's private matters that they for some reason decided to make public.

 

There isn't necessarily a connection, though. Sometimes, yes. Usually, though? The majority of people out there are not secretly harbouring incestuous desires toward their dolls OR human members of their actual family. There may be unfortunate implications, but honestly, I don't think that most people think that deeply about it.

You make it sound as though those who refer to their dolls as children and then take sexualised photos of them must have some sort of paedophillic or incestuous inclinations or desires (towards the doll, if nothing else), which simply isn't true. If we're interpreting your statements incorrectly, perhaps you could clarify. As it stands, it does sounds as though that's what you're saying. As has previously been mentioned, the idea of referring to one's dolls as "sons" or "daughters" is very much influenced by culture, and does not necessarily reflect actual maternal or paternal feelings of the sort they might have for actual children. (I would wager that the majority of the male DD collectors whose dolls have large busts and skimpy clothing do not actually consider themselves the fathers of their "precious daughters" and that they do not treat them like real children.)

 

People call their car "sexy" one minute and the next they are calling it their baby. This does not mean the person has any interest in pedophilia. Why are BJDs any different?

 

Personally I think at the end of the day the owner has purchased the doll and can do whatever they want with it.
I don't really have a problem with people doing it, as long as its posted in the appropriate place (not in an under 13 forum or something like that) and there's some sort of warning there is nudity.
I have only ever taken nude pics of my dolls in their box openings or if I'm doing comparison shots, which I think are fine and helpful to people wanting to purchase the sculpt.
However if done correctly I think nude and sexual pics can tell a story and build on character (for example if they they wear more revealing clothing because it is part of their character or personality, or building on a doll relationship by having one hug/kiss the other, or expressive emotive shots where the nudity makes some sort of point and isn't there for no reason), but full on doll intercourse isn't really something I'd ever consider doing for a photoshoot or for fun.. But it is up to the person who owns it what they do with their dolls and if it's what they like then so be it. Just post it in the right way so people not interested in it know that's what it is and not to look at it, and people that like it can click on it.
Oh and just adding to the original post.. I think Dollfie dreams are viewed more sexually because they look more like anime figures rather than realistic people. I know that in animes I have watched up skirt shots and things like that were put in for no real purpose (kind of annoying in my opinion, just because I only watch for the story and not fan service lol) so I guess they kind of remind people of anime characters?
Just my opinion put in there not saying I'm right but it's just what I think ~

 

Really I think that if someone invests their money in a doll they should be able to do as they like with it.

I have absolutely no problem with representing dolls sexually or in any way at all, really. I'm an artist myself, although more oriented to the graphic arts than anyone else, and the thought of not being able to address certain subjects in my art really gets my blood boiling. Since one can say that photographing these dolls is a sort of art as well, I don't think it should be restricted anymore than 'regular' art.

Then again, I've no sexual interest in dolls (or anything, really)... So I may have a different opinion of it than most. Because I don't really have the dolls to make sexy pictures of I don't do it myself, but if I did have more than one doll I imagine I would eventually address sexual subject matter. Not in any sort of pornographic way (although it may be graphic) but more in an artistic way.

Sex can be artistic if you go about it in the right manner.

Not that there's anything wrong with dollporn in my book if people are into that...

 

I wont let my doll to photograph in an obviously sexual manner.In my mind,I treat my doll like my children,so I wont think about them in that way.
But is ok to see ohters doll's photograph in a sexual manner.Just like real peole's sexy photograph,some is beatiful,but some is bad.

 

I'll always appreciate tasteful "nudes". As long as it's artistic, I'd be cool with it but I'd probably sigh at tacky porn-like photography. It's like the difference between Burlesque and a webcam stripshow. Aesthetically appealing, please!

 

I'm with Nathicles on this one. Tacky porn like photography, doll or person, is something I find quite unappealing. However a well done nude or lingerie photo can be beautiful, even if the pose is sexual.

I'd love to see a doll dressed up like Dita Von Teese and mimicking one of her photographs, there's some really classy ones out there. But a doll in a porn photo would probably put me right off.

 

While I do not agree with sexual nudity of dolls, I think it all depends on the owner. Some people do NOT think of their dolls as children, and some people have doll couples, who they want to photograph in a sexual way (to show love and passion). I do not have a problem with this. Would I ever photograph my doll nude? Only if it was artistic nudity. But honestly, I prefer them to be clothed. But would I turn on someone for taking sexual pictures of their doll? Probably not, unless the picture was distasteful.

 

I really hope someone reads this. (And before a mod decides that I've ran around the bush too long or something and deletes this, I'll just say this DOES HAVE to do with dolls being represented sexually).

Okay, please go to dollmore.net, then scroll down and hit "Doll Article and Furniture," then click "Handcuffs," then click the first result. It should be "7-12inches Doll Size - Handcuffs (N)." Look at the first picture. What the hell is that?! To me it looks like a naked doll meant to look like a child in handcuffs. I stumbled upon this pic by google image searching for an off topic Dollmore doll that I won't mention. I immediately freaked out. Showed my brother, who said, "Maybe it's from the owner gallery," which made it somewhat less creepy because I would be stunned (and not in a good way) if one of my fav companies had something akin to doll kid porn on their site. I surfed their owner gallery for a bit, then thought I'd look to see if they even sold handcuffs. They do, as you can see, with THAT image. Am I the only one disturbed by that?

 

That's a strange choice of picture, but I don't think it can be termed 'pornographic'; nothing sexual is taking place. It looks like a doll modeling the handcuffs, since their hands are held up.

As far as people taking pictures of their dolls in sexual poses on purpose, I don't think I'd do that with my dolls. I don't see the need to include that in my doll's storylines, but if someone else decides that they need it for their own dolls and their storylines, who am I to stop them?

Just as long as they label things correctly, so people who might not want to see it can skip over it, then they can do whatever they want. It isn't going to hurt someone to label their story, and it might prove beneficial.

 

Probably. That chibi has clearly just been arrested for a serious crime! *pffft* No, handcuffs are not pornography. Dollmore just uses one doll of each size in those shoots to advertise articles that are designed to fit more than one size of doll. Me, I do NOT automatically assume that handcuffs = sexual, even though I DO have a dirty mind.

However, if you are sensitive to photographs of accessories that could possibly be used in the boudoir, do not look at the rest of Dollmore's accessory pages. And if you are sensitive to photographs of childlike dolls in lingerie, do not even bother going to the rest of Dollmore.net.

 

I think the sexuality of a picture can sometimes come across differently to different people, too. I took one picture of my doll, fully clothed but in a sort of pinup style, and showed it to my mom. She thought it looked like my doll was about to 'touch herself' but when I posed her that way I meant it to be like she was holding her skirt down. Maybe it's only because I'm still an amateur photographer, but misunderstandings can occur.

 

Would you photograph your doll (or let your doll be photographed) in an obviously sexual manner?
Nope, it's something I'm uncomfortable about and I seriously doubt my skill in taking 'artistically nude' shots, but I appreciate them, some are really well done.

As for the 'children' part, being referred to as a 'child' of the owner does not mean the owner see it as a human child. For example, 2 married aunts if mine (with kids) have dogs they treat like 'kids' and they address themselves as the dogs' moms. They also have kids who kinda treat the dog like family. Yes, the dog is a part of the family, yes they see it as a 'child', but between the dog and human child, there is definitely a difference.

So seeing dolls as children, yet photographing them in a sexual manner is nothing wrong to me. A parent loves a child and pampers it, similarly, they do love a doll and pamper it, in a different way. But in the end, a doll (no matter how much it's loved) is still drastically different from a human child.

Anyway, it's someone's doll, it's up to them what they want to do with it. I don't have to look if I don't want to, and the back button as well as warnings before you click on a page link is sufficient to me.

 

And definitely don't go looking at the promotional pictures of Lusion Dahlia. It's what appears to be a ten-year-old girl in fishnet stocks and sexy underwear, and while I don't care about fictional representations of sexual children (as long as it's not a real child, you can do what you like to it, in my book) this creeped out even me. I think it was the level of realism that did it for me, as well as the voyeuristic angle and the plainly miserable look on her face. It sort of smacked of sexual slavery, and while of course it's just a few photos of an inanimate object, sexual trafficking of children is a very real thing and not something that I really want to be reminded of while browsing a doll store.

 

Depends on which doll it is, really... Some of my dolls are children (or in certain cases, immortals trapped forever at an age that is below adulthood) and some of them have very conservative personalities, so those ones would never be allowed to be posed/photographed in sexual situations.

(That said, the mature adults among my dolls will probably not have sexy photoshoots, either.)