Role Reversal - Objectifying Males in the ABJD World

Here here. Two wrongs do not make a right, although I personally believe that there will always be sexism, and that images of attractive physical characters - such as when they're portrayed on dolls - does not equal sexism. Without attraction the world population would die out.

 

This.

Thank you for stating it so clearly.

 

This! I see this so much. people often complain about dolls being over sexed and it makes me think of my dolls. I have 'sexy' characters and others who are more reserved. But I can bet that people would automatically think I'm being sexist by some of their portrayals just because they're sexy!

 

First I would like to address the general issue of the "naked warrior. The half-naked or even completely nude warrior is a classical image - ancient Greece is just one example. Also, like already mentioned in this thread, a half-naked male has been created by male authors in comics and cinema BEFORE the same concept has been adopted by doll hobbyists.

Then a word about hetero, cisgender, non-dollhobbyist males and their view on dolls: most hetero males I know have a problem with the the boy dolls depicting feminine looking or non-heterosexual characters. Much less, or not at all, with the boy doll being naked. Because for males, being naked is something that is much less sexualized from their childhood onwards. They can take off their shirt in public without being sanctioned for it by parents, teachers or society.

And finally, when the topic of "yaoi is bad", "girly boys are unrealistic", "men are objectified in the doll hobby" etc comes up - and is brought up by hetero males who are attracted to hetero females - , it is often just another look on the ugly face of misogyny.

Like in:
"Whaaaat? How can you like those * insert some cursing hinting to homosexuality or feminine attributes* guys? Straight females have to like what is served to them by the media and not deviate from that!!!"

That means: shaved-headed, stubble-wearing, huge, muscled, testosterone-filled, mute, violent, highly potent, promiscuous "alpha" male. Uhmmm... nobody seems to notice that this is exactly the kind of man that is preferred by... men.

Maybe the guys who are into the hetero cisgender girls should finally accept that these girls would like to make their own decisions on what turns them on. Okay, I am not a straight cisgender female, so I can only suspect what they like ^^ But they have a right to decide. If they like the described specimen, then fine. If not, then not. And they can dress their male dollies how they want.

And now to answer the questions:

Have we, as a female-dominant community, done to our male dolls what the comic book community has done to female superheros/villains? IE: Do we dress our male dolls in clothing that is impractical for their occupation, just so we can see more of their muscles?

We like our dolls, both male and female ones, dressed in a way that makes them pleasant to look at - and this often includes "sexy" clothing. But honestly, I see more "sexualization" or "objectification" (well, the dolls are already objects, like Kiyakotari said, but I lack a better term) in the way we dress - *gasp* - female dolls. They wear sexy and revealing clothing even more often than the males do - we just don't notice. Because this kind of pictures are everywhere and we are so used to them.

Are our depictions of male dolls based, at least in part, in fantasy?

Of course! The sweet, emotionally reliable, great in cooking, absolutely non-jealous, cute as a button and extremely submissive male with girly looks is a rather rare specimen. Even more so if he has to be a warrior at the same time.

Also, if so, are we even aware of the "role reversal"? Do some intentionally sexualize/objectify their male dolls because of the sexualizing/objectifying of females in other male-dominated communities (such as the comic book community)?

I am guilty of sexualizing both doll "genders". Meaning my girls are just as likely to run around in revealing clothing as my boys are. So no, I don't do it intentionally. I love comic books, too, no matter how much aware I am of the sexualization of the female characters - and I am attracted to the look of these characters, too >.> But I think it is healthy that the doll hobby creates a space for the females to have something pretty for themselves, instead having to provide "pretty" for the male gaze only.

 

Very much this...and I am quite happy to let guys have their Dollfie Dream Double D girl in hotpants with swords, because the whole issue becomes a "is this ok to do with my doll?" And as we have thrashed out in other debate threads, if you bought the doll, you can do what you want with it. Whether you are male, female or any shade in between.

 

You & Fishcake - I'm so WITH you LOL
BTW - not only was THOR so much eyecandy for us girl geeks, but 300 ~sigh~ definitely was.

I'm kinda over the puritanical mindset of certain persons on both sides of the political spectrum - I like pretty boys.

so shoot me.

 

Link totally relevant when discussing objectification and superheroes.

On a more serious note: objectification is not sexualization. Idealizing a fantasy is not objectification either. It frequently follows or comes along with objectification, but it doesn't cause or represent it.

Objectification is about power, really. When you objectify someone, you strip away all of their personal agency, independence and personality - thereby completely depriving them of any kind of power they may be capable of holding. You become the sole power in the "exchange" (which will also exist in the case of a fictional character or a doll, though thankfully no real people would be harmed in such a case). Neither idealization nor sexualization requires that - and that is what I see most frequently around the doll community. Owners striving to make their male dolls the boss, the most powerful, the most special, the most interesting; not the sexiest piece of meat to photograph in uncomfortable contortionist poses (and as I've seen, a rather large portion of the hobby seems to.... have distaste for objectifying, sexualized photography of dolls, if any of the numerous debate threads on this topic are any indication).

I'll confess, I have not seen very many truly objectified presentations of male dolls/characters in this hobby (then again, I'll also confess that I haven't looked really hard). Sure, handsome boys with long hair and impractical outfits are a dime a dozen, but they are frequently supplemented with vast character biographies and personality quirks - many of which explain and justify the looks or the choice of outfits. When the character is given their own agency within their own world, they are no longer objectified, but they may still be sexualized*.

I can only think of a FEW objectified male dolls that I have seen - as in, ones whose sole existence was to be a sexual object to leer at/fantasize about, created to cater to and please the viewers. Many of them were done as a joke.

*On this same note, if a character is given a pseudo-agency, as in, s/he's got "character" but the whole purpose of the character is to be an unwitting sexual object for the viewers, that is also objectification. (However, that does not apply to eye-candying it up for other characters within the story - this is an important distinction, as pleasing the viewer crosses the fourth wall and strips the character of any personality or meaning they may have had in their own world).

I want to bring up my own characters, but I'm afraid I'd be a little biased; so instead, I want to bring up a few characters belonging to well-known franchises. In category A, I would like to list Lust from FMA, and Emma Frost and Mystique from X-men. All are highly sexualized both physically and in character, sporting rather impractical outfits (or in Mystique's case, are entirely naked). However, they are NOT objectified. Why? Because their character supplements their physical attributes in a way that makes sense. They are all perfectly aware of the fact that they're sexy and they're not afraid to use it (along with other powers they may have) to get what THEY want within the story. It's always about THEM and what THEY, as a character, want. Never the viewer. Their sexuality does not acknowledge the viewer at all, and therefore it does not serve to objectify them. Their outfits make sense either because they need it to use their power to full advantage (Mystique), or because they're invincible/immortal and hold a high opinion of their physical looks. Compare that to exhibit B - almost any girl in a Harem anime/manga... And a large chunk of female superheros (especially when penned by certain authors and artists....). They do not exist as entities in full control of their sexuality, bending their bodies into a variety of uncomfortable and impossible poses, or ending up with an accidental embarrassing panty shot; their bodies are being exploited to please the viewers, making them JUST about that sexy body that you, the viewer, deserve to get a GOOD, LONG look at. Got a good look yet? No? Okay, have another boob-n-ass shot for your pleasure! That is when it becomes objectification.

I mean, I'm not going to deny that there's some objectification going on, that with the constant topic of penis sizes and nawt enough pecks whenever a new doll body comes out, along with hoots and hollers. But really? It seems to be in the minority, and those same hoots and hollers get aimed at breast sizes and skimpy outfits with new female dolls. So, no. I REALLY do not think this entire hobby is in any way equal to the disgusting thing done to... ah hell, pretty much the vast majority of female characters, or women, everywhere.

Of course, this may be just the threads I choose to frequent or the doll owners whose photos I end up looking at.

 

To the first statement, I would like to basically agree with what was said by Dollblue. I don't think that by dressing our dolls to be appealing we are 'sexifying' them, or even 'objectifying'. We have dolls as a form of blank canvas, that we can paint on as we like. My future doll, Morgan, will be a lot more "sexy" in her attire than my current doll, Ashe, is. I also think that we have such a wide gamut here, from very traditional male stereotypes [Such as the IH Tedros fullset] to the more effeminate male dolls, of which there are many. It makes it hard to pin-point if the male dolls are being objectified, and frankly, I think it's less that and more idealized. We like male dolls with muscles and stubble, and like to make them hot without the reality of the ideal. We like male dolls who are sweet, shy, effeminate again - without the reality. It's less turning them into objects - after all, they already are - and more idealizing the traits that we ourselves find appealing - in both men and women.

We also have to look at the marketing approach. As a predominantly female hobby, the doll industry knows we like the two extremes to be idealized. And since the goal is for the business to make money, they want to market and sell to that fact. Which is the exact same reason females were objectified in comics [although I would like to point out that female artists/writers were just as quick to do it as males, which is an entirely different subject]. Then again, men are just as objectified in comics as women, though perhaps with more clothing. In that marketing strategies both target this upholding of a consumer's ideal yes, there is certainly a commonality.

I don't know if I would say that female dolls are more "objectified" or "idealized", but they certainly fall prey to it. Especially those with ridiculously oversized breasts - which are highly impractical. I'm not talking about the "glamor bust" options, I mean the ones that are, I think, fashioned off of an anime trend where the breasts are so ridiculously large women would not be able to resist gravity and stay upright, and I don't know if those are produced, but I've seen at least one modding request for it. Which is fine, it's a personal preference, but it falls under the same category as the subjects being discussed here. [And I mean no offense by referencing it]

As for the second section, I'd have to say that most of our dolls are typically 'idealized' versions of reality. Sure, you can find those men. They're rare, and are oftentimes of the homosexual variety, but I suppose they exist. I've not met many of them, but then, I live in a more rural area where traditional male values are highly prized. I know most of my characters are "more" than what they would be were they real people, but that's half the fun of writing and collecting dolls, and giving them personalities.

 

A few hobbyists whose sexy boy dolls make men uncomfortable is not the same as the way the comics industry as a whole intentionally sexualizes women, or the way society as a whole does the same.

Is it sometimes objectifying? Sure. Is it sometimes creepy? Again, I'm sure it sometimes is. But even in this hobby, it is not only women objectifying male dolls. There are plenty of improbably physically perfect and scantily clad female dolls, too. Some of them possess agency and character and do not feel creepy, same for the men.

But it is ridiculous to say that we are doing 'the same thing', when we are a few largely-private hobbyists spending our own money to create personal fantasies, and not an industry shaping the way an entire gender is viewed.

=^__^=
Anneko

 

Don't forget the DD Dynamite body.

 

I have to comment...that thing scares me. D:

 

It is a pretty outrageous body. I remember hearing a girl comment that it's really, really difficult to dress them because of the proportions. I don't remember if she was selling it because of this, or if she was just commenting.

 

There's a joke iin my community about a DDdy girl. XD We all say she's had implants and her former breasts are the small bust size. The owner totally went along with this too. XD
There is ONE DDdy girl who has natural looking large breasts which is kinda nice but so hard to get. ;-; Makes me sad.

 

There really isn't much I can add to Kiyakotari's post but being a lesbian involved in both the comic book and bjd hobby, I feel like I should toss a few cents in here.

Yes, I do I see the objectification of women in comics and yes, I do think it happens to male dolls in the bjd hobby. It doesn't bother me too much unless it's blatant, overt, and without substance. I find it uncomfortable when the fanboys oogle a hot superheroine just as much as it is uncomfortable for me when the gay fanboys and straight fangirls oogle the male superheroes. I find it uncomfortable when the same happens in the bjd hobby

However, I don't think anyone can attack someone's doll like they can attack a comic book character on the same grounds of objectification or wrongful sexualization. The hobbies are two different creatures. A person's doll is customized and personalized to their specific tastes and is owned exclusively by the owner. A comic book character, especially a super hero, is most likely not creator owned. They're franchises now, and as such, have a certain responsibility to the fanbase and the general public to which they advertise. They can't just do whatever the hell they want like a bjd owner can, because even if they created that character once it's licensed and published and popular enough, it can't stray too far from it's rigid mold. Feminists will attack, the media will call it unfit for children, fans will throw great big hissy fits and refuse to buy a book that no longer fits their vision of the character, or something else equally stupid will happen.

So, yeah, I think there are some parallels there when going by my personal taste of what's objectifying and what's not, but no, I don't think it's a completely fair comparison being made between these two hobbies.

 

Well... Personally I have created a world where its inhabitants aren't very covered up.
The men wear long skirts and accessories while the women wear skirts that are short in the front and long in the back, and also revealing their shoulders, arms and belly.

I'm a woman and I'm not gonna lie and say that I don't enjoy looking at hot, lean, men, and the BJD hobby is one of the few places where I can see men who are more in my taste (I don't care much for the tanned, pumped, melon-muscled dude with really short hair), lean, with long hair.
But I also enjoy beautiful women with voluptious bodies and pretty faces.
I don't see myself objectifying anyone because of this.
My dolls/characters still have a lot of personality, traits, flaws and whatnot. But in ways they are an ideal representation of what I find attractive in both men and women, and I society's ideals are certainly not mine.
I don't enjoy watching Brad Pitt or other men considered hot, on the big screen, because I don't agree with the general majority that this is what I find attractive.
And because I lack attractive men in media, I guess my boy bjds have to represent what I do find attractive in a man.

 

While I do think some hobbyists DO tend to be unrealistic and try to "glorify" the masculine image...or do the opposite and make their boys as girly as possible, I try for realism on my guys. (that's not to say a living man can't be girly, there's just an unrealistic overabundance of it in this hobby) My boys wear suits, jeans, tshirts, cargo shorts, cons, Vans, boxers....typical every day guy stuff. Some of my boys have body hair. Some have stubble on their faces. They work in offices, hookah bars, retail, food service, gyms....the most farfetched image of any of them are the "rockstars", but even they are local bands with minor touring and don't wear extremely sexy stage clothes in daily life. I actually prefer the nerdy gamer look or the skater look or business man look to half naked warrior or girly boy in drag. :P

and as far as the perfect bodies? I would LOVE to own a chunky man! Not like young baby boy, but an adult male bjd with some body fat! My crew is unrealistically perfectly toned and that simply comes from a lack of availability of other body types.

 

Cloakedschemer there IS one body that while it's obviously a man with some muscle, he's 'chunky'. So more realistic and less like a bodybuilder who's dyhydrated. They could have used a little bit less ab showing I think. And a Bit more weight on the hip/waist line. Chunky men need a bit more lover handle going on but pretty good still!
The closest thing I've seen to an not over idealized male body.
http://www.angelsdoll.net/shop/step1.php?number=844

 

First of all, great topic! And this? ^^ This is exactly what I feel. I couldn't agree more and Kiyakotari expresses this very eloquently.

 

Well, if the male warrior dolls have to "fight" in revealing and impractical armor, at least that levels the playing field for the girl dolls in bikini armor and boobplates?