Role Reversal - Objectifying Males in the ABJD World

To some level - yes. But leave out the armor - the original half-naked or naked warrior of the real world didn't wear armor at all. Armor is actually also something that can slow you or be restrictive on your movement. Also, armor is heavy. So armor can either make sense or none depending on the type of character.

For example, metal plate armor makes sense when you are a knight, so that the horse carries your weight, or if you are a soldier in a phalanx, only needing to move relatively slowly (I am saying relatively! They were quite fast, actually!), and protected on all sides by your comrades. It makes NO sense if you are a lone fighter on foot that has to rely on dexterity and dodge attacks. You would just be pushed over by someone with enough momentum and have difficulties to stand up again.

So if the warrior girl wears just a leather bikini, I would have no problem with that - she could be such a lone fighter. Even more realistic, because I don't recall many armies consisting of females in reality (maybe the legendary amazones - but ok, these were mostly on horses, so again, armor would make sense for them). But I wouldn't it armor.

 

Personally, I don't mind that comic book heros are predominately male, first of all. c.c I hate about 99% of the female heros with maybe......2 exceptions. The villians have more personality, overall, I think. I don't understand why girls make such a huge issue over it, there's alot more serious issues out there than how "sexist" one thing is or isn't. If an actress wants to wear an unpractical outfit, it's her choice. She could say no. I think girls are WAY more sexist than guys. It's like they look for a reason to label guys sexist. That's just me, however.

As for how women make their male BJD dolls look, well...what's the harm? Part of the beauty in owning one of those boys is that you can make him appear how you want him to, something you could never get your boyfriend or husband to do. I dress my boy how I want to, whether I unintentionally "objectify" him or not. 8D I'd love to put him in something slightly unpractical- I probably won't because I like my princely clothes too much.

 

...Honestly, I don't think that these dolls exemplify enough masculine characteristics (other than the tiny peen) to be considered "Males". If anything, the trend lies way more in the direction of pretty, girly effeminate "men" who are summarily cross-dressed, which in my opinion is just a convex way of objectifying females from a female perspective. Even when we have "masucline" looking dolls, they are often the "male" partner in a "maleXmale" fantasy enacted through the dolls by the owner. That's not to dismiss those owners who own masculine male dolls who are not characterized thus- myself included, but only to suggest that as a whole, the community isn't really able to objectify males in a similar fashion to the way females so often are. Whether or not we are feminine women doesn't really play much role, we were all socialized to understand to varying degrees what women are or are not. We can't objectify men (not really) because many of us aren't socialized with the concept that women are the dominant gender... (if you were no disrespect to you, this just refers to the rest of us.). The dominance of masculinity in world sociology makes it easier for femininity to be classified, rationalized, and summarily dismissed (as the case may be, again, I'm making some generalizations for the sake of not publishing a paper on gender via an online forum.). To conclude, in my humble opinion, we perceive our men through a subconscious lens of femininity - regardless of the level of femininity we personally claim. Therefore, we (as women) technically (broadly speaking) reiterate the objectification of women based on our perceptions of masculinity as either feminine or masculine. That perception directly relates to the manner of interaction between doll's "male" character A, and doll's "female" character B, or doll's "male" character C.

 

I don't think we can objectify objects, but yes, we can sexualize them and then... where's the harm? I don't care if I sexualize my dolls; they're just dolls, they're not gonna feel bad about it. I just put on them whatever I want them to wear without thinking if it's sexist or no.

Yes, there's a lot of sexualizing and objectifying IRL, but I don't see why this should interfere with our dolls. It doesn't have to do with what's there outside, from my point of view, but more with what we think from the inside. The fact I consider female objectification outraging doesn't mean I wouldn't like to own a sexualized female doll (believe me, if I collected female dolls, they'd all be sexualized! XDDD). Why? Because it's not encouraging RL female objectification/sexualization, it's simply having a doll the way you like to have it.

Kiyakotari, you hit the nail right on the head, really. I wouldn't have said it better.

About the issue on armors and not-armors... To hell, our dolls aren't going to be there, fighting like Spartans, are they? xDDDD I don't think all of us want our dolls to be realistic -the ones who do try to make their dolls as realistic as possible, and that includes a lot of research on armors and any other thing involved in the activities the character/doll is supposed to do. The others simply create a world of FANTASY where everything has a place: you can fight an elephant with a tutu and a frying pan if you want to! Dolls that live in 'historical' places or times are not always intended to be historically accurate, maybe the owner simply enjoys that and wants to reinterpret it from a personal point of view which involves both the historical moment she likes AND the way she likes to have her dolls. The problem is most of the time we don't know what the owner was trying to achieve; we don't know if she intended to be historically accurate or just to reinterpret that moment of time, and thus most people will judge the way she portrais her dolls as being 'not historically accurate' or whatever.

What if I wanted to reinterpret The Illiad and wanted my Achilles to be brown haired instead of blonde because I don't like blonde dolls? That would be just as historically inaccurate as protraying him with just the skirt and no armor at all (but for him to be brown haired wouldn't be considered sexist and the no armor issue could be). But then again, wait a lil... wasn't he a demigod? Hey, maybe he could have fought half naked IRL if the Illiad were true! Wasn't he immortal?

Excuse my humoristic view... I'm funny today UXD

 

The problem with objectification of women isn't that it occasionally happens, but rather that's it been pervasive in our culture for so long that every example just reinforces the idea that women are objects to enjoy, not people. When you have a group that is presented in only one way most the time, you tend to think of every member of that group in the same way.

Men don't have that problem. There are different presentations of men in different roles. While there are some stereotypes, they are applied to sub-groups of men, not men as a whole. So even if men are occasionally objectified, it is balanced out by all the men presented as individuals, as being different from each other.

In my doll community, for every femme or gay male doll, there is at least one if not two or three male dolls that aren't.

 

I just gotta know why women think they're superior. I'm a woman and I still don't understand this. Why either gender is superior? It doesn't matter, really. Both live and die, both eat food and breathe the same air. So why is gender superiority such a big, stupid issue? Comparing what doll owners do what they will with their dolls to comic books seems alittle far-fetched to me. Guys are allowed to have fantasies too. It's completely hypocritical to accuse men of objectifying women or making predominately male heros in their own works of art, then in the same breath admit that you do the very same thing to your male dolls. Do we do the same thing they do in a sense? Absolutely. But I don't think one is superior over the other. Let guys be guys, I say. It's not fair to make it sound like men see women the same way we see objects because they make comic books the way that they do. If you don't like it, don't read it.

 

Um, where did you get women wanting to be superior? Women want to be treated as equals -- to have the same level of respect and opportunities that are available to men. The idea that 'women are just wanting to be superior' or are basically 'trying to be men' are rather silly arguments that are used to blow off women who are asking for equal treatment. I'm not saying that you're trying to blow anyone off, but if you really read and think about what women are complaining about a lot of the time, it should be pretty obvious that those arguments don't hold water as they aren't at all what most women are aiming for.

That's why a lot of people are saying it's ok to do the same to male dolls -- it happens anyway, and what applies to one gender should apply to the other. Men who complain that women do these things with their dolls while in the same breath ogling scantily dressed female comic book characters, cartoon characters, whatever are being grossly hypocritical. They aren't saying we can do it to our boy dolls but you can't do it to your girl characters, just if you're going to do it to your girl characters don't complain when we do it to our boys.

Yes we do do a lot of the same things, because at the core of it, we are all humans before we are even male or female. To an extent it's natural human behavior. Depending on how it's done, it's not really harmful either way.

To add to this, though, I would like to point out a few things. You seem to feel that sexism isn't that much of an issue. I would disagree. I know it may seem silly to be debating things like this with dolls and comic book characters, however, it's something much bigger than both. Women are bombarded by mixed messages about their bodies and sexuality. We are supposed to be sexually appealing, not be prudish -- and of course, everyone is having sex! -- yet at the same time, if we enjoy sex and demand power over our own bodies we are seen as slutish and not worthy of respect. That may seem extreme to you, but if you pay attention to what ends up in all kinds of media, that's the message that's coming through.

There is of course pressure on guys to be a certain way as well, which is also not healthy. But for women I would say that the stakes are pretty high, because the power is not shared equally between men and women. We start out at a disadvantage. Things have changed a lot for the better in the US regarding women's equality. But there's still a long way to go, because long held behaviors and cultural standards don't change quickly.

Hypothetically speaking, I don't mind sexual depictions of people in media as a general rule. What makes me uncomfortable, however, is how uneven the treatment is between men and women. Promiscuous men are studs, looked up to by other guys, but promiscuous women are seen in the totally opposite light, but if men are expecting to be having lots of heterosexual intercourse, then obviously women are expected to put out. On top of that, when it comes to sexual depictions in the media it's considered completely normal for guys to look at stuff like that. For women it is considered to pretty much be deviant behavior. We aren't supposed to like those sorts of things. If women and men were treated equally in terms of sexual material (both in how they are depicted, and how it is marketed), I would feel lots more comfortable with the whole thing. If society would acknowledge that women are not so different from men in terms of our interest in sex, I think it would be a huge step forward for everybody. I also think it's this double standard that gets the girls in this thread riled up. The scantily clad sexual male is powerful, the scantily clad sexual female is a figure that is at the same time both ogled and disdained.

 

People who turn their dolls into fantasy/comic book characters are not objectifying anything. They are being geeks. Really.
I've been a feminist for years (as in, from the time I saw my parents attempt to treat my brothers differently than me ...)
I expect to be treated based on my abilities, not my gender - when things that have nothing to do w/sex are concerned.
That said, I DEVORED some of these books that certain activists have railed against as sexist. Conan for instance. The Bond books. Comic books. For every skimpy female superhero, there was Superman in skin-tight spandex....
I've read sexist misogynistic stuff (the Gor garbage comes to mind). It's immediately apparent.
AND most of the geeks I know, are not MCPs... If anything they are a bit timid of women (well, of PEOPLE). You want to find guys objectifying women? Go to a board room.
BTW, I'm retired Navy - & even in the MILITARY it's nowhere near as bad as some would have you believe... I'm someday going to make one of the EID IH females into a Marine sergeant I knew LOL Flaming red hair, gorgeous blue eyes, do NOT cross her...

 

No, this is the kind of attitude that lets men get away with things they shouldn't whilst women will be labelled sluts if they do the same or 'prudes' if they complain about it. If a man ogles you and you feel uncomfortable, "guys will be guys, get over it" if a guy speaks about about a woman as a piece of meat "guys will be guys, don't be such a prude." You never hear, "girls will be girls" when a woman ogles a man...

The "boys will be boys," argument is just another way for men to get away with things, specifically, things that women are unhappy to be subject to or things they are frowned upon doing themselves.

/Just had to get that out.

The portrayal of men as sexual objects in doll form or otherwise is infinitely less damaging to men than women as they hold the privelage and the power within our patriarchy. It's hard to oppress the oppressor.

 

"Role Reversal - Objectifying Males in the ABJD World"
Pesonally i never thinked that much about it, i was aware instead that majority of collectors in this hobby are women.
So many shared very very interesting points, Taco and Kiyono, Fishcake and also I_love_EL, JennyNemesis, and sorry if forget someonelse.
Personally i never thinked to take a sort of subtle revenge on male, or guys thru this hobby, what i do with my male dolls is just dress and pose them in my taste, in my personal style, and i always follow my wester taste, i came from fashion dolls hobby, so i'm quite into fashion mangazie tastes.
But i don't see the issue, i'm not too keen with crossdressing, or manga style but not my business what someonelse make with its own dolls, and at leats no harm is done.
So i don't see any harmful or unhealthy objectifying of males in this hobby.
I've seen so many times boys/guys/men do the same in fashion doll hobby with female dolls, female dolls are used mainly as models for fashions creations.
So i think that in a wider point of view, that it's a normal thing, a normal collecting within the limits of those who collecting dolls, and dresses their doll in its own taste, with its own vision of style, in the end, for me, it's just to make characters, and create their own style in dressing, in the BJD hobby as well as in fashion doll hobby , is the same.
Kiyakotari made a really goon point about it.

 

I think $avage brings up some good points, and it made me realize that BJDs are a personal thing, whether one is sexualizing them or not. Comics, movies, and commercials are more of a public "sexualization". But I think there are just as many female BJDs that could be percieved as being sexualized. Personally, I don't believe I am sexualizing my male dolls, and I would never intend that. But if people want to do that, and have them as "eye candy", that's their choice. They are beautiful. Men have easier access to sexualized images of women that women do of men, for example, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition and Victoria's Secret Fashion Shows. So hey, if women want to have some handsome resin men in the house, I'd say that's pretty harmless. Again, I feel it's the difference between public vs. private sexualization. I don't enjoy every other commercial showing half-naked women, but I don't believe the solution is to sexualize men. It would just be creating another monster of the same nature.

Like Taco, I believe that sexism is an issue, and has been for awhile. I think you summarized the issue within society very well, I couldn't have said it better.

We all could be considered "sexualizing" our dolls, both male and female, because we usually pick our dolls based on looks. I also agree with what at Kiyakotari said, I think it is very accurate and well-said.

 

Lol, I was joking, but since you bring it up - no matter how lone a fighter you are, bikini armor isn't practical unless you're in extreme hot climates. I'd at least want some basic leather armor with metal ribbing to turn knives. The best that can be said for bikini armor is it keeps your tits from getting caught in the bowstring.

 

I might say I slightly objectify my dolls (all 4 full dolls are male) but not so much in the sense of the "half-naked warrior" sense. One of the boys sexual orientations hasn't been stated. I assume he's straight. I have an OT crocodile doll, he also doesn't have a stated sexual orientation. He's also a freaking crocodile.

The two SD boys I have are slightly different. They're part of a specific story line, both will (eventually) dress to their professions. One is a doctor the other is a shrink. I have all of the doctor's necessary clothing as well as casual things. None of it is horribly objectifying. The closest thing I had to anything strange is a semi-see though shirt. The character himself also doesn't have a stated sexual orientation, but so far in the story he is portrayed as straight, possibly bisexual.
The other doll, the shrink, is a bit different. He is homosexual, particularly interested in the above doctor. He's a newer doll thus doesn't have a lot of his own things. He may be homosexual but I won't be dressing him like one of the Village People or anything. He's supposed to have a Japanese visual kei rocker look in his off time but dresses like normal shrink while on the job.

I feel like giving him the shrink boy that slightly more feminine fashion is slightly objectifying him as a homosexual male...but it doesn't mean he's running around naked or anything ridiculous.

I am actually unsure of what I am, I'm pretty sure I'm a guy stuck in woman's body, but at the same time I'm conflicted because I'm interested in men. I know there are homosexual FtM men.....but there's a voice in the back of my mind saying "homosexual biomen won't want you because you're not *really* a man. But no straight man will want you if you look like a guy."

I think my own view of myself might have a part to play on how I treat my dolls, why they mostly dress like regular guys. I dress them (mostly) in things I would wear.

 

A.) I have always loved "feminine" men. Basically the more "feminine," the better. I have always felt that there is almost something "wrong" with the way that there is so many complaints about "feminine" men, but it is considered completely OKAY to love "masculine" men. To me, I don't believe there should be gender roles or gendered clothing. Quite frankly, I don't find men's clothing to be as nice as women's 100% of the time. I don't find "masculine" faceups to be as nice 100% of the time. Sorry, I prefer frills and blushing. Lots and lots of blushing and color. Something that is not typically done on living men as much as on our dolls.

"reiterate the objectification of women based on our perceptions of masculinity as either feminine or masculine."

I think this is very interesting, but I don't feel this is why I love "feminine" men. I think that I love androgyny simply because I really just like the combination of women's softer features with men's sharper jawlines and bodies.

B.) In some ways I think an "eye for an eye" actually would make the world better in some ways. For instance, I am white. If I was treated as a minority even for a day, it would certainly make me more sympathic to their cause (not that I am not already, but you know what I mean). I think if we forced people to walk in someone else's shoes maybe they would start to understand why there is a problem in the first place. I think that is the majority of the problem when it comes to female objectication. No one seems to understand the problem.

For instance, the best example of male sexual objectification and society's reaction to it, is LMFAO's Too Sexy (or whatever it is called) music video on Youtube. If you look it up, it shows some very NSFW scenes involving men. And almost all the comments are complaining, because men aren't objectified in real life. Only women.

So in some ways I can see why women might feel, after the crushing weight of sexual objectification from ALL media ALL the time, that there is nothing wrong with "eye poking" when it comes to sexually objectifying their male dolls. Personally, I agree with them. I think that the only way that female sexuality will ever be accepted is when more women are more comfortable about their sexualities and presenting their sexualities (perhaps in the form of delicious, delicious man resin :P).

I can tell you, as an extremely ugly female, sexual objectification of the female gender really makes my life miserable. Because I don't fit the ideal, I am treated like a subhuman all the time. THAT is the problem with sexual objectification. You are treated as a subhuman for NOT being beautiful enough, and for being beautiful enough! You can't escape it.

So for that reason, I can't really get into female dolls. And I really like beautiful male dolls. Because women really don't get a sexual expressive outlet like men do. And it's about time that we reconcile the fact that women are sexual, too.

C.) Also, I think the biggest problem with sex and objectification is how it is so hard to draw the line between "I think X thing is beautiful, I would like to have sex with something as beautiful" and "this thing exists solely for my sexual benefit."

For dolls, not so much of a problem (though, don't try having sex with dolls!) People. A lot more.

 

Actually, I think the majority of the male dolls on the forums dress in "female" clothes! Which isn't realistic either...considering, I have maybe met like three guys ever that dress feminine.
Yes, I think both sexes are equally guilty of unrealistic ideals.

 

Actually... No. She could have said no, maybe, but then somebody else might get her role. At least if she is not yet a very famous actress. Girls are actually making much less of an issue over the still present inequality than you might think. They oversee a lot.

Women usually do not think that they are superior. Most women I have asked about this issue don't. Seeing the still existing inequality doesn't mean that you think some part or the other is superior. The first part is perception, the other judgement.

And believe me, men are not happy with objefication, neither. I used to draw a lot of fetish-inspired art, with the subjects being either female or male (mostly female, because I enjoy looking at the female form more), and I have a dA account for my art. With the bound and otherwise naked female pictured, and even if you state it is a "damsel in distress" situation, meaning she is actually in deadly danger (if we leave out the euphemisms) no one says anything bad, there are a LOT of favs, and everybody is happy. And a pic of a male in a situation similar to this got a HUGE discussion going about how the poor boy is treated bad etc. "Male as a submissive in a BDSM-inspired situation? Only if it is consensual, if he is sure to survive and if he is being valued as a human please!" Such double standards! And I see this attitude towards the "feminine" or "non-heterosexual" characters, in the doll hobby or elsewhere, too - while a "lesbian" is "hot", a "gay dude" is "nooo!" in most hetero guys' eyes; an transgender female is a "trap", and only hot if in a porn flick for the male gaze, but it is again a "nooo!" if it is reality or a doll character that was created by a female and thus doesn't carry the main attributes of "teh sexiness" (like huge silicone implants).

Exactly! This is very well said.

I agree with you, and I didn't state that I think bikini ARMOR is logical. I said "leather bikini", not "bikini armor". Just as clothing. Because wearing something that covers certain places that mostly ilicit a sexual response from the on-looker might still make sense.

Basically, I was referring to the fact that historically there were naked or half-naked warriors, and rather a lot of them.

 

Treat others the same way you want to be treated. If someone treats you badly either give them the finger or start a fight depending on the situation.

The "get even with the guys" attitude saddens me. If you don't like to be seen as mere objects then don't treat men as ones. That makes you a hypocrite to me.

And the ones complaining about the gay/femme/androgynous male characters on this board, give it a rest already! I see WAY more people bitching about this than actual proof of it. I see you over and over again proudly proclaim that your characters are "real men" who dresses and acts like "real men".
If a persons gender identity is that of a man's, that person IS a real man. It doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is, what they are wearing or what they have between their legs. The same goes for women of course.
Disagree with me on this last opinion and I wouldn't piss on you even if you were on fire.

 

May I ask you where exactly in this thread you have seen people complaining about gay/femme/androgynous male characters and calling them "not real men"? I rather got the impression that the gay/femme/androgynous male characters are preferred, not complained about.

I hope it was not my comment about the rarity of "the sweet, emotionally reliable, great in cooking, absolutely non-jealous, cute as a button and extremely submissive male with girly looks" that triggered your impression, because in this case the stress was not on "girly looks", rather on the overall "stepford wife" quality of such a fantasy companion.