Sex and Nudity within the BJD Community

Too right, Hobby... you can't predict who sees what as porn. Some people get all hot & bothered looking at a woman's bare toes. And yet, it's still legal for people to wear open-toed shoes to the office, and you don't have to show proof that you're 18+ to go into a pedicure salon, and it's still legal to possess Jimmy Choo catalogues.

Quite a valid question-- when do we start requiring "visible peanut-smuggling" warning labels on every picture of a fully clothed Unoa or Iplehouse girl? Visible nipples are hardly appropriate for an all-ages forum, right? Or how about up-the-skirt pictures of ruffled panties, are they cute or are they babyporn? Where is the line drawn?

Community standards are the only thing we have to go by, in the grey areas, and standards are constantly in flux because 'community' is constantly in flux (as people leave/enter the scene, bringing tastes with them). It is so slippery. So unless there's a bright-line legality against something, you really have to prepare yourself to "live & let live" when it comes to other people's tastes.

A'ight, I'll shut up for awhile now. ^^ Just had to throw that bit in. Thanks to Hobby for overstimulating thought once again.

 

I'd personally be EXTREMELY offended if somebody told me that my beloved resinites are "sex dolls". So much so I don't know what I'd do, but I could imagine myself saying some rather rude things. ~_~ And I think most of the reason why people outside of the hobby think that of our dolls is because they're either obsessed with sex or want to completely repress it (I know plenty of people from both sides)....And either way, it all boils down to an obsession with sexuality (beit drooling over pr0n all day or beating people in the head with bricks for having dirty thoughts)...

People should be able to do what they want with their dolls. Honestly, it is as simple as that. Now, WHERE to post pictures and such of what they decide to do is completely another matter, and much more complicated....

Now that I've said that, I'm also going to say that I personally don't see the "art" behind pictures of nudity and sex...I'm NOT saying they're wrong! Please don't misunderstand me. One of my bestfriends (who happens to be female) loves Betty Page (I think that's her name...a pin-up girl that became the first full nude model? At least that's what she told me...). Anyway, I'm just not a person that's comfortable with nekkedness. I'm not going to be like that person that chisled the bits off that statue in the museum (I was shocked when I read that, but not all that surprised...people are crazy), but I am rather embarrassed by it. Until a few weeks ago I couldn't even look at shirtless guys without having to look away...It's just the kind of person I am. I don't mind if other people want to take/look at pictures like that, so long as there are warnings before hand, I really don't see the harm behind it...

I do agree that nudity and sex are part of life, its just something that has been changed over the years by culture. It used to be celebrated and now its looked upon as "wrong" and "dirty" by a good majority of people. Why that change came about I don't really know (I have a theory, but its rather rude to a particular (and large) group of people, so I'm not going to share it), but this viewpoint will probably change again in the next couple hundred years... Of course, we're still stuck in this era with the problem...:/

I just thought that'd I'd throw in my two cents...This is an interesting topic...

 

i prefer to photograph my dolls in the nude because i love their sculpts. i find that when they are dressed i fuss too much with fashion in the subject rather than the emotion (or lack there of) that i'm trying to convey. none of the photographs i have taken thus far are sexual in nature, although, yes, very often their resin genitalia is visible.

in the future? i might delve into more erotic subject matter with them. i am fascinated with all levels of the human psyche and find the ability to express that through a doll is a very fulfilling challenge. do i get off on them? no, of course not. but they do have the potential, in their own right, to be somewhat sexy.

now... that nobility doll. not my cup of tea. but the fact that he exists gave me a hearty chuckle (much like the "alternative" penile attachment of the male unoa dolls). it's kind of amazing. and if someone else gets a kick out of it. good for them.

 

I'm seconding this from Velcrotrainer.

People are often shocked that most of my dolls are nude. I look at them as works of art, and I'm also a "joint freak." I love seeing the joints, and admiring the way they work and how cleverly they're done.

I don't take photos of them in sexual positions, or actually think of them as sexual objects or toys. To me they are art that I can handle and admire... and love. I enjoy handling them and admiring the intricacy of how they are made, and all the tiny details. I do love them, but it's platonic.

Yet if I were made of resin, I think I could go for Mano. LOL.

Catrina

 

here here!

"joint freak"... we should put that on a t-shirt or something.

 

· What are your thoughts on BJD photography showing scenes of a sexual nature or implying sexual content? Do you think that people who photograph their dolls having sexual intercourse is considered to be perverted or an expression of artistic form and love? What about if the sexual scenes are of a form of rape or abuse? Should people be allowed to photograph such scenes (photographs of this content are not allowed on DOA)

I don't like to see pictures of sexual intercourse and that sort of thing, but I think that if someone wants to see that, they should be able to. Photographs depicting rape and/or abuse make me squirm, just as hearing about rape and abuse makes me squirm. No, I don't think that people who take pictures of dolls having intercourse are perverted. Perhaps they like taking those pictures, maybe they are experimenting, there are many reasons to take certain pictures.

· What about the differences in culture between doll owners. Whilst one person may have come from a society where nudity and sex are considered to be beautifull things, another may have come from a society where such subjects are considered unacceptable. Is the cultural barrier something that changes peoples opinions on sexual content in doll photography?

I think culture changes people's opinons on everything and how they view anything. I think it's interesting to note that sometimes, a person will view something and say, "Well, it fine for them to do that, they're from another culture" but when they see the same thing in thier own culture, they share their true thoughts about the subject.

· With so many nude photographs of real women and men out there in the world, why should photographing inanimate objects that portray similar statue to human beings be considered wrong? Would it be acceptable for someone to photograph a naked Barbie over a naked BJD? How do you handle just plain doll nudity in photographs?

The fact that they resemble humans makes peple project human emotions and situations onto them. Chances are, if images of people depicting a certain situation make you nervous, images of dolls depicting the same situation will make you uneasy as well.

I handle plain doll nudity as it is. If it is done artisticly, for example a nude fairy by a lake, I will judge it as I would art. I might complement the photographer on the angles, the lighting and the general 'feel' of the piece. Sexual nudity I will pass by without commenting most times.

· What about the need to find a romantic partner for your BJD? Whether or not they choose to engage in sexual activities or pose nude for photoshoots. Do dolls really need to have a girlfriend/boyfriend? What about same sex couples? Is it frowned upon to do such things seeing as they are "just dolls"?

It all depends on the character with they have a romantic partner or not, and the same goes for almost anything. Since sexuality is part of adult life, I would assume that it is part of my adult characters' lives, weather I care to develop it or not.

 

I see it no different from any other artistic depiction of sex. I honestly don't understand why a lot of people are so bothered by... doll sex. I see no problem with artistic depictions of sex, rape or abuse. Yes, they are all rather touchy subjects, but handled correctly, they are just as acceptable a subject for art as anything else. I think people should be allowed to photograph whatever they want (so long as it doesn't break any laws).

I do have a problem with people viewing BJDs as "sex dolls" when it's clear that that's not their intended purpose at all. However, there is a certain sexual aspect to them, if only because they're often anatomically correct. They have a defined sex, and possess the parts required for sex. Honestly, this aside, the BJD community would likely have a negative image to outsiders--simply the fact that we're generally people over the age of 10 who 'play with dolls' gives many people a negative image. I don't think it's something to be overly bothered about.

As for cultural barriers, this is prevalent in all sorts of art.

I don't believe there's ever anything wrong with non-sexual nudity. We are all naked under our clothes, after all. It's completely natural. Also, nude photographs are necessary to compare different sculpts.

Sex is natural. Many dolls are also characters. It's perfectly natural and acceptable for an adult character to seek a sexual relationship, and thus, perfectly fine for a doll. They may be "just dolls" but it should be noted that the characters often mean much more to the dolls' owners than this fact. I very much intend to take sexual photographs of my dolls who have relationships, when I get them. It's part of their life, and can be very beautiful. It's part of who they are and just like everything else they do, has it's own place and does not need to be ignored.

That's the main issue I have with this--why the mentality that sex should be ignored, or not thought of? And that seeing it makes one automatically a 'pervert'? And what is wrong with a little 'perversion' anyway? =P

 

Well said, DaiLinn, well said.

 

What are your thoughts on BJD photography showing scenes of a sexual nature or implying sexual content?

Sexuality is merely an expression of a being's status as male or female - it helps us form our identity and behavior. How we behave in relation to gender varies from culture to culture and through the ages. In modern times we are seeing a lot of variations as the option to explore beyond our percieved gender roles are being encouraged.

To see these themes come up in the doll world isn't surprising or offensive to me personally in terms of dolls which are percieved to be adults. Sexuality can be a beautiful thing - the fragile feminine, the stoic masculine, the intensity of a touch, the passion in a kiss.


Do you think that people who photograph their dolls having sexual intercourse is considered to be perverted or an expression of artistic form and love? What about if the sexual scenes are of a form of rape or abuse?

There is a difference between eroticism and pornography regardless of the medium used to create it. Aphrodite from Everything2.com explains it best:

Erotica... exhibits respect for all their characters. There is a motivation for them to act as they do, and they are portrayed as living, feeling beings, with an existence above and beyond their sexuality. Even if all you see in the scene is sex, you are aware of the characters being people. There is likely to be at least an intimation of a relationship between the characters.

In porn, one or more of the characters is liable to exist solely to have sex, to be had sex with, or to be the subject of fantasies about having sex. There is no feeling of connection to, or respect for, this (these) character(s)

Any portrayal of rape in a titillating manner is pornography. The same is true of paedophillia, mind-control, and debasement of all kinds where one or more party in the narrative is treated without empathy. In a real-life situation these activities are not erotic, they are terrifying, and the victim will not respond with anything but fear. Describing any other response is a masturbatory fantasy.

I am not interested in seeing anyone else's "masterbatory fantasy" so that pretty much sums up how I feel about pornography opposed to eroticism in the BJD community.

Should people be allowed to photograph such scenes (photographs of this content are not allowed on DOA)

As long as it's posted in an appropriate place and/or shared with the appropriate people.
Should under age people be "allowed" to view/create this kind of content and share it with their underage friends? I don't personally agree with that.

How do you feel when BJD's are reffered to as being "Sex Dolls" by people from outside the community?

I think that response is irritating. Sadly art which features genitals has been the source of controversy through the years.

Do you believe it's wrong for them to think such things when there are dolls such as "Full nobility royma" avaliable? What about Unoa dolls being created by a famous hentai artist? Mods such as the XXXL Dollfie Dream bust? The fact BJD's are often anatomically correct? Are all these aspects which contribute to people having a negative image about BJDs?

That depends on the intention of the artist who sculpted them and how the doll owner views them/portrays them. Though for the less open minded, the fact that the dolls have genitals seems to be the main cause for scandle.

~*~

It isn't wrong to develop personalities and relationships for dolls.
I do think it is healthy to question any graphically explicit content though, and to wonder who it's being shown to as well as the age of who it's being created by.

People are too quick to say "It isn't real, therefore it doesn't have any effect" while a few studies show that what we see can infact create changes in our thinking and behavior.

 

Ah, it seems I'm going to be alone on this one...^^;

Now, I do agree that the owner can do whatever they want with his/her dolls, since they spent that money to get them. They can show the sexual imagery that's appropriate, and whatever.

My personal thought, though, is that I've been getting...kinda bored of naked/sexual images. I look through the gallery, and if the title hints or indicates nudity, I usually don't look at it. I dunno...I prefer clothed dolls, because then I can see the creativity of the owner. Nudity? I dunno...anyone can do that. I could get Larue right now and strip him naked, but I feel that strips him of his individuality. Plus, I'm sure owners have more than just sex on the mind.

Sometimes I wish that photos other than sexual ones could get attention. Most of my photoshoots are never sexualized, because I wanna show my artistry without going that way (though I have a couple of times from bitterness).

Sorry if I offended anyone ^^'

 

You can do whatever you want to do with your doll. After all, we all have fantasies and your doll represent something. However, if posting the pictures that may offend others in a public forum is entirely different matter. It's just like having sex at home is okay, having sex out in the public is not.

 

I don't care either way; if I don't like it, I don't look at it. As long as it's controlled out of reach of minors, no problemo. I suspect a lot of the problem is in the eye(s) of the beholder(s).

 

I kind of agree about finding nude/sexy photos boring. A couple of years ago I thought slashy boy x boy doll photos were super steamy hot if I liked the sculpts. Now I find my interests have changed a bit and I prefer different types of photos. Photo posts of glam-looking boys taken with a "Sexy" mood usually don't interest me much, but I love girl dolls dressed in lolita or historical fashions, pictures of sibling dolls (i.e. a mini and a yo together or a full size and a mini, etc- not in a romantic or sexual context, but as siblings, parent and child, etc) and friend dolls together in a more innocent context.

I do think that a photoset of a naked doll can show artistry just as well as a clothed doll- it's just a different kind of artistry. The one shows off the poster's skills as a photographer, and at making a set portray a mood, posing, etc. The other shows off the poster's skills as a seamstress/tailor, clothing designer, and sometimes stylist. They don't necessarily focus on the same thing.

But yes, I usually skip past anything with a "sexy" sounding thread title, unless it's a sculpt I particularly like. To be honest, I hardly ever check the gallery because I've found that so many of the threads I click on aren't really my "thing". Pretty boys are nice... but I guess I'm just over that phase where I obsessed over that kind of thing.

 

Personally, I don't think it's right to portray any kind of sexual relationship that involves a doll designed to appear under the age of consent.
As for rape, that's probably not a good idea either. Rape is a horrific thing, which has tragically become almost 'glamourised' by some strains of media, it is a topic that should be handled both carefully and sensitively.




Sarah.

 

My opinion is that 'at least no one is actually getting hurt'. I have a friend who likes lolita. As long as he is keeping it to Anime, Manga, etc... where no actual kids are getting hurt/abused, then I say go for it. People need an outlet for desires that are 'socially unacceptable', and if they find a safe way to do so, more power to them.

So if people want to post their photos of such. I have no problem with it. As long as it's labeled and those who don't want to see it, can avoid it. As for kids 'stumbling' upon such. I believe it's a parent's responsibility to monitor their child's internet activity, or accept that they may see such things if the child's curiosity occurs.

-Anneke

 

· What are your thoughts on BJD photography showing scenes of a sexual nature or implying sexual content? Do you think that people who photograph their dolls having sexual intercourse is considered to be perverted or an expression of artistic form and love? What about if the sexual scenes are of a form of rape or abuse? Should people be allowed to photograph such scenes (photographs of this content are not allowed on DOA)

I don't like it. Not one bit, and I won't do it beyond your standard cuddling/smooching/oh look her El stuck his hand in a very funny spot on my doll all by himself lol-type photos. But hey, that is ME. Other people can do whatever they want and really, my opinion should not matter one notch to any of them. As long as I don't have to see it, have any of my dolls engage in it, or have to give an opinion on it to the person doing it...it doesn't affect me.

· How do you feel when BJD's are reffered to as being "Sex Dolls" by people from outside the community? Do you believe it's wrong for them to think such things when there are dolls such as "Full nobility royma" avaliable? What about Unoa dolls being created by a famous hentai artist? Mods such as the XXXL Dollfie Dream bust? The fact BJD's are often anatomically correct? Are all these aspects which contribute to people having a negative image about BJDs?

Oh, I really wish I cared what other people think. I actually have a rather funny nickname for BJDs along those lines that I'm pretty sure I can't say here...but I use it in jest. I think it's funny that people think they are sex dolls. Or Barbies. Or what have you. If they really want to know the difference then I will tell them, but beyond that I just let them think what they want. Explanations take too long, and when I'm out photographing my dolls I don't want to be explaining for ten minutes, you know?

As for anatomical correctness, I don't believe they contribute to dolls-as-sexual. The Nobility doll could, and the Unoa boy with his--ahem--interchangeable parts could, but for the most part, the genitalia are there for the sake of accuracy. Most people on the street do not know that the dolls are anatomically correct unless you tell them, you know?

Dollfie Dreams--I believe that market is upscale anime figurine collection, really.

· What about the differences in culture between doll owners. Whilst one person may have come from a society where nudity and sex are considered to be beautifull things, another may have come from a society where such subjects are considered unacceptable. Is the cultural barrier something that changes peoples opinions on sexual content in doll photography?

Certainly. The Western world has an interesting view of sexuality, as does the East Asian world (look at all the interesting articles in Japanese newspapers). I would not call them "cultural barriers", however, as that implies superiority on some culture's part (whichever one you may be referring to) and that never sits well with me...I call them "cultural experiences" or "societal mores" (basically means the main ideas your society has and ingrains in you). But yes, culture can and does play a huge part in how different people view art, sexuality, and beauty.

· With so many nude photographs of real women and men out there in the world, why should photographing inanimate objects that portray similar statue to human beings be considered wrong? Would it be acceptable for someone to photograph a naked Barbie over a naked BJD? How do you handle just plain doll nudity in photographs?

I put it this way: People can choose (if they didn't, it was illegal, lol). Dolls are placed into situations and photographed by their owners. Whether it's right or wrong to photograph dolls in a sexual manner is not something that other people can determine for you; each doll owner must decide it for themselves.

As for Barbie, she is a stylized figure with none of the bits that cause Western hangups. I haven't ever seen her nude in sexual photos that weren't clearly intended to be humourous, however.

Plain doll nudity? As in, photograph the nude body for selling purposes, or comparison purposes, or what have you? I don't see a problem with that...I don't see why anyone would. You must have a full nude in a selling thread to show the doll's flaws or lack thereof. It's decidedly not sexual. No biggie.

· What about the need to find a romantic partner for your BJD? Whether or not they choose to engage in sexual activities or pose nude for photoshoots. Do dolls really need to have a girlfriend/boyfriend? What about same sex couples? Is it frowned upon to do such things seeing as they are "just dolls"?

No, they don't need significant others. Several of mine do, though. One had it pre-written into her character, and the other four (two have bfs/gfs owned by others, and the other two are with each other and I own them both) just sort of fell that way, because I think it's cute. I like posing the couples together. Of course, everyone's clothes stay on because that's how I roll, lol. I have no need to find any of my dolls a partner, of any orientation (I have three hetero couples and one lesbian couple in my gang), but it can be much fun if they do have them.

I know that some doll owners DO have a need to find a partner for their dolls. I don't see anything wrong with that, either. You can forge a friendship with another owner through your dolls "dating", or you can find your doll the perfect partner. These dolls can be anything we want them to be, the perfect fantasy, so it's not surprising that some people do so.

 

Hmm, please excuse me for bringing up a somewhat dead thread, but I couldn't stop thinking about this the other day. I have no problem with people posting their nude pictures of their doll, I just avoid it because it's not something I particularly enjoy (in my extremely humble opinion, I'll admit it irks me). However, that's not exactly what I'm trying to get at.

I've noticed that a lot of dolls have an appearance (or features) that can be described as "overtly sexual." Of course, this includes the porn star busts of many dolls and the Unoa "parts." I can't help but think that doll sculptors have an ulterior motive when creating these dolls at times. I mean, Gentaro Araki has to be my all-time favorite doll sculptor, but I feel his dolls are almost too sexual. Some dolls disturb me when I see this, and I have to ask why creators feel the need to objectify these things in dolls.

After reading what I typed, it seems I'm a little prudish . I understand it's art, but where do you cross the line? Sorry if it seems like I'm rambling or if my point is unclear. I'm new to debating and such.

 

That's funny, but I too was thinking about the Unoa boys the other day... and how I'd never feel comfortable owning one because of this aspect of their construction.
Araki makes very sexualized figures, I figure it's just his guy-oriented garage kit background speaking loud and clear here. I am glad at least, that objectification can be found on both sides of the gender line here in bjd-dom. At least it seems fairer that way, more equal, and less threatening somehow.

Raven

 

BJDs are NOT sex dolls. They do not serve a sexual purpose for a human being, regardless of the above. It is unfair and insulting to say so, at least to me. I see the anatomical correctness of BJDs' bodies the same way as I see their faces correctly proportioned. It makes them more human-like, and more appealing. As far as full-function Ryoma is concerned... I wouldn't object to calling him a sex doll, necessarily, except that it could easily open the door to classifying ALL BJDs as thus, which is highly inaccurate. Still, even for Ryoma it would be only partially accurate, in my mind. He was made for a sexual purpose, but he doesn't fulfill my personal criteria for the classification of a sex doll, as he serves no direct benefit to his master. If you understand my meaning.

I find photographing BJDs nude an innocent act. It's like looking at a fine sculpture or painting of a nude figure (not a portrait). I don't see it as wrong or obscene in any way, particularly because one should see the beauty of the sculpt itself of the BJD. It is made to be a nude figure. If its legs were made in the shape of pants, and its torso in the shape of a shirt, it would be weird to photograph a BJD without clothing. But they even arrive without clothing; I certainly don't see doll nudity as bad or obscene.

I think, for the first and last questions, it's a matter of the doll's personality. As far as scenes of a sexual nature or rape or abuse are concerned, I personally wouldn't go into great detail or go to great lengths to photograph such scenes, but if it's a part of the doll's personality, and the current "plotline" with that doll, it should be included, if in nothing more than allusions (I am perfectly fine with implying and not showing, and in certain cases, I'd be adamant that some things should be implied, rather than shown. It's a very effective narration technique, and sometimes better than showing an action). As far as romantic interests, BJDs don't need them, but again, personality. If a doll wants a lover, give him/her one. If not, don't. And let's not get me started on gay rights and the view of homosexuality as a moral evil. I'm writing a research paper on that already; I can send it to anyone who /really/ wants to know what I think.

 

Hmm, I guess. I wouldn't feel uncomfortable owning a Unoa boy (as I plan to do in the future), but I wouldn't cease thinking why Araki would include the parts in question. I suppose you could blame it on his garage-kit background, but for some reason, I suspect it's more. Maybe I'm just thinking way too much into it. I do greatly appreciate what doll sculptors create, sexual or not. Unoa sculpts are by far my most favorite.