Sex and Nudity within the BJD Community

Yes, as the owner of a U-noa boy, I feel that, erm, part makes me feel odd. I mean, I'd much rather something stationary that doesn't move to the side sometimes... and of course, I get embarassed sometimes when I get questions about the option. I think dolls should never be sexual, so the fact that I have an erect dollpenis floating around my house (Yes, I lost one of them XD) makes me uncomfortable.

 

One's play says a lot about one's character.
I don't think rape and abuse is artistic. It is a CRIME. What one does with
his or her dolls is their right but photos of this nature should be deleted because there are so many young people in the BJD world and there are people who have been raped and abused. Dolls, though realistic as we want
them to be, are an escape from the real world.

 

I think DaiLinn articulated how I feel on the subject perfectly.

 

Why would you feel the desire to look at sexual imagery is a base and low thing, and contemplating a Titian painting, for example, is somehow a higher process? I'm asking out of curiosity; I tend to think most human action can be reduced to animal impulses, such as satisfying the need for food, sex, shelter, warmth, and just more of anything. I totally agree that society is absolutely saturated with sexual imagery and it is just too too much. And I'm a guy
On topic: Many bjds are so realistic as to appear alive. Some people see something sexual in that or attempt to bring that aspect out for whatever reasons. I tend to think of my doll as beautiful rather than sexy.
I have seen pictures of dolls which I thought were sexy but did not lead to illusions of a relationship with said doll
I suppose people can do as they wish in regard to photographing their dolls. I'm sure they will find a place to share the more risque photos if they want.

Sex dolls? Well, people can be surprisingly inventive with any object. However, I think I would have to laugh if anyone suggested a bjd was a sex doll. That is a bit of a stretch.

 

Yeah... I'm sick to my GUTS of people assuming that women don't like sex, and don't like like to look at naked bodies. Nobody asks men to explain their everyday pleasures.... they get, "oh, it's just his garage-kit otaku background/ he's a man, he has needs", and people leave it at that. But when women are caught enjoying nudity or sexual content, there's all sorts of analysis involved.... they get, "I bet something bad must have happened to her as a child/ trying to prove something/ probably needs therapy" (or all of the above). Some people still seem to maintain some arcane 1950s-style image of women as frigid beings with a big blank icebound Off Limits zone between their legs. I go out of my way not to be associated with those people.

With that out of the way: Firu-kun, your question is perfectly valid, and you shouldn't worry if I or anyone else tries to use the Prude stamp on you. "I understand it's art, but where do you cross the line?" is an extremely personal question that everyone answers differently! The question would be, where do YOU consider that line to be? Only you know where your comfort-zone is.

That's the part I have problems with too! I also agree there's nothing wrong with most perverts out there. Perverts need love too. Some of my best friends are perverts. They're charming, well-spoken, educated people with families and homes, who hold down excellent jobs and pay their taxes, so they're no trouble to a Society that imagines itself to be so fragile. Personally, I happen to think people who put Halloween costumes on their pets are perverts. But I tell them, "Hey, whatever floats your boat (and by the way, I think your dog's hat would fit my doll-- where'd you get it?)". Perversion is purely in the eye of the beholder.

Thank you, Shitori, I wanted to add that quote for emphasis. Do people still really believe that sex & intellect are mutually exclusive? I think that anybody who has a brain & still gets laid regularly would really take offense to that presumption. ^^

That nude in the Titian painting is as naked as the rest of us under our clothes. Do people really imagine that the audience of that painting REALLY used to look at it merely for some kind of "intellectual elevation"? And why can't nudes stimulate the intellect, at the same time they titillate the eye? When you see a photo of a clothed person/doll, you still pay attention to what's going on in the picture: how it's executed, the lighting, the composition, whether or not you find it pretty, etc. So, why would you skip doing ALL of that just because the subject is not clothed? That's like taking the Art Appreciation Center of your brain, and chopping it in half.

 

I'm so glad you brought this up! This is exactly where I was trying to get at with the second part of my first post. I was curious as to whether analysis is needed for both sexes. Or not needed at all! I wonder what the sculptors feel they've achieved by doing what they do, sexual or not.
And if that's not the case, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't feel anything at all. Sculpting perverted or sexual dolls may just be out of plain humor, which to me is a completely acceptable reason for doing so. It would, however, be very interesting to see if doll creators such as Gentaro Araki have a deeper reason for what it is they do. (I hate using him as an example, because there are others, such as Volks' Dollfie Dreams, who I feel are also sexualized on a different level)

Good to hear, lol. I don't really want to discuss my comfort zone seeing as this is a debate and not a discussion.

 

Wow. I had a reply all typed out and my internet connection ate it when I tried to post. (Thanks, Comcast....)

TL;DR: BJDs are only sexual if that's the owner's intent.

To me, they're anatomical correctness is derived from the maker's decision to make them more human-like. For most Westerners (especially Americans), though, we're so used to Barbie and Ken's plastic-molded asexuality that seeing a doll with real body parts tends to make us feel all icky. Or at least it can.

In conclusion: vagina.

(I hope I'm not the only person who likes The Big Lebowski. Otherwise my attempt at humor is just another random non-sequitur. D

 

I agree TOTALLY with CinnamonTea´s comments, specially with her first paragraph: "I really don't understand why a little doll penis or nipple could be seen as something sexual. If you see dollbits and immidiately think "omg sexual" I think you have a problem... "

 

· 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?
... Is showing your doll with a properly scaled little thing of starbucks coffee in its hand perverted? How about fake-eating and drinking? Only humans do that. Dolls can't. It's unnatural and impossible. They don't have to and if you want to get defensive, they don't want to. Dolls eating is wrong wrong wrong. Ick. Disgusting. I don't want to see my doll drinking, that'd mean... other things have to take place and that's icky, icky, icky. Their mouths can't even open.
All true (why my doll'l prolly be a vampire or something) but see?
I'll bet you most people here don't think there's anything weird about a photostory featuring a tiny sculptey cupcake or a mug of fake green beer. It's personal tastes.
This being basically doll-fiction, won't some people want to write sensual/sexual love scenes? It's exploratory and to be fair, rather interesting. And it seems to photograph pretty well, with the smoothness of the resin and all. (Not that I, uh, go looking for these things...) Ordinary, white-bread dollie sex? Hey, I probably won't read it as a minor but what makes that a less valid choice of plot?
And with the rape/abuse issue- it happens in real life, and it's a *really* touchy subject in the doll community. I'm not even sure what I think about this.
· 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?
Referring to a BJD as a sex doll? It's so ingrained in people's minds that there are only two kinds of doll, the Barbie and the novelty blow-up doll, that it doesn't surprise me that when people try to be funny (or are merely misguided) they go for the latter. Just because BJD are anatomically correct, doesn't make them sexual. Is an anatomically correct newborn baby doll sexual? No, not unless you think of it as so.
I do think the big busts and other enhancements available, especially for female dolls, cast us in a rather sketchy light. It all depends on what you think of as beautiful, I suppose.

· 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?
If you've come from an extremely conservative national background, where all nakedness is considered sexual and so taboo to show off, and some other doll artist comes from somewhere where people wouldn't bat an eyelash at six male, naked BJD suntanning in human pyramid formation, and so photographs that all the gosh darn time- you're not obliged to look. It's courteous of them to put it behind a cut or something but they have every right to do so, it's their dolls. If you're bothered by nude dolls feel free to not go and look at them or scroll down so you don't have to.
If a doll breaks some national taboo, like a doll in historical uniform or full 'child' or childlike nudity, then it's best to post a warning.

· 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?

Nude photographs of men and women ARE considered kind of taboo. Even in poses that would be safe for a doll. Dolls are quite a bit like statue, thanks to the artistic factor- but just not enough that people are squeamish. Just plain old doll nudity doesn't bug me much...

· 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"?
A doll's a character. I might pair up one of my original characters with one of someone else's, or have my roleplaying game character take someone out on a date, or write a book exclusively ABOUT a sexual relationship between two characters and have it be just fine. A doll doesn't 'need' a girlfriend or boyfriend any more than a person 'needs' one (and acting like we all do is rather rude) but with the personalities of most dolls out there it's more fun to have them acquire one. Setting your doll up with another doll (of either gender) isn't weird to me- sometimes it's a natural direction to go in and it's not like you're forcing a sentient being into going on a blind date with someone. Like it or not, you basically created them.

 

I have not read every single post in this debate thread, as I want to state purely my own opinions in this matter. This is due to the fact that I believe each of these questions comes down to personal taste when speaking of inanimate objects which cannot truly feel any sort of emotion, though our human minds lend to the experience of our own dolls and allow us to "see" how they are "feeling"--whether it be something presumably emotional, such as hurt, anger, love.. or something physical, such as fatigue, sickness, tension, etc.

So if it seems that I am oversimplifying a matter that has been discussed, forgive me.

 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?

For overall sexual content, I believe that is perfectly natural for humans to enforce a sexual atmosphere on just about anything. Food, for instance, which is meant to provide sustenance so that we may continue to live and breathe may also be viewed sexually. Phallic symbols, and whatnot. So I do not believe there is a wrongness to dolls being depicted in sexual ways from the onset. They are made in the likeness of humans after all, and their owners may deem them as sexually or asexually as they please. There is no perversion in this, to my mind. Not at all.

This is assuming the characters are depicted as consenting adults. To me, imposed gender is not an issue and something that will not be discussed for this particular question. As for scenes depicting rape or abuse, any sort of sexual "activity" is an artistic expression. It just happens that rape and abuse is a more violent form of that expression, and when it is put on display there is the risk of offending someone, whether it be their personal feelings or it goes against the beliefs of his or her society as a whole. It is my opinion that these types of photographic scenes be displayed in a manner which allows for people who will be easily offended by it, or do not find it to be within their boundaries of taste, to avoid it.

Violence of a sexual nature may add to the story of particular doll characters, and is an aspect of the personality which the owner builds for them.

Overall, it is my opinion that all these depictions are okay, so long as they are being displayed in a courteous manner to other like-minded people who are mature about this kind of expression. Keep in mind, though, that I am speaking PURELY of BJD photographs. I in NO WAY condone actual rape or abuse. That in itself is sickening and horrid.

 How do you feel when BJD's are referred 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" available? 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?

I must admit that I have never heard of BJD being referred to as "sex dolls." I am aware that there are fully-jointed silicone and vinyl sex dolls available from companies who specifically make them for that purpose, however.

As a question of "wrongness" for them to feel that way.. it's a bit silly to say that people are wrong for thinking the way that they wish to think. At best, a BJD owner can simply correct them in saying that it is an artist doll, or a collector piece, toy, etc. Simply correcting them in saying that it is not a sex doll. Of course, people outside the community are going to formulate their own opinions no matter what is said or done to demonstrate otherwise.

As for the aesthetics of dolls that are seemingly made in a more sexual manner, such as the Full Nobility Ryoma and the extremely large breast size.. I feel that if an owner wants his or her doll to have that particular feature, that is purely their business. For the Unoa being sculpted by a hentai artist, I find that the artist's background to be irrelevant to whether or not it is viewed sexually--more so it is the way in which the doll itself is presented that allows it to be viewed in a sexual manner.

Either of these factors may contribute to how dolls are viewed, that I will concede. But then again, I believe that sexuality it dolls is seen by each individual person. If you are not a sexual person by nature, how could you view a BJD, or any other doll, as a sex doll? I think it simply would not cross my mind, if I were asexual. I would think of the BJD purely as a sculptured piece of art or a fashion model, and so on.

I can understand, however, how these factors could lead BJD to be viewed negatively by some others.

 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 beautiful 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 believe there are a lot more factors to what makes individuals themselves form opinions about sexuality in general, and its acceptance. Surely society is a major factor, but there is also familial upbringing, exposure, and personal experience. All of these factors, among many others, help to form a person's standards or opinions on many issues, including sexuality.

I don't have much to expand upon this, because the main question here appears to be, "Is the cultural barrier something that changes peoples' opinions of sexual content in doll photography?" To me, this seems to be a simple "yes or no" question, which will vary from response to response. For me, yes. Cultural barrier is one of the factors that changes opinion.

 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?

Inanimate objects are inanimate objects, whether or not they are made in the likeness of human beings. I believe that is a fundamental fact to bear in mind. Whether they are depicted in a sexual manner or not, they are not truly doing these things. I myself do not view it as wrong, because I do not view human nudity or sexuality as wrong. I believe that these depictions can be done tastefully, as well as distastefully. I also believe that it is no one else's business but the artist's own as to whether or not they desire to show their dolls in this manner, so long as the artist is not thrusting their work into the faces of those who may not appreciate what is being shown to them.

Is it more "right" to show nudity of a figure that is not as anatomically correct than it is to show nudity of a BJD, which is seen as more aesthetically developed? No, it isn't, but not because of the nudity factor, or their ability to be viewed in a less sexual manner. It is because in my opinion, they are both dolls, whatever their aesthetics may be for each. I view them both as objects--they are not living creatures, let alone human beings.

 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"?

I seem to have expressed this quite a bit in all my responses, but again.. I believe it comes down to personal taste as to whether a doll "should" have a lover. I think it is also just another factor of a particular doll's character. If an owner wants his or her resin doll to have one, that is their choice. Do they "need" to have a romantic partner, sexual intercourse involved or not? No. Dolls don't "need" anything, but as we are enforcing a character or personality upon them as a form of our artistic expression.. it is up to the artist and the nature of the character/personality of the doll. Whether they are heterosexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, pangender, whatever sexual orientation exists.

I can see how it may be frowned upon, because inanimate objects are being viewed in a sexual manner, when they cannot physically perform to begin with, or feel anything emotionally. Because we as collectors give our dolls a character, outsiders may view that in itself as strange. Adding such a sensitive facet as sexuality to that character is almost a guarantee that someone out there will have something negative to say about it. They are free to their opinion, but I believe all of us, collectors or not, should display a certain amount of tolerance and courtesy to each other. Live and let live.

...

Wow, that was long-winded. I'll be surprised if anyone reads through all of this. xD And again, I am sorry if I have stated something already said and it appears that I am beating a dead horse with a stick, here.

 

I laughed so hard when I read this.

I have a friend who puts little outfits on his dog. Apparantly she has some kind of camouflage outfit that matches his paintball uniform. Admittedly, he is a little weird though.

Back to the point though, I really don't see a problem with sexual imagery or situations in doll photos if it's the kind of pictures a person wants to take. I'm not sure I get the drive to WANT to take pictures of dolls having sex, but I don't really have to. As long as the person isn't hurting anyone, it isn't really my business.

My personal opinion on it? I find it a little awkward when I see some pictures of dolls in sexual situations, mostly because I really don't see them in a sexual way. But I can't say I'm offended by it.

 

· 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)

It doesn't bother me all that much. Though I do question the people with 1/4 and 1/3 dolls in a sexual situation. I just see child and adult regardless if the person says the 1/4 is an adult.

· 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?

Someone called my Shiwoo a bondage doll. But I wasn't insulted by it, I though it was funny. Then again it takes a lot to offended me. But there are perverted people in the world, so I guess anyone can view it in a sexual manor.

· 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?

It doesn't bother me one bit. If I do see something like the 1/4-1/3 relationship I simply skip over those particular photos. Some people, I feel, don't want to take the time to avoid seeing things that they don't like and expect everyone else to do the work for them.

· 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"?

Well I don't think dolls need a significant other, but if it's a part of your storyline then it nice to have them in the physical. Same sex couple don't bother me either, though I think that it's been over done in the BJD community. It seems like almost ever male doll is gay or dresses like a girl. But I don't think it should be frown upon.

 

· 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 think sex is a part of living. If you are letting your dolls mimic human life then it would be logical to let them also mimic this aspect as well. I don't get offended when I see intercourse photographed between dolls. I do become uncomfortable, but these are just my own issues regarding sex being reflected onto the dolls. I'm well aware that the picture isn't there to offend so I simply am not able to become offended by it.

I think it depends on the person. I wouldn't think one way or the other about them. I think perversion, though, is a very strong word and should be used only in the most extreme cases. Even if they were getting their jollies off doll intercourse I think of perversion as more of an action in attempting to effect other people in either a physical way or mental way. It's a very harsh label.

Of course they may photograph dolls having sex. Just put proper warning on it. Anyone with any care of other people's reactions would definitely offer at least what the content is before the pictures are available (that is, if they're being shared in the first place).

· 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?

I've never heard of them referred to as "Sex Dolls" until this post. Though I have heard rumors of people doing "disturbing things" with their dolls.

I think those from outside any community are going to have some blanket criticisms for those in the community if, for no other reason, than to cover up their feeling of isolation from that community's activities. I don't think it's "wrong" for them to think those things but I think it would be nice if they at least tried to find out what's really going on instead of assuming a rumor is true.

I'm sure the fact that these dolls are anatomically correct does lend itself to it being categorized as such. It doesn't mean it's true but I know, especially here in the Bible Belt of the USA, that there is a lot of unfortunate discomfort about nudity and the fact that these dolls are in no way "censored" for their nudity and even strive to exaggerate certain sexual aspects can certainly lead to a conception of their being used as sexual arousal items. Again, that doesn't mean that they are, just that depending on the culture it could exacerbate the perception.

· 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?

This certainly does play a role in the offensiveness that nude dolls can have on certain people. There is a huge cultural barrier, for instance, between the U.S. and Europe/Asia (Japan, France, Italy, even England) on the amount of acceptable nudity.

I watched a discovery channel special on Japan's sexual attitude and they said something to the effect that sex has become so popularized that it's no longer as an exciting venture as it had been in the past. So some Japanese people might even find what we see as erotic doll pictures as incredibly boring or "so overdone." So, there is certainly a cultural barrier.

· 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?

It shouldn't. But, then again, there is major debate over nudity in humans being shown as well even in art. I, personally, think it would be boring to photograph a naked Barbie.

I think the fear with dolls is that people are somehow fetishing over them and any mention of a fetish is highly disturbing to people from a culture where fetishes are the devil in your ear. Also, fetishist in the media are often depicted as murderers and having accompanying medical disorders. I can say I am a perfectly mentally healthy girl with a fetish (not dolls, in case you're wondering). Fetish does not necessarily equal insane.

· 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"?

From the moment you are old enough to be cognizant of human behavior you are always trying to pair things up. Mother and Father, Sister and Brother, Girl and Boy, Boy and Boy, Girl and Girl, Twins, Opposites...is it any wonder that relationships are so popular and is it any wonder that romantic partners in dolls are so popular? They mirror life.

No dolls don't REALLY need a girl/boyfriend. Dolls don't REALLY need clothes. Dolls don't REALLY need small plastic food. Dolls don't REALLY need a bed. But that's what makes experiencing dolls all the more interesting. You can safely observe a doll without looking insane. You can explore human condition. You can map out character interaction/person interaction. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having your dolls interact with each other or with you. It's normal.

One definition of rape is pushing something on someone that they blatantly don't want to experience. From what I've seen so far, I have not had to experience anything that I don't want to see. If there are people who do that, then I haven't seen them. I think it's an example of a few people being extreme that ruins the outside publics image of us for the entire group.

<RANT>If you go on the Internet and deliberately look for what you see as inappropriate sexual positions of dolls then it is very likely that you will find them. It gives you no right to then go on a rampage. The fact that you found what you were looking does not grant you the permission to, then, criticize it. That was your own fault. </RANT>

$0.02

 

I don't think doll sex is artistic; I think it's porn. Kitschy, trashy, dirty and a whole lot of fun for the right audience.

As it happens, I like porn. Porn is perfectly good and valid entertainment! You're never going to convince me that doll porn has artistic merit. You'll also never convince me that it is morally wrong.

Personally, I don't like doll sex and stay well away from it. But I don't have a problem with people who do like it. You have your kinks, I have mine. You and I both have the right to enjoy whatever strange or mundane fantasies we want, so long as we aren't causing harm or intending harm to real people. Real people have rights. Fictional people, dolls included, do not, and exist only for our enjoyment. Which is, all in all, a pretty sweet deal.

 

Well, there goes a LOT of renassiance art out the window, if you don't think that rape or abuse is an artistic element. I actually find that insulting. It's like taking all the religious stuff out of an art history book; you'd be left with half a pamphlet!

There is a reason, that those photos are not allowed on DoA. I hope you mean deleted off of this kid-friendly-ish forum, not altogether. The dolls may be an escape for YOU, but that doesn't mean that they are for everyone. For some people, portraying their dolls in such situations or with such backgrounds is therapy for their OWN hard past.

 

Dezarii, a big part of your argument on why BJD sex scenes are uninteresting is the limitations of the medium- I think I agree with that. Dolls can't do the little things that humans can, even in art or 'real' sculpture, and that is why I have some trouble thinking of doll 'pornography' as well, porn, or even hentai as being the same thing. Maybe it's just my aesthetic sense, but I think a fully clothed couple enjoying a regular moment together, human or doll, aches more of desire and romance than any smut could. A photostory I saw recently of a friends' dolls enjoying a dinner out told me miles more about their relationship than the average photographically depicted roll in the hay could. Women, as women, aren't supposed to enjoy porn- for some bad reasons and some more logical ones- but you get a little sick of portraying sanitised 'romance' or a cleaned up 'dark past' and not being allowed to show things the way you imagine them when you set out to write/make this thing in the first place.

 

I think there is a difference between objectifying something and sexualizing something. It's difficult for me to really put into words, but a doll is resin, a piece of artwork. If it is sitting there, undraped, I haven't hypersensitized the image. He/she/it should be just a piece of resin with human components. Whatever sexual response would come from the viewer and their upbringing.

One person can look at one image and see nothing wrong with it, and another can see something scandelous. I refer to the recent Miley Cyrus shots that appeared in Vanity Fair, shot by photographer Anne Leibovitz. I believe this is a great example of someone seeing something that might not be there.

Sexualizing something, I think the dolls already have that with or without clothes. Personally I find "objectifying" a lot more of an issue, which is a little harder to explain. While these dolls are "things" in human terms, if a woman was treated like an object, that wouldn't be nice/good. I think there is a fine line between tasteful and vulgarity.

And I didn't turn this into a "dolls have souls" discussion but "images have a balance." There is art and there is "look at my bits"... which isn't close (and objectifying something).

Hopefully this makes sense. Sort of difficult to put into words.

 

This is a very interesting topic!
As for taking sexual pictures of dolls I don't have a problem with it. They don't really have any orifices so there is no actual penetration. I don't think people who pose their dolls for those pictures are perverted, that would imply sex in itself is perverted.
I feel rape stories do make me a little uncomfortable and sado stories too but there are real people who have those fetishes so I guess it's quite likely for dolls to be that way too. After all they are little humans with needs right?

I don't care if people who don't understand call them sex dolls because they aren't, even if the thread has mentioned the Hentai aspects and XXXL dollfire dream. They are just dolls. Hentai is used to titilate (even if some is brutal- Like doll rape shoots) so I can see it crossing over into dollydom. I don't see anything really sexual about Ryoma though, yes he can get an erection but there isn't anywhere for him to put it, there is no doll you can enter in that way. I don't see dolls as sexual and until that happens I never will. People looking for those kinds of pictures will find them only by looking for them and no other way so they can't complain if they do see images.

I have taken one very mildly sexual shoot with my doll, as I only had two and wanted to experiment they weren't a couple so I photostoried it as a dream.
I agree that sexual pictures should not be shown here as it is an all ages forum, but there are places to go where dolls do have sex and I will admit I was curious to see if there were such sites and there are.

In terms of doll coupling I don't feel they need to be with a partner but I do have a same sex couple and I have never experianced negativity over them being together. I haven't done a sex shoot with them as a couple, I can't say I will or won't but if I did it wouldn't be in anyway graphic as it's personal between the dolls and I wouldn't want pictures of their 'places' all over the net. (Call me old fashioned)
I've only ever taken pictures of them embracing, not even kissing but no one has ever said anything bad about them, they get a lot of support in fact if I put them in the gallery.

Great topic!