Sex and Nudity within the BJD Community

OK, I have to ask this--is the whole equating bjds with sex dolls really that widespread and serious of an issue? I've gotten a few dumb comments from people, but it was simply related to the fact they are anatomically correct which doesn't really have much to do with anything. I'm sure there are some rude and confused people out there that feel the need to correlate bjds and sex, but I have this strange feeling they're in the minority (and that a lot of them run around conventions in funny costumes...).

I don't know the actual picture you mentioned, so I'm not going to comment on it specifically. However, I would like to point out that what is a childlike doll and what is obviously a mature adult doll isn't always a black and white area. I have dolls that to me are not children, but some people might think differently. To some folks most or all minis=children, to some any girl doll without much of a bust=child, to some stylized sculpts are more childlike and so on. This can be especially true with non-doll people who may naturally tend to equate dolls with children anyway.

The point of all that is you can't please or not offend everybody all the time. There is a lot of concern about what other people (especially non hobbyists think), but I can't help but wonder if it's overblown both because most non abjd people aren't really interested in what we're up to, and that just being adults playing with expensive dolls isn't really seen as the height of cool...or sanity, for that matter. There's a lot of other stereotypes out there that are probably much more widespread than abjds equaling sex dolls.

 

I think what you're saying is true, but when someone can be arrested for possessing Loli and Yaoi manga, I can totally understand being a bit concerned and wanting people to understand that's NOT how things are. Especially with images like that on the front of a BJD book, imagine if that's the first image someone sees of the dolls ever, and they aren't familiar with the "younger" look of adults common in anime and manga and the dolls, then they see all the crossdressing boys, and Notdoll's Bleu Citron (who many people even here find too sexual looking for the young body she's on) and the Unoa "O" face on a small-bust body and hear about Unoa's optional boy parts... To someone uptight who doesn't know about or like the dolls these things could be disturbing.


For my part, though, when I first came to this forum to learn about the dolls I thought it was very silly that there were "nudity" warnings on threads with photos. I literally laughed the first time I saw it. Especially of box openings, where that's to be expected. They're dolls. Are there really people who are disturbed by doll nudity? If so, what are they doing with dolls in the first place? Do they get someone else to open the box and dress the doll for them before they see it?

I can understand warnings for same-sex pairings, "sexual" situations, and gore - but nudity? Of a doll?

 

Again, without seeing the cover of the book, I can't say one way or another--I don't know if it really was a child doll, or one that the previous poster thought was young looking, because there is a difference between the two. Nor do I know where the book was sold, how it was advertised and to what audience, so it's hard for me to form an opinion on that specific item.

People can take part in this hobby in perfectly innocent ways, but it's probably always going to be a little rough around the edges which seems to come with the territory. Abjds are not sex dolls, and hobbyists don't need or have to do those kinds of shoots with them BUT it is a genuine aspect of the hobby and does really exist (just as sexual content is a genuine part of some novels and movies (non porn movies, at that). Trying to downplay that won't change the fact that it's there.

Whether or not uptight people get upset, isn't really something that can be controlled. There's so many things that can get really misconstrued by people who aren't familiar with this hobby. It's impossible to divine how other people will react--will they consider my stylized dolls to be children? My minis? Who knows? I don't, so I can either walk on egg shells when it comes to posting stuff (this is rather hypothetical as I write more than I actually take pics), or I can use my own judgment and not get too bent out of shape about what the nondoll public thinks. I'm not saying people shouldn't think about what they're posting and where they're posting it (the where is really the most important factor), but at some point you've done what you can do and it's time to stop fretting about it and move on.

I think it's mostly for people who are checking out the forum at work and have to worry about their coworkers or bosses giving them trouble about it. It's a reasonable precaution, but it does say something about our society.

 

I agree totally. Be very aware, and careful if you post things that others might find questionable, but don't be fearful.

I have to say, though, that if a person familiar with BJD's sees a doll in a photo as immature, it's a pretty good assumption that non-doll people will too, no matter what was originally intended. Just like how people who aren't familiar with anime style sometimes think characters in anime and manga are way younger than they're intended, or can't tell the boys from girls. I don't watch anime, but I like the Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy characters, and the only one of my friends who saw Cloud in Kingdom Hearts for the first time and DIDN'T say "what is he, 12?" was the one guy who likes anime. He's also the only one who could tell immediately that Riddick is a boy.

That makes sense, and I'm glad they are labeled for that reason actually. But the first time you see the label it's like "What?" Society is so uptight.

 

(My bold.)
I just wanted to point out that Kateryu said (s)he thought sex was great but that photographing it was inappropriate/cheapening/whatever. I might disagree with her (heck, I think photography can add depth and flavour to certain interactions, dolled or not) but I think it’s symptomatic not of a lack of psychosexual development, but simply of a different take on privacy…or something. And I can kind of see how a person could get that idea, especially since our culture tells us that sex can either be completely carnal and bestial and totally meaningless (this category includes porn) or completely pure, as when two people Truly Love One Another ™, with no possibility of admixture or grey area. Um, I guess the idea is that pure love is kind of like pure water…once you add even a drop of something else, it’s no longer pure. But as many people have figured out through living the dream (whether in meatspace or through their dolls) it’s more complex than that. You can have both! I think it’s possible to have tasteful representations of sexual behaviour that support, strengthen, and enrich your portrayal of an overarching relationship. Or your portrayals of an individual, since I think sex is not just something that helps us commune with others—it’s something that can help us commune with ourselves.

Cue sudden change of subject:

I think this is a really interesting idea! I think Taco might be right!

There’s this thing called the “availability heuristic” that is talked about in undergrad psych courses. Basically what it means is that when you remember something clearly for some reason, you think it’s more prevalent. The example I was shown was a list of male and female names…the female names were all famous people, while the male names were nobodies. Statistically speaking, people are very likely to say that there were more female names on the list, when asked after viewing it, even though there are more male names—because the female names are familiar, they’re memorable; because they were memorable, we tend to overestimate their presence.

In the hobby, I’ve seen something similar happen in a thread where many people complained about people being harsh on them…but when I went through and counted responses for and against their position, the thread was overwhelmingly in favour!

So I think maybe something similar is happening here. It’s not that that many people seriously think BJDs are “sex dolls”—it’s just that for most of us, even people who are interested in taking photos with sexual content, the idea of equating our dolls with masturbatory aids is pretty off-putting. Because it’s off-putting, those occasions where it happens to us, or where we hear about it happening, or where we think we hear about it happening (such as the article I read through GD here that happened to mention the two phenomena in the same article) stick in our minds and we come away with the feeling that a LOT of people out there think we’re playing with tiny RealDolls™. In fact, as JennyNemesis pointed out, they mostly think, um, other stuff. Although that could also be the availability heuristic speaking…

You know, I had looked at that doll before, but only now did I realize how similar she looks to my pukipuki Dreaming Flora faceplate (of course in her tongue-free version). Oddly enough, I don’t think there was any hue and cry over that sculpt—is that because it was an event head rather than a standard sculpt? Is it because pukis are so small and childlike that we don’t even go there, while the NotDoll mini, who by size would often be assumed to be anywhere from 8-15 or so, is old enough that we go “Sexualized youngster! Sexualized youngster! We must run and tell the president!”?


Oh yes, the last thing I wanted to say was in regards to Kiyakotari suggesting that it’s nice to portray sex using BJDs, since one can thereby create a world where sex is never abusive or dangerous or even questionable. While this is absolutely true, and I love to see people’s portrayals of ideal relationships, I also think art is a good place to explore ideas that don’t flinch away from the sometimes unpleasant reality of the world. Doll photography is and opportunity to explore how the world could be, and it is also an opportunity to look at the flawed interactions that make us human, without having to put real human models into those questionable situations.

Okay, [/rant]…

 

Possibly, but sometimes people really don't react to things the way you would think. I have a Kid Delf Ani boy--his character is 18. My family members who have seen him automatically assumed he was an adult (they didn't know anything about his actual character), however I see a lot of posts on here claiming that Kid Delfs are very childlike. You just never know sometimes. Even with doll people, there can be pretty big differences in perception, which makes sense considering how varied the hobby is. We come from a lot of different backgrounds that may affect the way we see things.

 

Just a few things i saw that i wanted to comment on...

Nooooot really. She said in pictures. Thats a public realm. If the pictures were taken for personal use (and by use here i mean personal galleries and the like, not to be displayed online/anywhere else)

I agree that its a matter of location (ie, post the potentially explicit stuff on condoll, not here where kids are able to see and such). Aaaand a dislike for seeing anything beyond sweet hugging and kissing is NOT a lack of psycosexual development. Its a preference for intimate acts to stay intimate an dprivate, not public D= I know i'm a bit of a prude when it comes to this stuff, but when im anywhere public, and i see two people kiss or hug, no problem, but if they're making out or doing some serious groping, dude, get a freaking room. keep that PRIVATE. Especially if its in a food court. I find it pretty revolting if i'm trying to eat and i'm hearing sloppy makeout noises from accross the room or something.

Back on the topic of dolls, however, i can see why people would be a bit disgusted or wahtnot from threadhopping in the galleries from seeing some cute stories to seeing others that include two dolls in very intimate positions. Thats better left for other places. Heck. in some its expected. (even there i often find it really awkward and unrealistic due to how the pictures are taken)

Basically, in the right places, its okay to post stuff like that. In others, like here, even, its questionable since we have kids on the forum too. And i know i for one, when i was thirteen, REALLY didnt wanna see sexual situations of any kind.

Where on the page does it say its a "happy ending" doll? She looks pretty neutral in teh picture, i think, not exactly leaning one way or another so far as emotion or expression goes. While she's not my thing, i dont agree that the intention was for her to portray somthing sexual. Then again. its notdoll, so maybe i'm completley wrong, but i see so much more potential in her. Someone posted a few userpics of her in the gallery, and i thought she was absolutly adorable and not sexual at all. She looked more like she was dreaming of some seriouslyd elicious cookies or something XD She could also look like she's singing a lot more than the infamous unoa "o" faceplate, and i think it'd be REALLY cute if someone made her into a little tricky demon kid and gave her evil eyebrows XD

slight OT over there ^^;

I completley agree. Even the dolls that the companies claim are 6 or so (seriously. Luts says kid delfs are SIX.) most people percieve as older. My kid delfs are the same way. 6? no. Try three times that. The three of them are all between 17 and 20ish. And i remember someone saying my girl looke droughly 14 or 15, rather than 6 or 7. My mother didnt believe the sculpts were meant to be children either. Even the really childlike dolls can be made to look significanlty older, and the older looking sulpts can be mad eto look pretty young too. (just maybe not the really manly sculpts ^.~ )

 

I think it's fine if people photograph their dolls being intimate. I think it would only be wrong if they photo shopped it to make it look like real people and let others or themselves get off from it. Otherwise, I think intimacy is sweet and can be extremely artistic and romantic. Rape or other abuse photographed with dolls can be okay or a little uneasy depending on how it's done, IMHO. Sometimes, it's in a humorous nature (think Naruto) and sometimes it's artistic in a dark way. This I'm not so fond of, but people should be allowed if that's their cup of tea.

It annoys me to no end when people refer to them as "sex dolls". This is, to me, a very hurtful insult, as bad as calling certain races names just because of their race. I would like to simply correct the person and inform them more, though, when that happens, because they are like children, in the sense they don't know any better. I really love the unoas, and they are more sexually styled than many dolls, but I have nothing against the artist. He wanted his creations to come alive, and they have brought joy to many people, so they are fine. I love how BJDS are anatomically correct, it really separates them from all the other kinds of dolls.

Culture definitely influences people. I think we should all just everyone's views, and perhaps even learn a few things on the way. I do not believe people who think differently should flame or be flamed by others, though. That is just wrong. We're people, not wild animals, and we can handle things maturely if we tried.

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? Exactly! It shouldn't be considered wrong as long as it's done tastefully. I think people accept Barbie nudity more because it's often humorous, and the fact that BJDS are anatomically correct "weird some people out".

To me, my dolls are just as much human in my mind as me. I like for them to have relationships and experience human emotions. They inspire me and allow my creativity to reach all new levels; I can design new things for them, take new photos. Same sex couples are a tricky topic. I think people who are okay with it in real life and okay with it in dolls, and people who are against that are against it in dolls. I doubt there is anyone who is okay with it in people and not in dolls, or someone who is not okay with it people and okay with it in dolls. IT all goes back to religion and culture.

 

This also holds true for real life. I'm 21, but I'm quite often mistaken for 16. This is why my boyfriend doesn't have any 'revealing' photographs of me on his computer (Even though he's a year younger than I am!). We're both consenting adults, but I look younger than him by far. x.x

I can see how people could think the same about dolls. My Rem is supposed to be around 18 years old ( I don't have an actual age for her ), but some people could probably age her down as far as 11-13 years old just because of her cute face and small boobs. It still doesn't make her younger than 18, but people might see her that way.

That said, I've nothing wrong with sex and nudity within BJD forums, so long as they're kept to the proper forums. The funny thing is that to me most 'naughty' BJD photostories/shoots are amusing, not sexy. It's just not easy to make them not look awkward.

I think it's sad that people have to even worry about this, especially with 'underage' dolls. It's art, and no one is being hurt. The fact that anyone might actually get into trouble for harmless activities like this is crossing into the territory of 'thought crimes' and losing freedom of expression, not to mention control over our art.

 

I agree with this totally!

 

'BJDs as sex dolls' could become an issue for industry and ownership because BJDs are already being referred to as 'sex dolls' even though at conception, this was not their intended purpose. Being anatomically correct could incite many comments, but one cannot ignore how BJDs are represented by some artists and owners, and seen and understood by the public. A new culture of belief could develop around BJDs because people use generalisations to understand a phenonoma.

I would like to think I am a BJD owner, but in ten years could I be the owner of 'sex dolls' because that is how they have become to be perceived by the public. In the case of the book cover (Yoshida Style by Ryo Yoshida), I am not worried by the image of a naked doll, but the overall composition and the signals it could send to people regarding BJDs and reasons for owning one.

 

Yes, but how many people are really referring to them as sex dolls beyond a small minority? If you were to walk through a public place--say a city street or store with your doll the vast vast majority of people are not going to have a clue what they are--they won't know they're actually anatomically correct, or that people sometimes take racey pictures of them. What they'll probably think is: A. Look at the weird doll lady B. That's a neat doll or C. That doll is creepy--or some combination of all three.

In order for a new culture of belief to truly develop a lot more people would need to know about them. I don't see abjds entering into mainstream thinking in the way that anime/manga has, for instance. They're too specific, too small a market for that. The place I get 99% of stupid doll related comments is anime conventions, because there are more people there that have seen abjds before. They don't know a lot about them, just enough to be able to make snide comments for the heck of it. I'm not even sure if they really believe what they're saying half the time or if they're just trying to get a rise out of the 'weird doll people.'

It's sort of like the elitism discussion. While there are some true elitists (just as there are some folks that are confused about abjds and sex), but they are a very small minority. However, people tend to remember bad encounters with other or bad encounters they've heard about from other people. After awhile there's this idea floating around that the hobby is rife with elitism even though that isn't really the case.

I also have to say this: We buy our dolls for our own enjoyment, correct? Many of us use them as creative vehicles for telling stories and creating artwork. It's a hobby that includes some young people but has always been geared more towards adults. It's natural that there will be content in abjd art that is more adult in nature. Will that bother some people? Sure. Will there be people that make incorrect assumptions about the hobby? Undoubtedly (they do that anyway). But if everyone just capitulates to that because someone might misunderstand, then a lot of artistic freedom has been lost. I don't want bjds to be thought of as sex dolls, and I don't appreciate dumb comments. However, I can also put it in perspective. No matter what, some people will misunderstand, make assumptions, and act like morons, but that doesn't mean that we need to fear the world at large--use common sense and good netiquette when it comes to posting things with adult content (which may or may not include sex--there are plenty of things that can make a photostory adult only and potentially offend), but we don't need to all become perfectly safe and squeaky clean either.

More generally speaking, I like the hobby for it's rough edges and envelope pushing (this can include but is hardly limited to sexual content). That doesn't mean I enjoy everything that's out there, but I think it's partly what gives the hobby it's vibrancy and makes it appealing to such a varied group of people. It isn't what I would imagine doll collecting to be, and I have the feeling this is a fairly unique hobby. The people that create our dolls are true artists, those of us who own them and take their pics and create their stories, mod and customize etc are also artists too, and when you take all those artists at both ends of the process and shake them all up together, you get craziness--but that isn't a bad thing. If you worry to much what other people think and try too hard to protect the hobby's reputation, you risk losing some of what makes this hobby so great to begin with.

 

I would love to hear Notdoll explain this concept. Maybe not that surprising to bjd fans, but I can't help think most people are going to immediately go to a bad place, not Girl Fondly Anticipating A Cookie. Totally blows theUnoa O-Face plate away in my opinion.
But maybe it is as Notdoll says:
For the most delicate one.
Pure blood and beautiful heart.

 

· 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 really liked nude art, when people are involved. Same with dolls, but they couldnt be considered on the same level of sexuality as people, I suppose. I dont think people making nude/suxual content photos of their dolls are perverted, they are just trying to express themselves in such a way. Not all can do good thou. Rape and abuse take huge part in pornography and in 99% its not real, its just acting. Many peole like it, they really do. Nothing bad in it if they are just playing and pretending. Sure people are allowed to make photos, but showing it to communities must be limited by rules.

· 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?
People often come to conclusions without seeing the whole picture, so no wonder they may think that way. If many people are sure that anime is " ah these are cartoons there beasts this tentacles rape children" thing ... -.-
Dolls of all types should be on the market till the is a demand for it.
Hentai, same as hentai artists are fine with me.
Huge bust? I do not really understand why, and I dont really like it, thou it looks funny and if people want it, why not.
Yes I suppose it might create not negative but wrong image of BJD, unfortunately.



· 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?
Dolls are dolls, its really great if people consider them alive, and having soul, and cultural background, but they are still dolls made by people for people.
I'd rather point to cultural difference between the one making photos and the other seeing them.

· 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?
Because people want to. Because not many can really make artistic photographs of real people, whis dolls its much easier. And if pictures are not really good BJD community will still support the one who made those, because we all love dolls.
Barbie? - I think it would be acceptable for someone for sure, but I dont see any sexieness in Barbie, its childish doll and it doesnt resemble human body for me.
I handle all nudity just fine.

· 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"?
All need romantic partners. Since people while "playing" with their dolls project their perception of reallity on them, they get partners for their dolls also. Maybe people creating something they longing for in such a way. I myself will get partner for my doll for sure.
Its not a doll who needs BF\GF its owner needs dolls to have it.
Same sex couples are fine with me, same for humans and for dolls. Nothing wrong in it.

Also I must note that all I wrote is just plain IMHO, I dont insist I'm right, and I hope my words didnt harrase someone.

P.S. I hate long posts really.

 

Photographs are not necessarily "public realm", no. If said photograph is posted in an adult-safe forum, that's not a public realm where you have to worry about offending passersby. Her post said that it was unnecessary and inappropriate in any pictures, even in private arenas, simply because it's possible to take nice photos without any erotic intent (implying that, therefore, it's impossible to take nice photos that do have erotic intent).

Deeming something "unnecessary" in somebody else's art, as Kateryu's comment did-- i.e. saying that it's unnecessary to depict two dolls in a romantic photostory doing anything beyond hugging-- AND then going on to call it "sad" and "inappropriate" and "gives ABJD a bad name" and say you "feel bad for" its author? Yes, that does indicate a contempt and a squeamishness that's trying to translate itself into reason. That is trying to impose one's own personal boundaries onto an art form. Having one's doll-characters be sexually involved may be "unnecessary" for one owner; but it may be a necessary cornerstone of someone else's doll-character/story/etc.

That's pretty much the size of it in my experience, too. The only people who automatically think "sex doll" when they see a BJD are, let's face it, guys who've maybe seen a couple hentai cartoons at a party and could never get it out of their minds and want to know more. Guys who already subscribe to magazines with the ads for the love-dolls in the back. Guys who've had prior experience with 'accidentally' visiting Japanese tentacle-fetish sites. Y'know, "innocent bystanders"? Those. And we really care about what they think of us.

Yeah... yeah, that "pure blood and beautiful heart" line isn't exactly a detailed backstory, there, Notdoll. C'mon. I would love to hear WTF they're thinking.

("Anticipating a Cookie" was not the first thing that sprang to my mind, either.)

 

I don't think photostories depicting graphic sexual situations are necessarily bad and/or harmful to the community, but I do think there is a time and a place for them. There are forums specifically 18+ where you can go and share that artwork where civilians are not likely to go, after all...why would a civilian sign up for ConDoll if they weren't interested in BJDs and those themes anyway?

I love nude art, be it photographed, painted, sketched...I don't see the human body as a threat or dirty or whatever. It's a beautiful, fascinating thing, and I admire the naked dolly form too. The sculptors went to a lot of trouble to create a work of art, and I appreciate it as an art lover, the way I would appreciate any other piece of art.

Same here. I'd love to know what the design team were discussing the day they came up with Bleu Citron! I'm pretty open minded, but I can't see the glee in her face the way normal people would be gleefully anticipating a tasty morsel of food! Without the tongue and the paleness of the back of her mouth, she just looks like a passive blow-up doll and with the tongue she looks actively suggestive

 

Am I the only person who doesn't find Bleu Citron's tongue-free option inherently sexual???

I can definitely see it with the tongue. I believe you can go other places with it, but I won't argue that it looks lascivious. But without the tongue she really doesn't look obviously/necessarily sexual to me...sure, I can see that you could take her there, but it's not the first thing that comes to my mind.

Maybe it's because the sex dolls I've seen have all been more on the gag gift end of the spectrum than actually designed for use, but she doesn't look a single thing like them to me.

 

No, no you are not. Yeah, the notdoll pics DO look a bit like they're trying to go there, and i have no doubt in my mind that that is the intention of most people who buy her, but i find her somewhat adorable, with and without the tounge. I mentioned earlier that i'd seen someone's user pics, and i thougth she was really cute. I also thing that without the tounge she looks significantly more like she's singing or yawning than any unoa o-face i've ever seen.

And honestly, i think if bleu citron were a tiny, like yo-sized or puki-sized...everyone would be all "AWW LOOKIT HOW CUTE!" But since she's more in the realm of "mature" looking dolls, since many have their msds as teens or adults and not as little kids, they automatically jump to sexual conclusions. If i may point out two pukis in particular, pongpong and cupid2. Cupid2 has a very similar tounge placement, and pongpong has the big wide open mouth, but no one has made any strange assumptions about them, right? Why? cause they're being portrayed as little kids.

(okay, it might also be eyeshape, but lets face it, if bleu had wide open kidlike eyes, it wouldnt be so sexual looking. Also, if fairyland made, say, a mnf sized dreaming flora-like headmold, we'd jump all over that too. ^^;; )

Okay, i'll agree there. I didnt exactly clarify the "public realm" part. If said pictures are posted in an adult forum, thats one thing, but if the pics are uploaded onto, say, photobucket or flickr, or even a personal website where anyone is able to find and look at them without having to go through the adult forum....then isnt that public realm?

Perhaps i'm missing something integral from Kateryu's post, as i'm only seeing the quoted snippit right now, and i've no idea if there was anything more than that, but the portion that i'm seeing says nothing of the sort. Its Kateryu's opinion that its unneccessary, and the opinion is valid, just as saying that scenes of a sexual nature are necessary for a certain storyline. Or, i dunno, driving. Driving is totally unnesseccary in our world, don't yout hink? Just by saying that its unneccessary isnt saying that its horrible and wrong. Unless, of course, that was actually said (horrible and wrong, that is), in which case i am missing parts that i will certainly look back on.

While it may be pushing personal boundaries on an artform, every artform has its place. Erotic paitings may be an artform, but depending on how erotic they can be i'm sure they're displayed apart from other more "family friendly" pieces in an art gallery, no? And by all means, correct me if i'm wrong. I haven tbeen to many galleries ^^; (this is also under the assumption that erotic art is far, far different than nude pieces).

And on the last bit, the part about situations being necessary in the story or the characters background or what not...hile it may be necessary to the story, it isnt always necessary to depict fully, or sometimes even at all. For instance, a story may include a character whose personality was greatly affected by being sexually abused in the past. That doesnt mean that the abuse has to be greatly described in detail in a written story, and it doesnt mean that the scene(s) has to be graphically shown through a series of gratuitous pictures, either.

 

Here's a thought...most (not all, but most) people who are really involved with the bjd hobby are female. The tradition - the myth - in this culture (I'm Canadian, so I'm thinking mainstream North American culture, which I know doesn't include anything like all of us on DoA) - but the myth is that women and girls don't like/need anatomically detailed representations of genitals or sex acts. Traditionally, it's a "guy" thing. It's changing, but it's still a pervasive myth, just like the myth that no women are turned on by men being sexually intimate with each other (whereas stylized female homosexuality has been a mainstay of pornography for men for decades). Perhaps the judgmental voices are asking "Ew! You're into that?" because, if you're into that, and you're not so strange, perhaps, deep inside, they might resonate to it too, whether it be explicit sexual images, gay sex or whatever.
That being said, I do think we all must respect each other's rights to not see stuff we're not comfortable with, and so we all have to keep the agreed upon rules here in this 13+ website. I know, for myself, if I stumble accidently on an article about someone hurting an animal it bothers me for weeks, and I'm sure some people are just as bothered when they stumble on a picture of sexual acts, even when the acts are being acted out by dolls.

 

· 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 really depends on the mindset of the photographer when he/she was taking the photo. Is it intended to be erotic artistically, or does it aim to give physiological sexual stimulation to viewers? Of course misunderstandings may occur but if the photographer is able to give a satisfactory artistic interpretation of his/her work, then he/she should be allowed to show his/her work to a wide audience. Art has no boundaries, it can never be too controversial, too provocative or too sexual.

Why is sex perverted? It's how we all got here in the first place. I can name a few pieces of classic art that features sex or nudity - even homosexual sex (see Greek pederasty). The human body is a beautiful thing and its manifestation in BJDs is merely another way of artistic expression. Rape and abuse have elements of violence, Q.E.D. are a completely different matter. Sex is natural but rape and abuse are not.

I can see why these photos are not allowed in 13+ sites though. It's a good legal practice for self-preservation but honestly, what form of mass media doesn't show sex and/or nudity nowadays?

· 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'd say they are sadly mistaken. Sex dolls may be a type of BJD but not all BJDs are sex dolls - "fully functional" male bodies and the ludicrously enormous doll busts are but part of the huge pool of BJD customisation options; the fact that people can choose not to use them demonstrates sex dolls do not equate to BJDs. For me, the appeal of "anatomically correct" BJDs is more about the real factor than the sex factor. Can you imagine if all girl dolls were flat-busted and male dolls had nothing in their pants? It would make discerning thier sex a difficult task and the clothing a strange fit.

As for people's opinions, I'm not all that sure that the majority has a negative attitude towards BJDs because of their anatomy. Sure, some of them say the eyes are creepy, and some say they are ridiculously expensive, but I've yet have someone come up to me and say "I don't like them because they remind me of sex dolls."

· 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?

Absolutely. Where I come from, older folks scarcely talk about needing the washroom (let alone "needing the bedroom" ). You should see their scandalised faces when I start explaining Freud... anyway, yeah. Cultural context changes a lot of things.

· 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?

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with it as long as it isn't intended to be porn. As such artists need to be aware where their art is going e.g. in an art exhibition or a porn website. Context changes a lot of things (yes, I know I'm getting repetitive).

A Barbie on a BJD? Are you serious? The first thing that would bug me would be the horribly twisted proportions of the Barbie (and its vapid smile, now I think of it) - it'd look like a real person *bleep*-ing the plastic doll.

As a doll owner, there's nothing on a doll I haven't seen - it's kind of inevitable unless you never sand, restring or wash your doll or change its clothes. There's nothing new under the sun.

· 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"?

Wish fulfillment, as Freud would say (why am I quoting Freud? I hate Freud). We long to have the perfect relationship, so we cast the shadows of ourselves on the dolls and play matchmaking. Dolls don't "need" anything, it's merely the projection of self. You make 'em dress in clothes you'd like to wear, you give 'em the doll version of the man/woman you really want for yourself, and make up stories about 'em that you wish would actually happen to you.

Barbie has Ken, so why shouldn't BJDs? Even Pullips have boyfriend versions... if it really is frowned upon then whomever frowns must have had an eyebrow cramp by now.