The ethics of photographing 'children' in BJDdom

When my doll arrives if I take pictures of her that seem sexually oriented it will probaly be a means of expressing my psychological sexual pain. I bought my doll to relate to her, and it might get to a point where I want to express the pain I feel on sexual topics. if I did have her splayed out nakedly it would be to make people stop and look for a meaning. She looks about my age, 16. As long as it is done artistically without mal-intent or glorification of her young body then I would be okay with it.

Edit: I wouldn't want it to look pornograpic at all. I just want to make a statement. I wouldn't want to make it provocative but something to relate to. I am totally against pedophilia and such fetishes but I wouldn't want to feel like I had to supress the expression of that fear. Sorry if that doesn't make sense.
And I could sometimes take pictures just because she is pretty and I appreciate beauty.

 

ediblewhisper I think thats well said.

 

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
I don't really care about the nudity, it's about context. I find sexualizing children in any medium to be ookie. Whether that is with dolls, paintings, cartoons whatever. It's just creepy and disturbing to me. It absolutely does not interest me at all.

· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
Not if it's just nudity. If it's sexual, again, that's just creepy to me.

· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
I don't think it's a healthy interest. Children are objectified and sexualized. They are innocents. To me, it would be like sexualizing your pet for titillation.

· Or does the fact that they are, when you get right down to it, 'just dolls' mean that their (admittedly fictional) 'age' has no bearing on how they are/should be portrayed?
This is really a leading question. You give the answer you want here or the opinion you want people to have. In this context, they aren't "just dolls" anymore than pictures are just pictures. They are images of children and how they are presented is going to have an effect on people. If you were to draw pictures of animal cruelty or torture, you aren't really hurting animals, but it's disturbing none the less. So obviously I find guro disgusting and really don't want those images as floating garbage in my head. To each his own, but thats how I feel about it. I don't understand how anyone can find it entertaining to sexualize children. I've never known any victims (I've volunteered for a Woman's Alliance for 7-8 years now) that would find it therapeutic either.

 

wow, I had never actually thought about this before... Recently I made a small photoseries of my little boy, Bino (Fantasy doll's Glen) naked, playing oround on a furry blanket with his dog. I adore the beauty of the human body, both in people and in dolls. But where I would never photograph children naked, I don't mind with my underaged dolls, simply because it is to catch and show their beauty, nothing else.

Images of underaged dolls in the nude doesn't bother me unless they on purpose are displayed in compromising/pornographic positions. Then I would feel sick looking at them.

I think that when a doll's character is underaged it should be portrayed as such.

- Karina

 

hi there. really interesting topic! here's my reply:

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
i don't have a bjd yet, but i think i would feel alright about it!

· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
no.

· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
i haven't had a bad/disconcerting reaction to an image like that yet...i can see that i might though, depending on the photograph. in general though, i would probably tend to see it as art, rather than say, pornography. and i may or may not like it for personal reasons, but i definitely wouldn't see it as morally wrong or anything.

· Or does the fact that they are, when you get right down to it, 'just dolls' mean that their (admittedly fictional) 'age' has no bearing on how they are/should be portrayed?
i kind of see it that way, yeah. (that they're just dolls, and therefore anything goes, because there is no actual person getting hurt/degraded in the images). i'm not into artistic censorship of any kind. i think it's all kind of "in the eye of the beholder". ie: if someone has a personal problem with this issue, i can definitely see how they may be bothered by certain images, even if they are "just dolls". that's their own problem, and they're allowed to have it. i personally wouldn't be bothered, and i'm glad that's one issue i don't struggle with. *shrugs*

 

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
I haven't gotten my doll yet, but he is supposed to be under 18. How far under I'm not sure. Young teen or prepubescent. But I wouldn't have much problem photographing him naked if the inspiration to want a nude picture arose. (Actually, there is a scene in the comic where he gets too excited by his 'genius' and runs out naked from his bath to go tell his friends what he thought up... that might be a butt-shot...)

· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
Not really.

· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
I'm not bothered by it. Granted, I'm pretty loose about it since I also have no problem reading manga with sexualized underage boys either (well, that genre isn't the majority of my reads, but presented with one that interests me, I wouldn't object).

· Or does the fact that they are, when you get right down to it, 'just dolls' mean that their (admittedly fictional) 'age' has no bearing on how they are/should be portrayed?
Yeah. The fact they are fictional beings to begin with makes it not bother me much. I get bothered by real children in situations of sex because the kids are real. Dolls, regardless whatever liveliness they are infused with by their owners, are not actually people. Fiction is the land of doing whatever I want, the way I see it. That's not the way everyone sees it, but yeah. I do socially unacceptable things in fiction... I mean, I've written stories with protagonists involved abuse, murder, rape, etc, but that certainly doesn't mean I support these actions in a real life situation even though I am indeed fond of the characters I have created.

 

It's all about context... The line where something becomes sexual is different for everyone. Some people find that it begins at nudity, though I don't see that for dolls. Being beautifully sculpted art pieces, I have a hard time seeing images of doll-nudity as sexual at all.

 

How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?

As has been said by many people before: It´s all about context.
I have no problem looking at or taking pictures of any undressed doll to show the construction or condition of the body; and generally speaking, pictures that show innocent, non-sexualized nakedness can be cute in any medium.

Anything close to erotica involving children (or 5000 year old demons in childlike bodies, or whatever), however, makes me feel highly uncomfortable and I tend to avoid it like the plague.

Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?

It depends on the physical age, really. The term "underage", after all, includes a rather wide age span from babies to young adults.

I don´t really have a problem with images of young adults that have a sexual element (again, depending on the context and individual picture). After all, this is the age in which most people start discovering their body and sexuality, and in which sexuality in the widest sense (members of the other sex, dating, looks etc.) is a very important part of life.

When it comes to children, however, I feel they should not ever be portrayed in a sexual or erotic context. Puberty doesn´t set on before a certain age for a reason.

Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?

If underage means children, yes, I am. It is just not a healthy way to think of children.

I think those who enjoy/are fascinated by these images should really try and work out for themselves just what it is that causes that.

Even if the character is an ancient demon/vampire/elf/whatever trapped in a childlike body, it raises questions on why the creator chose for this character to have the body of a humanoid child, and why they chose for this character in this body to be portrayed in a sexualized way.

It doesn´t automatically mean that the creator is a pedophile, or has the wrong view of children, or anything. They might even just be following a trend (even that is interesting: Why is that a trend?), creating a character that they think will be popular.
It´s just something for every individual to work out by themselves.

Or does the fact that they are, when you get right down to it, 'just dolls' mean that their (admittedly fictional) 'age' has no bearing on how they are/should be portrayed?

I think it is making things too easy for oneself to say "they´re just dolls" (or: "they´re just drawings"), especially in a community where many people are highly attached to their dolls and some even believe they have a soul.

Dolls are rarely ever "just dolls". They are representations of human beings and of aspects of human culture, and as such, reveal a lot about us as a society and as individuals.

Even if no real children were involved in the making of these pictures, even if it´s just drawings or doll photos, this is still not a healthy way to think of children, and if this is getting indulged because "it´s not real", it is putting out the wrong message. After all, pedophiles do use these images to convince themselves that there´s nothing wrong with their thinking of children in a sexual way.

Granted, many will never go beyond those representations and might react entirely different to similar images of a real child. But even if someone is convinced this is the case for them, they can never be sure that things might not develop beyond their control. So many drug addicts also start out trying a soft drug once, thinking they will never go further, thinking they have it all under control.
If you look at the cases of real pedophiles, for many of them, it was a gradual development from indulging in "soft" child porn to gradually more hardcore images to, at some point, the real act.
It´s just something to be very wary of.

 

it like a never ending whirlpool...i mean...most these days us i mean, doens't look thier age, and the realm of anime/manga as long throw away the towel *mostly* on character looking their age.....so it two side of the coin, to me personally, I would have no problem, because it either aww how sweet, or it art to me....porn doesn't really exist in my book, i look at everything with an artist eye....draw most nuts i seem.

 

do what you want to a doll. I burned barbies when I was a kid, and I chopped their hair off... and other mutalations ensued. I've never even hit a person IRL. The truth is YOU CAN'T HURT A DOLL. I'm not talking about the people they belong to (hurting the doll is all in the owners mind), I'm talking about the shell of resin (or whatever) that you make your own. let it be known that you can abuse a child, and an animal, but not a doll. The difference is the feeling of pain.

 

I have to agree with that, OnyKam. A doll is NOT a person. Exploiting a doll may be in bad taste but it does NOT hurt them except maybe in a very literal physical sense of damage and broken resin. And it's your doll, you ought to be free to snap off every one of those fingers and toes if you don't care about your investment... however much that should be a crime. The difference between throwing a chair through a window and throwing your dog through the window is that the dog can feel pain and fear. It may be unethical to hurt the inanimate object (you just ruined a chair for no reason, if you could do that to a chair what might you do to a child, etc.) but it isn't indicative of you having some secret grudge or something.

 

Well to the 2 posts above mine, you may look at it as causing pain or damaging investment, we are mainly concerned about how people feel about watching such things, not that the dolls would feel... in the end those dolls are in shapes of human, it is about exposing the damaging process to others (taking pictures, or doing that as others watching...) most will feel uncomfortable watching you snapping the doll limps or throwing it and like wise showing the pictures of the under aged dolls being abused in sexual would disturb others>

Edit:
generally it does disturb me, unless it is tastefully nudity or the context doesn't evoke any sexual theme (a child doll playing innocently while being naked..etc)

 

Exactly. I don't think they understood what was being said, because I don't think anyone has been talking about how the doll feels about any of this. It's about how those images affect real people. The fact that images of drawn animal brutality or sexualizing little children is disturbing to a lot of people has nothing at all to do with the medium.

It's not the paper and paint, it's not the resin doll - it's the images and what they evoke in people. To me, children are something to protect, love, nurture - not sexualize, so those kinds of images are just repulsive to me. Just like images that would depict hurting animals, would repulse and disturb me. Maybe me moreso than some because of the volunteer work I do with abused women & children, which I have done for quite a few years through a woman's alliance that advises, arranges safe houses, suport, legal aid etc.

Images are powerful for us humans, if they weren't, "advertising" wouldn't be such a lucrative and powerful aspect of business & politics.

 

I have inkling that a lot of this is individual comfort zones. For instance, as long as I know that the photos were done for art as a representation of sensuality or not, and not to purposely be brash or cruel then any nude being acting as they are (or as posed re. dolls) are in a natural state and I just can't judge that nor am I offended by it. That's not to say that it's necessarily wrong to be offended. It's a valid reaction. Just not mine .

 

I agree with the person above me.

If you're offended with something, don't look at it. You can also do what I do and stare at the thing that offends you and wonder why it does (no, that's not meant to be a comeback to anyone... I actually do that).

The question was weather it was right or wrong. My saying that a doll doesn't feel means that it can't be violated. I think something is wrong if it hurts someone, or violates the person depicted.

(Comparison)I have very different feelings about hentai and actual pornography (no, I'm not saying I'm an avid hentai fan, sillies!). I think that actual people can be violated while on film, but I've never heard of an anime character bringing a lawsuit apon its artist. Some people have fantasies that are sometimes disturbing to the GP (including me... I'm a prude in some areas) but as long as it doesn't hurt anyone I don't really care.

(Comparison #2)When I see a furry convention I don't freak out because I know that those people are consenting adults, and not people committing beastiality. To me, beastiality is a form of rape because a conscious thinking animal can't say yes, and it hurts the animal, while a guy in an animal costume can say "oh arf yes," or "stop it now."

That comparison makes sense to me, but I really understand if it isn't what other people feel. I am sorry if people have a personal stake in this debate, but to me, it's just a debate. I don't see my little sisters when I see a doll. Dolls don't feel, My sisters do.

 

You are true when you say that the doll cant be violated because it doesn't have feelings, yet we violate what that doll represent ( a child in a sexual position) we violate other person feeling. That makes it wrong to me.

Darkrogue said: '' Images are powerful for us humans, if they weren't, "advertising" wouldn't be such a lucrative and powerful aspect of business & politics.'' And i cant agree more, there is something else, being exposed to such things leads in time to indifferent to it, it becomes a normal thing, we should really be careful what we expose ourself and people we care about to.

 

Exactly. I take issue with people that say "if you don't like it, don't look at it" if the material isn't labeled or in an area you wouldn't expect to find it i.e places where it's inappropriate. The only way that philosphy works is if the material or forum is labeled. And I could also counter it with "just because you like it, doesn't mean I should be forced to look it", nor should someone else's strategy of de-sensitizing themselves to disturbing images be a practice expected of others. Some people don't want to be desensitized to brutal or disturbing things. Personally, I think you risk making yourself less empathethic, less human and jaded to do so. I firmly believe there are things that SHOULD disturb us.

Basically, if it's a board or forum that allows that type of material and it's labeled - great, people who don't want to see it can avoid it and the people that want to see that kind of thing (or are not disturbed by it), can see it there.

Everyone is happy, no one is forced to view disturbing images they do not want to see and no one is being stifled. Just do your thing in a place that caters to it and don't force it on others in places that do not.

 

>_< I feel like an idiot. I posted without thinking, and I admit it.

Labeling is GOOD. Explanations for what things mean are VERY, VERY GOOD. And now, I'll shut up.

 

I agree with that. It is a doll not a person... and to me more like a work of art. And there are alot of paintings of strange and wonderful things so it wouldn't bother me either.

 

I'm not here to play "devil's advocate" but here's a thought. Some people will look at something regardless if they're going to know if they'll be offended or not. Because some people just like to complain about everything and anything.