The ethics of photographing 'children' in BJDdom

I wouldn't have a problem photographing an 'underage' doll naked, but certainly not in sexual situations.

Keep in mind, 'underage' has, with my dolls, to do with culture and actual character age, as opposed to mold. EX: I have two tinies on my wishlist. They're faeries, but adults. I wouldn't have a problem photographing them in a sexual situation, as long as it was with other ADULT Faeries. Not minors, not humans. Inter-specie and underage sexual circumstances is something I refuse to condone.

However, nudity doesn't always have to be sexual. Sometimes, it is. Sometimes, it is definitely NOT. it depends on the pose of the person...in this case doll, being photographed. I suppose culture could have a say on this one, too. I'm not sure, but I believe that Americans tend to see nudity as more sexual than Europeans. Then again, I've never lived in Europe, so don't listen to me.

Interesting debate, though.

 

I dont see any point in photographing any dolls naked whatsoever. Bjd clothes are there so u can dress them.

 

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

I'm not sure why I would. It seems if I did, it would probably just be to show the body construction or to sell a nude doll. I have no problem with that kind of doll nudity!

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

If they're alone and naked I can't see any problem.

· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?

It depends on the kind of image and the dolls. An obvious adult doll with an obvious child doll is very wrong, IMO, while a photo of two pubescent (doll) kids is okay by me.

· 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?

Doll photography is the same as any other kind of art. (Excepting real person photography, of course.) I find it distateful to portray children as sex objects for adults, even fake kids and fake adults or paintings of fictional characters, when the intent is to titilate.

I have certainly seen this kind of thing in fandom. (It is hard to avoid completely.)Certainly most of the fandom people who like these things in a fictional context are not RL perverts, but they're out there. I personally wouldn't want to help a perv get their 'fix' by looking at my dolls.

 

AG: So when you see an advertisement of a woman being depicted as below a man, does that make you feel the same way? Because that image is telling you that women are not equal to men. Advertising has nothing to do with this debate. It only affects those that let it.

When I see people talking about their religion being the only religion, it does offend me. But they have every right to say it. When I see drawn pictures of animal mutilation, it offends me. But it's just a picture.

If we were to suppress everything that offends us, we would have nothing, because everyone has a different point of view.

 

All depends from the nature of the nude pics.. if are artistic pics and without vulgarity, there's not problem at nudity... and this is not only for 15 years old.. .is for everyone who have a certain morality... I mean... all depends on the message that a pic can express.... all depend on this... I hate vulgarity now and even when I will have 80 .

Im totally agree also with this:

"It depends on the kind of image and the dolls. An obvious adult doll with an obvious child doll is very wrong, IMO, while a photo of two pubescent (doll) kids is okay by me. "

Today we feel all modern... and seems that we have no rules anymore... this is wrong.. we need to start again to save this planet from wrong way to think.. and we needs to starts with children.... discover again decency...
Teach to our children the right values. Not perverted, wrong sexual without rules's messages.

 

Interesting point...
I'll need to research to find my source, but I remember reading in college that for a time, people believed that pedophiles/sexually violent individuals could keep themselves in check by getting a "fix" from a fictional source, such as writing out their fantasies. Research actually showed the opposite - people who had had access to their fantasy-building material actually committed more violent, more elaborate premeditated crimes.

I'm not saying that doll photos are going to create pedophiles (or necessarily even encourage them), I am just pointing out that fictional material can't entirely be written off as being completely without influence or consequence. As 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."

People seem to be blithely going on the assumption that there are no pedophiles on DoA and have never been. Speaking as a mod for a moment, we have banned people for being known pedophiles from other forums or being skeevy on ours (one of whom was an adult male that was posing on DoA as a 14 year old girl). This is also part of why we have some of the rules that we do. Interestingly, in some of these cases the members did have dolls that were child dolls who had backstories of sexual abuse.

Also just looking at statistics, in the US the statistic is something outrageous - 1 out of every 4 women will have been sexually abused by the age of 18, and 1 out of every 6 men. If you extrapolate that out to a forum of our size, that's a lot of people who probably don't want to see people fetishizing naked child-representations.

Online predators do use romanticized images to help get their prey acclimated to the idea that adults and children together are normal. And if they can find examples within a childs' sphere of interest (anime, books, dolls, whatever), it's even easier.

Again, I'm not saying that people should be paranoid that their works will be snatched up for use by a predatory adult, but I just find the insistence that it's impossible to do so kinda naive.

In a depiction of abuse, there are many roles that the artist can fulfill. They could be the perpetrator, victim, narrator, etc. And this is where intent comes in, as others have mentioned before. Two questions of intent. First, why are you creating it? And second, why are you sharing it with others? Is it a cathartic confession, exploration, cautionary tale, pure titillation?

Tangentally, a lot of people (not referring specifically to DoA) expect to be able to say or create whatever they would like without fear of judgement or consequence, and will often use "art" or "free speech" as a shield. I am not saying that people don't have the right to create such pieces, but very few people create art or even speak aloud without the intention of drawing a response from others. Expecting that the response will always be positive or accepting is unrealistic, and accusing people of impinging on your right or "not understanding" because they don't like your work (generic you) is really condescending.

Let me give a more universally unpalatable parallel that probably hasn't been romanticized in manga. If I said "Take a look at this highly detailed, gorey drawing I did of someone bashing in a dog's head with a shovel," how would you view me? And how would you view people responding and saying "Wow, that rocks. Makes me want to stick my fingers in it."

I may respect (and even defend) someone's "right" to do something if it isn't actually hurting anyone, but it doesn't mean I'm going to like them for it or continue to associate with them if they cross certain boundaries.... and I'll be damned if I'm going to reassure them that it's healthy.

Most people have boundaries. For me, I don't mind innocent nudity or even mildly sensual pictures to show off a sculpt. I am uncomfortable with, but not against, more realistic depictions of abuse. (Though they are not permitted on DoA and I will not seek them out). I don't find glorification of child abuse, or child characters with inviting sexual dialogue acceptable in any medium, fictional or real, when created by adults. It's not a popular view, but I have to admit that I have set people to "ignore" or dropped them from my flist on LJ for crossing certain lines. Depictions of underaged sexual abuse with comments like "Oh, it's so sexy" make me physically ill, the way the example above may strike a chord with anyone who likes animals.

 

I have no problems photographing my dolls naked, or in a sexualized way, despite them being probably around their late teens (I'm not a stickler for determining age). I started collecting dolls before mature mini bodies became all the rage, and do not have enough time and money to swap all the bodies out. So it's somewhat a practical matter, as ideally they would all be in their early twenties.

The wonderful thing about fiction is that, while it is a reflection of reality, that reflection can be distorted and re-made in fantastic ways without the full life consequences. That's why our entertainment is centered on people killing each other left and right and constant sexual activity. That's why so many people participate in alternative lifestyle communities which center around role-playing. What's key is that everyone consents to the activities and acknowledges it's all made-up fun. Our entertainment exists for reasons other than to incite viewers to do what it depicts.

When it comes to transgressive art, it's the artist's attitude that matters. As Armeleia says, DoA has ousted some obvious pedos before. But they're not going to ban Kim, for example, for her comments on this thread, because her attitude makes it obvious she's not using dolls as an ersatz substitute for real kids. And I happen to absolutely love dogs, but I also own three different manga in which dogs are cut up, roasted, and eaten by people. I love the manga because it's obvious to me those plot points have a larger purpose in the story and the artist is not barbecuing puppies on the weekend.

 

i personally don't have a problem with it and it doesnt disturb me at all. i guess it depends firstly on how different people react to it but also on what kind of character you apply to the doll. ive seen some child dolls being given adult ages, or maybe they are vampires, trapped in a child's body for the rest of eternity.
if you want to look at it purely based on face-value, i think yes, there is something pornographic about it, but then isnt it just the same as people who are into shotacon/lolicon? thats not to say that every manga picture of a nude child is for pornography, i guess it depends on what you do with the picture afterwards
some people are just more sheltered than others. being an 'erotic-artist' just means i'm used to seeing naked bodies.

 

Have to admit, one thing I've found frustrating through the thread is that people who find shota/loli objectionable are constantly being accused of either being "sheltered" or "unable to separate fantasy from reality."

If that's true, could it also be said that people who can be flippant about depictions of children in sexual situations are perhaps too good at separating fantasy from reality...? It seems that they can conveniently distance themselves from the fact that the fantasy is, at least in abstract, derived from a reality that kids across the world have to live with daily...?

As others have said, I respect the rights of others to create the art that they choose and to express the ideas that they feel are important... and I acknowledge that people who create these works are not necessarily sexually interested in children. However, just on the ethical front that the question poses, I am opposed to sexualized depictions of children created by adults.

 

you're right about that. i'm good at separating fantasy from reality.
i think some people are sensitive to bad things and others are numb to them; i'm not accusing them of being sheltered. some people just respond differently.
i went through a lot of bad stuff in school (nothing to do with ME being the bad one, might i add) so i view death and pain in a very different way to some people.
but as some of the above people have said, about the author of the pictures having different intents (being the victim, narrator etc.) it's important to consider how these different sexual preferences are all interlinked. it may be that the smaller 'child' individual is a projection of a submissive being, the same way some people enjoy looking at pictures of dwarves or giantesses dominating normal sized men. maybe that's why i don't view it as being abusive etc. because all i see is the size, i don't know.

on a side note, i strongly disagree with harming animals, but then i cant help but stop and stare when i see pictures of it. freakshow phenomena?

 

It is still considered rape even if they both are underage. Even if consent is given, charges can still be brought up. But I agree, as it is fiction, it's more of a moral issue.

It's not like anyone will come and arrest your doll.

 

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
It's wonderful and beautiful. First things first, the doll's don't have an age. They may represent an age, but they are not living. Nudity is a beautiful thing. It's the most natural way of dress. Young love is an interesting subject. We questing how young is too young, and what is the difference between what's ok and what's pornographic. Porn is a interesting subject, it's an obsession about sex, that is what it is. If you have an obsession for sex, that's ok, as long as you don't hurt anyone. Porn is considered a performace art as well since it is technically a form of acting.
· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
Not at all. Not in anyway. Hans Bellmer has amazing works, they are stunning. Audrey Kawasaki with her underage doll like characters are seductive as well as innocent. I try to not let the rest of the society get in the way of my point of view. I know my morals, and I know what I believe is right or wrong.
· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
Not at all, it's attractive and the best part is, it's totally fine and not pedaphillic. Underage love is gorgeous, and pure take Romeo and Juliet for example.
· 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?
They could represent an age, but they are not alive. There can't be porn with just dolls. Theyr are just dolls, you are right at that, however there is a difference between a love doll and an asian BJD. and I don't mean BJ as in Blow Job haha.

 

No, it's not rape unless one doesn't consent to having sex. Charges can be brought up because they are not 18 but it is not rape. The government just made a law for that so that there won't be as many teenage parents.

 

Not neccessarily. BJDs are here for whatever reason the owner bought it for. Dressing them is optional. Eveything is optional. However, I find it more fun to clothe them as well.

 

Don't mind nude dolls. And personally, I have no problems with what anyone wants to do with their dolls sexually. I just think some should not be shared. But then I also think there is way to much sex, blood and violence on TV and the internet. I mean, hey, if ya watch the news, theres nothing like the little 7 and 8 year olds doing sexual favors for each other. But they learn it somewhere. And while some see it first hand from other people, most pick it up via tv or internet. So, me, I'm not for showing sexual nudity of dolls doing stuff, in a very show and tell way. But, ah, what good dose it do.

 

This is just like the violent video games debate. Some people think too many violent video games leads to real violence, but when it boils down to it, it's all down to the person. Everyone has different reasons for taking pictures of their dolls, we can't just assume nasty things about them because they're naked. Most people don't have nasty or "perverted" intentions when taking the pictures, and if they do, why is it any of our business if we don't have to see it and they aren't hurting anyone but perhaps, arguably, some hunks of resin? Hans bellmer or Bluefairy tinies, they're both JUST DOLLS.

My $0.02.

 

Pygmalion Complex: Just want to respond. I agree. I don't blame only tv and internet or video games. They are a factor, but not to blame. Really if it's children the only people to blame are the parents for not taking enough time to keep their kids safe. And yes, some things will always happen to children when they are not around their parents and that is part of life. But the young kids that are baby sat by violent games dose influence them, but that is the parents fault, not the games. So, I don't think that the kids that play those games and go shoot someone, we shouldn't blame the game, but what about family life? (Now, there are the rare cases of people who lack the part of the brain that says this is wrong, and it won't matter if they have the most loving family, if there's something wrong upstairs, they need help.)

 

I think it all depends on the doll, the situtation, photographer, and owner. I plan to have many little kiddies running around my house someday (I'm gonna be a grandma! >w<)...some older than others. I'll eventually have a younger couple, both lingering around the appearance of 15/16. However due to the storyline, they've been around for a few hundred years. Photographing them in romantic situations probably wouldn't bother me. If I say...had a 15 year old doll who was merely 15...and young true to the heart, I'd be more wary of photographing her/him exposing a ton of skin.

I'm only 16 myself, but I don't think it really makes a difference. SeNii's first daughter is on her way home, and I plan on having her run around now and then in her undies, just because a lot of little kids do that sort of thing. She's so small and young, it's not taboo or anything to me...it's just an adorable, little kid habit & comfort. If a 15 yr old were doing that...well I'd probably keep it to our family and make sure their parents or myself had a bit of a talk with him/her.

Like most things, it boils down to the people involved. Like I said before, the owner, specific doll, and photographer (if not the owner), and debatebly the situation.

 

I have to object to that last half. It is rape - statutory rape. It's meant to indicate that the minor in question probably didn't know enough to consent to the sex act. Now, there are certainly some minors (in the 17-year-old age bracket, for example) who might be mature enough to handle the ramifications of sex. However, whether or not a child 'consents' to sex, do they really know what they're saying yes to?

The law was not made to prevent teen parents. That, to me, is a very shortsighted statement. The law was made to protect the psychological welfare of children.

That said, as far as inanimate dolls go, I don't think photographing 'underaged' dolls or characters in the nude is necessarily wrong. Little kids run around naked all the time. A pedophile doesn't have to come to a doll forum to get material. It's when it approaches the shotacon/lolicon area that it becomes a problem, to me. I don't think that all shotacon/lolicon fans are perverts or anything, but I do believe that it's an awfully muddled gray area, and it's better to be safe than sorry.

 

i have two 13 year old boys, a 5 year old girl and a 6 year old boy and a 7 year old boy, while i do take pictures of them nakey (bath time photoshoot, streaking, mooning, onry little boy things) i don't naky pics of them doing sexual things. and really only one would be appicable for that. and as much as he wishes, no.

and to clarify this, one of my 13 year old characters is a very very sexually aware child, and a very horny one at that :/. now again i take pics of him with clothes on during perverted things like humping inanimate objects yes. and getting maybe a little frisky with his boyfreind. but yeah clothes stay on. but past that i do draw a line. and people might be disrubed by the fact that my 13 year old character alone has a personality that way. but we read in the news everday how kids are doing it younger and younger. preganant 12 year olds. now i'm not saying that's right or that i approve of that with my character. that's just how he is, it fits my story. but i keep the slightly not so pg-13 stuff to myself and do not share it.

nudey pics of resin kids = ok in my book as long as it ain't sexually based. heck i'm sure all of our parents took pics of us in the tub or stripping off our daipers running rampent through the house. so yeah if it's ok for a human and that it's deffentily ok for a doll and that.

and since it is a doll if someone takes pics of there child looking and character age doll that way, that's fine. i just don't want to see it personally.