The ethics of photographing 'children' in BJDdom

A quote I think applies very much to any debate involving the "welfare of children" :

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

~Adolph Hitler

Yes, there are some things that really ARE best for younger children not to see. But as a whole, I think a lot of these views and laws were sewn into our society for the government's benefit. If we think something we do can benefit children, we're more likely to do it, no matter what that thing is.

Just look at other societies. Yes, it still isnt acceptable for people to walk around naked. But they don't make such big deals out of nudity. They don't consider their kids scarred for life if they see some flesh.

I think this applies to dolls as well.

 

Romeo & Juliet = Rape? I don't buy it.

And a lot of these moral issues have only come up in the late 20th Century. It used to be 16-18 was the age to get married at. But with longer and longer lifespans, the length of childhood has been extended as well. The statutory rape laws in most countries are based on the theories of Freud, who wrote about the different levels of sexual development, and theorized that it could be quite harmful to be sexual when you are not ready for it. But this varies widely from person to person. Using Freud's theory to make a law based on age is pretty strange.
There's some really awesome articles by Foucault on the matter. He wrote against statutory rape laws in France, his position was that there is no such thing as "statutory rape", there is just rape. When its non consensual sex at any age, its rape. A judge should still be able to deem a person unable to consent given their level of development. Some 16 year olds are emotionally capable adults, and some 21 year olds are not.

There is also a huge cultural rift, where many of the sex symbols of our time are adolescents, making this seem like the ideal. But then in reality, being with an underage person is illegal. It sets a lot of people up for wanting what they can't have.

Also, some people simply look young. It shouldn't make pictures of them into child-pornography immediately. I personally am drawn to model/thin/slender/elvish types. But looking at a topless model that is built young looking doesn't make me a paedophile (I hope )

As an artist, I also believe in being able to create anything you want to. No one else is obliged to look at it.
That being said, since DOA has certain rules, this is not the place for complete expression.

 

Just to clarify...are you saying that laws such as those banning child pornography are only in place to benefit the government?

Well...when has the law changed to say that if it's non-consensual at a certain age, it's not rape?

When we say 16 year olds are emotionally capable adults, it sounds more acceptable. What about 13 year olds? If we have no age limit, then what is a judge to do when a 13 year old insists that they're emotionally capable to have sex with a 30 year old? How about a 9 year old? Then, how do you figure out if there's coercian involved or not? How do you judge if a child is emotionally capable? Basically, I'm just questioning the logic that there should be no line drawn at all and rather than having a law to protect a child, we should let them protect themselves.

 

The point is - it would be better to leave it to a Judge's discretion, to decide on a case by case basis, rather than making an arbitrary age limit law that may or may not apply.

But lets get back to dolls, shall we I don't feel like images of an artificial human representation (even a very realistic one) are ever the same as the real thing. And if you're uncomfortable with your doll being under age - just decide to make it a year older? Most of the "15 year old dolls" look much much more developed than most real 15 year olds anyways

 

"The point is - it would be better to leave it to a Judge's discretion, to decide on a case by case basis, rather than making an arbitrary age limit law that may or may not apply."

The only problem with that would be different views. Can you imagine the chaos that would come from that? Or what position that could put parents in? For those who have young teens that are tricked by older men so they can have their way with them? But it was okay cause the kid said yes? And then the guy throws her away when he's ready for a new one? The age limit is there so there doesn't have to be those kind of problems. Human judgment is flawed.

Now, the great thing we all have on this forum is choice! If ya don't like it, we can not look! Besides, that's what ya gotta do for tv, ad's and such!

 

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

I don't feel anything. I have only one mini and while I don't think I've gone out of my way to photograph her naked, when it happens, whatever, she's a doll. If I think others might be offended I'll cover up the chest, but left to my own devices, I'm indifferent.

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

No. A good photo is a good photo, a bad photo is a bad photo, and at the end of the day they're all just dolls. No resin is harmed in the production of a photostory. When I do come across a shoot that strikes me as inappropriate, I just navigate away.

Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?

Underage = of less than mature or legal age
Dolls are inanimate objects (unless strung too tightly ), so I don't see how they can be underage. Not to mention, the idea of "underage" is so arbitrary. What if someone has a flat-chested mini and says her age is 21? What if someone has an Unoa with a large milk part and says her age is 12? Which one is ok to photograph bare?


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 are "just dolls." Everyone here loves their dolls and holds them in special regard, but they are merely objects. You really don't want any form of law stepping in to tell you what objects you can and cannot eroticize. Personally, -42/60+ pairings are generally *not* my cup of tea, but whatever, that's just my own bias.

If you hadn't attributed the quote I likely would have credited it to a current member of congress. That doesn't say much about the U.S., does it?

+ 1 on both counts

 

Which would be relying on the judge to be infallible and also, it still doesn't answer the question of how do you judge whether a child is emotionally capable of making the big decisions in life yet. It's not like you can stick a meter on them to measure their level of maturity. I just think it's incredibly idealistic to believe that hey, some kids mature faster than others and we can just tell which one of them are ready to make adult decisions.

 

It would disturb me greatly.

My step-father was a statutory rapist. The girls(yes, plural) may have consented, but there's no way that ANY 15 y.o. can be mature enough to handle all of the emotional baggage that goes with sex. And saying that they can be is a very dangerous attitude.

That said, a doll with an underage body shouldn't be sexualized in any way. It's just creepy to defend it.

 

I have no problem with the bellman or sherman images: these raise questions about other issues far removed from taking 'regular' pics of naked dolls. The question here regards HOW the dolls are posed and in what situations. If you INTEND to make them sexual, then that will be apparent.

I remember a few years back on a Yahoo Group I run for dolls, a male collector joined and posted pics of his dolls. They were disturbing: pictures of dolls in showers, but styled and photographed in such a way that there was an unmistakeable 'Peeping Tom' quality about them. I felt uncomfortable, and banned him from the Group: that's not what doll collecting and sharing doll pictures is about.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that taking nekkid pics of your doll depends on HOW you want them to come across...the subtext of the image. And let's face it - the pics on some of the bjd sites I've seen have the dolls posed in a 'sexy' way (lounging around in underwear, etc.) BUT! there is a VAST difference between the images of these artists, the images taken by Mr Creepy on my Yahoo Group and the nekkid pictures taken by collectors of their dolls.


beejaydee

 

i personally don't mind either.
-- because if you have a doll that has a certain disposition because he/she was abused and you wanted to tell a picture story of them. that certainly does not mean you are a pervert, if others don't like it, that's what warnings are for.
-- but then again if you're just posting it to post it then there's a problem.
-- there are also nude human photos that are tasteful and distasteful same can be portrayed by a doll.

 

If you start to censor artwork, that is next to censoring thought. I don't want to live in a country where I cannot think my own thoughts and express myself because someone else doesn't like it. Try to stop others from creating things or thinking things you don't like and someone will do the same to you. Something you are fine with might offend someone else. Freedom of expression is important and should be considered a human right...

And besides that, there is - nothing - inherently wrong with the naked human body, including children.. nor is there anything with admiring nudity. Society and north america especially has almost a hysteria attached to anything to do with children, nudity and sexuality. Weather anyone likes it or not, all humans have a sexuality including kids. It's part of life just like anything else. Look at the works of David Hamilton. He photographs young women and young girls nude, and its the beauty of the human body he seems to be trying to put across. That is greatly offensive to some people. And some people might find it very beautiful.

It is about intent and context.. I like fine art, and dislike dodgy upsetting stuff and it kind of applies to any age I use my common sense to distinguish.

 

I've photographed Japanese figurines with their castoffs off. I had a set on Photobucket and one of them was reported and removed. It did look quite realistic after looking at it again so could see why. I decided to remove the others.

I do also have a short set I did between a shoot of my recently aquired Volks Mirai MDD. I was changing her clothing and did a short stripshow set just for the sheer hell of it. I thought it was funny. I don't put so much importance on thinking of dolls as real people (and they are ageless anyhow) and this was purely indulging my own sense of humour. Twisted though it may be

It bothers me none. What does bother me are people who are overzealous prudes, religious nuts, do gooders and people who think anything that can be interpreted that way (Think of the children!) gives them a right to cause trouble. Even if it's something perfectly harmless (Dolls are not alive despite what some people may think on this and other sites).

I am interested because of the human esthetics and representation of the human forms and characters. I like their beauty. I like their cuteness. But I certainly don't have any strange ideas about them being real in any way.

Society as a whole has been moulded through media hysteria and peer pressure. There are limits to everything of course. But dolly sex I don't believe is one of them.

Then of course you have to look at body blushes. I am contemplating getting a body blush done on my Iplehouse Tania after I order her/get her (Yes I know I use 'her' rather than 'it' which may be contradictory to the above). People openly discuss such things on this forum without too much issue. Genitals, breasts, nipples and buttocks. No problem. So why should showing them off be such an issue? Even if the body looks young? Sex is in the mind of the viewer. If the viewer finds it erotic and it offends them then I think that says more about the viewer than the photos themselves don't you?

 

I know that you just threw this out as a topic of discussion, but you obviously have some genuine concerns.
Dont.
You bought the doll, love her, and want to photograph her, presumably to share her with others. Your only concerns should be of a legal nature, and those be easily dealt with: lie about her age. Dolls aren't expected to carry driver's licences, after all.
The fact that she is "15-years-old" couldn't present you with any moral qualms -- after all, a week on a French beach will show you all the real tattooed 15-year-old girl butts that you want to see ... plus one tattooed butt that you wouldn't want to see, mine!
Now that I have set your mind to rest, when do we get to see the cutie-pie?

 

This reminds me of a question we had in my theatre class at college. I'll ask it to you too and see what you think. (It might not be the exact same thing, but you get the point).

"Is nudity automatically pornography?"

We were asked to answer that for class, and if we said "no" to the question we were asked "Where do you draw the line". We all had different answers but a majority of the people said, "When it moves away from showing the beauty of the human body, it is pornography."

^ food for thought.

~Chaos

 

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
My only issue with it is that I am being 'lazy' because I don't have a nice outfit for them.

Funny how nobody seems to get wound up about nekkidity among 'animal' dolls.

· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
No. I am usually looking at the doll as a sculpture, and not anthropomorphising it. If it did happen to give me a 'squicky' moment, that is interesting to me: 'why am I responding that way?'

· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
No. What does concern me is why it might be a problem to people - it is a doll, which is an object. I have to wonder if the relationship is reciprocal: if obect=child in the perception of the objector, does it therefore follow that to them, child=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?
'Age' has as little bearing as how they are jointed, the colour of their resin, the set of their eyes, etc. The responses individuals might have to a doll's depiction in any given situation tells a lot more about the viewer than the doll depicted, or the person creating the depiction.

An example would be 'realistic' dolls without depicted genitalia - they give me the willies, personally, regardless of age or gender. I've worked pretty intensively with the depiction of the human figure throughout my artistic career, and I know darn well what ought to be there: to me, they look mutilated.

The equivalence of nudity to sexuality is something our society has developed. In other times and cultures, depictions of nudity have implied power and mastery, or innocence. At one time, even to expose a human ankle, or the legs of furniture was considered shockingly pornographic and beyond the pale of polite society.

I think the more interesting question in this debate, is what it is about our society as a whole, and the ABJD subculture specifically, that makes this an issue?

 

How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
Never photographed my dolls (because I don't have a camera) but I don't leave them naked. They are always covered. I don't know why.

Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
Purely to show the qualities/dimensions of the doll, such as in advertising, no.

Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
Overt images would bother 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?
It's not the medium that bothers me, but the message and audience impact. Yeah, they are only dolls, but I live in a society that seems to accept the sexualisation of children in real life and art without heed to consequence and tthis bothers me greatly.

 

I think it depends both on the doll, and why you're taking the photograph. In the OP's case, it's the take a picture of the tattoo, and not the girly bits. If the picture is taken for the bits, then yes, it's wrong, at least ot me. (I of all people know bthat there's quit the moral spectrum out there! 8D) And as was pointed out in the oP, it depends on the characters involved, as well. If an 15 year old character is a chaste little princess, then it shouldn't be mentioned or portrayed. If, however, it is a character familiar with the ahem, doing, then it's not as much of a problem. It's an aspect of that character to be in those situtations. That doesn't mean scream it to the world, but if you make a little mention of it, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Anyone have a link to the article? The one above isn't working. The closest I could find was a Newsweek video.

Ok, I am officially squicked.

 

Seconded! o-----o

 

Thirded! Eep.
@_@
:: hides ::


Is it possible to have a fully adult doll who's merely flat chested shown sexually and not have it seem perverse? I'm frustrated by this a little when I'm planning for my first SD girl- whenever I show her (and she's a *woman*, in her late 20s to 30s) will people assume (by the fact that she's barely scraping an A-cup, size-wise, and is a bit of a Polly Oliver) that she's intended to be youthful or childlike? Overtly sexualised shots of children or young teenagers would squick me (heaven knows how many times I've posted in this thread, way too much already) but is it all right to do so for a doll who to some may seem more youthful? Like all the cases of 'oh, he/she is really 700 years old...' out there, it seems a bit of a grey area for me. A doll might be modestly busted and young looking but she still isn't a child. But what's to stop someone taking the photographs out of context?