The ethics of photographing 'children' in BJDdom

Nudity in photos is not necessarily about sex or sexuality. Lord knows we can go back in history and look at art and everyone of every age was running around nude If a person has sexual feelings when they see a nude photo I feel like it is the viewers interpretation (porn not included) and not the fault of the photographer.

Interesting question that got me thinking past my less than original first comment above. I have a Volks Masha on an SD10 body. I never ever think of her as a 10 year old. In my mind she is sort of ageless? Her first outfit is somewhat provocative and it never occurred to me that she was under age for it. I dressed her up older, so to me she is older. I am not sure how to answer your question because how can anyone know what the owner intends with age etc... if they don't state it?

If a post title was something like "10 year old in love" and then proceeded to parade a series of sex shots between an adult doll and a child I would be uncomfortable. But most posts are not over the top like that.

No. Again, I think I would be confused over which dolls are intended to be underage if not stated. Many dolls that are advertised by a company as this or that age are treated in a mature way that is convincing, so I don't find myself questioning the photos.

Not really. I have not seen many images yet that made me uncomfortable. I guess it would depend on the image. Certainly some things come to mind that I would NOT want to see.

Yes I think this is where I am at. If I see dolls in sexual poses I think my mind just auto switches to the idea that they must be old enough for all this. They are plastic so they can change ages for a photo shoot?

Weird how my mind works. I realized that I just auto adjust my brain with our thinking about it so that photos will not make me uncomfortable.

 

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
I'd be totally cool with that idea assuming the doll's doing what kids might do naked.
For EG : running rounf the lawn naked. Playing in a public fountain naked. Sleeping in his/her bed naked. Just sitting at home naked.
But this may very much have to do with my up growing. My parents/ relatives would have photograhed me in one or more of these situations. I'd very much enjoy seeing the joy of a kid, and that would have been the focus, not the nudity.
· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
If as what you have mentioned, they are in positions of adults, i might just feel that their "parents" have taught them too much and thus allow such "openess" in their dolls. It won't cause me disquiet/ moral dilemma, but it'd just make me feel kinda "yuck".
· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
As usual, dolls are dolls in my eyes. i would never accept seeing a underage kid in sexualized image, but seeing a doll in one would just make me go "yuck"
· 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 even dolls and their age should be connected although they are dolls. But I think it's easier to brush off a doll's "age" as comapred to a child's age.

This is, essentially, a question of age. Is it appropriate to show dolls - characters, really - who fall into the category of minors naked? And, as a flow on from that, is it appropriate to show them naked in some situations (eg. having a bath, running around on the lawn, typical kid things :P), but not in others (eg. lying on a bed, or a similar situation more appropriate to an adult)? Or does the fact that they're dolls make age a meaningless concept in terms of appropriate behavior and depictions?

So I guess,ya, its ok in SOME situation, but still I won't do it in other situations.

 

Now in the UK this could be a very thorny issue from a legal point of view, as any graphical sexual portrayal of a minor (even a doll) could be considered as child pornography and land you in court facing at least a hefty fine and being added to the sexual offenders register, as UK law states that any representation of a minor in a sexual fashion, including drawings, photographs, cartoons, models, etc is child pornography.

So if you hail from the UK be very careful about how you depict dolls that are either clearly minors, or could be viewed as minors.

Phil.

 

Agreed! I remember a woman was accused of child pornography a few years back for simply recording her own daughter playing around in the bath yet movies are able to produce scenes implying rape of minors all the time without contest. It gets to be completely ridiculous and hypocritical at a certain point.

 

I usually go by the "People do what they want to do, just dont force it on others" kind of logic, but this is my take on the matter;

1. They're dolls, not real people- so automatically its not 'illegal' or 'wrong' so to speak, unless the person like... would do those photos with real kids too- then theres an issue.
2. Sometimes though the mould may look underage, the character itself may be older. For example, I am getting a Kid Delf Muroo from Luts at some point to be the 'cute', 18 year old boyfriend of my mo-2 (Who I average being about 20).
3. I myself would'nt want to look at doll sex/porn because lets face it, it would be downright weird- especially if the doll characters were actually underage, but nudity? Fine. It just shows the worksmanship on the doll really- unless its meant to be erotic in which case... um... I wont look LOL

But yes, thats more or less my opinion

 

Yeah I hear ya, our country can be very tight and strict on things like this, and when its justified- as in, actual child dolls etc. Then thats all very well and good, but if for example you were accused of this when the character of the doll is above the age of 16 then that would be ridiculous lol

 

Sexual law doesnt work like that. It onky focuses on ACTUAL minors not dolls. Otherwise Hnetai wouldnt be so widely available in various shops in Soho. Cartoons, dolls, etc are not part of the whole legal system. They are not human. And again: nudity does not equal sexuality. I believe the OP does not refer to erotic photography, but rather photos of her doll's tattoos.

 

I agree! the character we create might be older than the years reflected on the sculpt! and again, nudity does not equal porn, which can be a big issue for a lot of people, but thats the truth. Here in the UK sexual law focuses a LOT on child molestation, etc. But these are human children! It is ironic however, that with the childish appearance of some Hentai things out there, they have never ever tried to forbid its sale in many widely known shops here :P (blockbuster last week: £3 DVD of La Blue Girl uuughh :P)

 

I think for me it has more to do with what is allowed in current law and, unfortunately, right now the laws in the US are a bit in flux as to what is and isn't allowed. And as digital work (and dollies) catch up with what looks "real", the law is going to have to define ever further what is community standards and what isn't allowed.

I feel that if I question if I might be arrested for a picture I took, then I probably should keep that picture private. (for example if you take pictures of your two year old child running around in the backyard through the sprinkler au natural)

 

it is an unfortunate situation... my daugther as she grows wont be able to have home-videos of her school plays

 

Yes! I agree entirely. I do think it'd be somewhat amusing if someone was put on the sex offenders register for lets say... having a photo of two naked dolls with one APPEARING to be underage, imagine this conversation

"Oh my god you're on the sex offenders list?!"
"For a photo of two dolls..."

How silly would that sound!

But yeah, there are some dodgy hentai films etc out there, and of course all that lovely shonen ai manga you can buy in Waterstones! Mmmm Gravitation

 

Yeah these matters really do get out of hand, kinda like how you cant call black dogs 'sooty' anymore... I dunno, we live in a crazy, crazy world

 

That really is something to consider. Mostly I'd like to reply based on your doll.
If she has that kind of specific character, then just let her be herself. If you've ever read the book Lolita, you know that she was unabashedly sexual with Humbert Humbert. It may be scandalous, but scandalous characters are just that!
If it's taken in a certain way, though, it might be different. See, if a person is taking the picture in a fetishist way, that might be a little off the mark. But artistic portrayal of the body is really nothing to be afraid of.

 

I refer you to this article of British Law:

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994

These controls were updated in the 1994 Act by amending the definition of “photograph” to include data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph. This Act also amended the law to introduce the concept of “pseudo-photograph” which means an image, whether generated by computer graphics or otherwise, which appears to be a photograph.

Plus later amendments to this act, namely, the 2006 amendment.

As for Hentai legal in the UK, they all carry the legal disclaimer that all characters depicted in the comic / video are over the age of 18.

Phil.

 

I think they mean images of real children which are computer generated/drawn to look like photographs. BJD's are realistic looking when photographed properly yes, but I do not think they would take a picture of a doll to be a realistic child photograph

Thats just my opinion though, I don't know for sure

 

It has not yet been tested in law, but from my understanding any computer graphic (Photoshop image, digitally altered photograph, possibly a photograph of a child doll in a sexually explicit scene or pose) that has been heavily modified to look like a photo of a real child, etc falls under this law's remit.

The key word here is "pseudo-photograph". It is not strictly defined in the legislation.

With the new BDSM porn laws it could possibly include BDSM pics of your dolls, if from the photograph / computer image you cannot actually tell it is a doll without expert knowledge.

As I said, it has not been challenged in an actual criminal prosecution yet, and it will be interesting to see how this law pans out as computer graphics get more and more photo realistic.

Phil.

 

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
I don't have any non-adult dolls. I wouldn't think anything of a photograph of a naked child doll. That being said, I wouldn't take any pictures of these lifelike child dolls that could be construed as erotic.

· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
If someone took a photograph of an obviously underage doll that was intended to be erotic/sexual in nature, I would find it distasteful. If the photo of the nude, underage doll was taken for non-sexual reasons, it would not bother me.

· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
I find the images distasteful. As the subjects of the photos are inanimate objects and not actual children, I wouldn't worry about them.

· 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 certainly wouldn't presume to tell an individual how to play with their dolls. I find the subject of (and reference to) child pornography vile, but as long as the said individual is portraying those acts with inanimate objects, I don't have a place to force my opinion upon them.

 

My personal stance on the subject coincides with how I feel about the subject coming up in literature. For me, it's a matter of having to be able to separate fiction from reality, which for many people is extremely difficult and sometimes impossible. Just like reading a disturbing rape scene as described by a victim in a novel, viewing a ball jointed doll who is underaged being photographed, while upsetting, does not cross a line for me into being immoral. That is where the separation of fiction and non-fiction (and where the laws regarding these subjects) must be clearly defined. I believe there is a respectful, non-sexual way to still express beautiful and artistic work on 'young' dolls (and keeping in mind that not all dolls of a small size are intended to be children as well) just as there is a beautiful and artistic way to portray various sexual activities as celebrations of the human body and soul. I also feel that there is some inherent sexual overtone implied by the human psyche to any state of nudity; there is a way to neutralize the sexuality, just as when you see a commercial on television of a child merrily playing in the bath tub because s/he is enjoying a bubbly child's shampoo, depending on context but there will always be people who view even this as inappropriate and disgusting.
In the end, it comes down to your background and your ability to separate the dolls from people. They're no more real and can no more be 'violated' or 'sexualized' than a rock or a lump of dirt, no matter how precious their personalities and existences may be to us. They do not breathe; they don't feel pain when broken.

 

No but the person who paid $843904566576599769 for them sure does

 

Ha! That's true. I made a huge dollpile once at our Halloween meet up here and I'd walked away and something fell over, but it wasn't a doll. I was across the room and I just felt like I was going to have a stroke. I actually said out loud, 'Oh, my God, if that was Chrom I'm running away to Mexico.'