The ethics of photographing 'children' in BJDdom

LOL that must have been absolutely horrible thinking it was Chrom XDD

 

I guess its situational.... if its just nudity, then i dont consider it pornographic, and therefor it doesnt really bother me if the age of the doll is under 18. i might be a little uncomfortable looking at pictures of a nude doll that is obviously under the age of 13 (except for display purposes when purchasing) but im not bothered by pictures like that bein in existance.

to take a picture of the tattoo is just a nessecary thing to do when youre trying to show the tattoo it doesnt really strike me as wrong in that context, but maybe its just because its on her butt, and i dont really consider the butt to be to 'private' as far as private parts go (i mean, there was a huge fad a few years back with thongs being viable bottoms for bikinis, and peoples pants tend to sag when they kneel down or bend over, so were mostly used to butts being shown or partially shown.)

i dont think id be bothered by nude photos of a doll 15+ though, because most of the time the body of a 15 yr old doesnt look that different from the body of an 18 year old (or maybe i think this because my body hasnt really changed in between those years of my life?)

but, actual sexual actions? i think im pretty much completely against dolls of an extreme minor age (like 13 and under) being portrayed in such a way (i dont have a problem with other people being ok with it, or even liking it, i just dont like seeing it) but when the dolls age is around 16 or so? erm. i dont have much room to disaprove of it, when i myself was quite, erm, 'active' around that age....

 

I think what it really comes down to is the INTENT of the image - why the artist created it, and who they intend to view it. If your intention is to edit it so it doesn't look like a doll anymore, and spread it around to pedophiles, or to use sexualised images of dolls to groom a real child, obviously, that is wrong, and could end up damaging an actual child.

But if the intention is to express an idea/metaphor/emotion, and the photo is tasteful and artistic, or simply taken to show the anatomy and features of a specific sculpt, and the audience is appropriate (DoA or deviantart for example) then whats the problem?

 

I don't personally have a problem with it, but I can see those that do. Unfortunatly my friend and I will eventialy have people trying to call us out as being pedipholific with our dolls, considering... well... most of her adult caricatures are very short and generally have soft youthful curves, so it makes seance that they would be much shorter than the dolls of my caricatures. I'm alot less worried about what people will say once we have them, and do the inevitable pictures that will ensue than she is. My take is, some people are realy short, and a variety of body shapes, if I say my doll is 19, than she's 19.

 

In my personal opinion i prefer that all made +18 pictures with theirs BJd that with childrens or persons, and nothing of all pictures of this catgory a overtly sexual, exist a very sensual pictures, that consideing art

 

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked? I personally wouldn't do it. Not going to stop anyone else from it, as it technically isn't hurting anyone, but it just would be uncomfortable for me to do.
· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma? Only if it's sexualized.
· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls? Yes. I feel like it could (emphasis on the could) be a slippery slope, but besides that it kind of squicks 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? Not really, because it's the thought that matters in my opinion.

 

they are dolls, as such inanimated objects are as such just plastic dolls.
and ethics are for sentient human beings. we can therefore we think, and ponder.

the thought to rationalise social norms to all things is human nature. but to generalise this fact into with dolls just because they look humanoid, is just like paganism.

 

What does that mean "is just like paganism"?

 

I think demonick might mean pantheism, or something along the lines of "everything has a spirit". Otherwise, I'd say he or she might just be confused...

 

How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
- depends on what is labeled as 'underaged'. A doll may be sold with an age tag on it but in the end it is up to the owner to decide how to dress and make it look differently. As for photographing 'underage' dolls naked -- I doubt I will be owning any since I am not exactly a fan of child-dolls or little kid dolls, since it would unnerve me quite a bit to be taking shots of naked 'underage' dolls, no matter what they are made up of.

Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
I wouldn't say moral dilemma but first reaction would be that it will unnerve me a bit since it will lead me into thinking what's exactly going on in the head of the person who took these photographs. It will take quite a few steps of reasoning to decipher the other reasons apart from just pure personal pleasure of doing this to other more objective or reasonable factors.

·Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
As above; more concerned for the person who is taking these photographs. But again, if I do not know this person or such person is virtually just an unknown to me; most people, including myself would go "Do I really need to care?"

· 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?
In whatever manners they are portrayed in is a manifestation of the owner, photograph's inner thoughts, feelings, rationalizations. When it comes down to that, the only excuse for these people would be somewhat 'self radicalization'.

 

in that sense.

 

I'm glad I could find a thread like this because of the story my dolls will be in relation to. Almost all the the young girls (ages 11-14) are actually involved in child pornography. Nothing explicit or "dirty" really just suggestive themes and mild (tasteful) nudity (mostly dress up in my main young girls case). The reason I would feel comfortable with this is because well some of them have the attitude that makes them want and need that attention. However there are some that feel vulnerable and trapped but they are still loved and cared about. I don't know how people would feel about seeing that and I definately wouldn't want people being mad at me or chastizing me for my creative expressions or a story that is personally very important to me. I would like to know people's opinion on the matter before I someday make a huge faux pas.

 

Before I say anything else, the reason why there are certain ages that are legal or not legal as far as sex goes is to prevent exploitation.

Pedophilia is of course, defined as the sexual desire of an adult for a child. The age of thirteen is a common number I hear for something no longer being a child, but what really matters is whether or not they've gone through puberty. A human who has not gone through these changes has the body of a child, and this is large in part as to what I believe pedophilia refers to. Post-puberty, a human has the body of an adult, whether or not they are legally. Despite the fact that there are many people who have adult bodies before they are considered legal adults, is it so treacherous for another adult to find them attractive? No, not at all. But, age of consent laws exist to protect these adults who perhaps don't have the experience and mental maturity yet to prevent them from being sexually exploited. (The same can be said for working laws.)

Different countries have different ages of consent; in the USA it's 18, and in Canada it's 16. An adult-bodied 16 year old does not magically turn into a child just by crossing the border. It's entirely a legal matter enacted by some countries to give a few years for the individuals to mature internally.

Since we are talking about dolls here, especially dolls with adult bodies, I don't see what's wrong with using them in a sexual situation. Even if a doll is 15 or 16, for one, it's a doll, and two, no real human is being exploited. If the dolls had actual childlike bodies, this would be a completely different matter, as it certainly encroaches on the realm of pedophilia, which is completely disgusting; even though they're not real humans, representations of it are still rather disturbing.

 

As far as photgraphing underage dolls goes, it does not bother me personally in the least. Being an artist, I'm a great admirer of the human form at any stage of it's developement, be it child or adult. Unless it has obvious sexual connotations, a nude photo is just that: a photo of a doll without clothing. I admire the realism of BJDs, and as I've collected them I've found that I like odd things about them. My Kid Delf looks about 10 years old, and I love his little legs. Couldn't tell you why. I plan to take many pictures of knees and feet. But it isn't sexual; it's the lines, the contours, and the cuteness.

On a personal note, I have several art books and one of my favorite is a book of nude photography published in the seventies (how can I tell? By the hair styles!) This book has several very lovely pictures of children looking only innocent, stripped of identity, society and social standing. They are a wonderful sweet expression of purity that I hope to duplicate with my little dolls in the near future, and I hope that these future photos won't be misunderstood. I also find it frustrating that naked pictures of babies can be found anywhere, even on greeting cards, and no one thinks twice about it!

 

i agree. If it looks like a child, and acts like a child its a child.
and When there is a picture of a child doing things that every child does its not really wrong. And it should be fine

 

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
Photographing them as an image of the doll (i.e. to demonstrate posability or show off a customization) is fine, because in that case it is just a doll. Photographing the doll nude as a (underage) character or in a situation, however, I wouldn't do.

· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
Again, if this is a situation or photostory, yes. If it is just an image of the doll, then no.

· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
Very much so, the same as I don't like to read stories that sexualize children.

· 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?
Here's how I see it: a doll is just a doll, but when you photograph a doll, you are photographing a character in a situation, and if that is a situation you would find issue with an actual person being in (not just photography, but in real life) then you should at least stop and think.

edit: I forgot to add that the situations in which a real child would be naked are fine, as some others have pointed out.

 

How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked? It depends on the intention. If it's for reference, that's fine. If it's something weird/sexy, then that would make me feel uncomfortable. Actually, I've photographed one naked before, but it was only so I could get a reference for a painting.

Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma? It depends on what's going on in the picture.

Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls? It would cause me to wonder about the person that took the pictures, yes. But I wonder about people who take sexualized pictures of "adult" dolls, too. Not really concern though...since they are just dolls.

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 all depends on the situation.

 

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
I think it very much depends on the doll, for me... If I had an 'underage' doll that was anatomically correct, I don't think I'd be wanting to take naked pictures of her/him in the first place. Not for artistic photoshoots, at least... However, I don't at the moment... My 'younger' doll is Allura, and though she doesn't really have a set age, I consider her to be more of a child--absolutely no older than 12. I photographed her naked for some time, but her body is not blushed, nor is she anatomically correct, and beyond that, even, she's an anthro. x3
· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
I really depends on the doll. Truthfully, seeing naked images of Dollmore's Lusion Dahlia tend to bother me, much to my surprise. Not enough that I'd say anything to the photographers, of course, but... They do make me uncomfortable. Especially those with body blushing, simply because it's a very realistic image of a child, both in size and form.
· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
I might be a bit bothered, but not necessarily 'concerned'. x3 I'm not going to be like... "What is the world coming to?! D:"
· 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?
Yes and no... To me, it'd be a bit creepy/awkward to see someone portraying a child doll sexually, just 'for fun'--for example, in the same way some people take pictures of their female dolls in lingerie for random photoshoots... It'd bother me less if it were part of a story, part of a character's 'history'... But again, as much as I love my girls, and as much as I DO believe they have personalities of their own.. I do understand in the end that they are 'just dolls.'

It's worth noting here, since I wasn't really sure when to address it between the questions... That I do think BJDs are the property of their owners, and that thus they should--TECHNICALLY--be allowed to do whatever they wish to their dolls. This doesn't mean I won't be saddened/upset to see a poorly taken care of dollie, but there's no Dollie D.F.S. I can call to confiscate mistreated dolls. XD And I'm glad for it, trust me. Even if someone mistreats their doll, they still paid for it--and probably still love it quite a lot.
The same applies to portrayal and things like that... If you have a child doll and wish to portray it sexually, I think that's your business, but I don't necessarily want to see, because it bothers me a bit.
In the end, though, I think these dolls are meant for a way to express ourselves creatively... Rather that kind of thing is a part of who you are, or it's just something you wished to explore within your mind, I'm glad that these people can be comfortable with it, and I'm glad they have an outlet for it through BJDs. You should be able to do whatever you wish with your dolls, even if 'the rest of the world' is uncomfortable with it.

 

The way I view it, if the doll is being photographed nude for purely explanatory reasons, (I.E.: To show body-work, posability, et cetera), there is really no problem. Posing an underage doll, say, running around in the yard or taking a bath nude is generally acceptable to me, but I really do prefer images where the doll's genitalia is covered. However, the line between "playful and appropriate" nude photography of any underage being (dolls included), and overtly sexual imagery is a thin one, and can be crossed quite easily. Posing and location do go in to affect here, as having an underage child-slash-doll posing nude on a bed in a 'sexually provocative' position can be perceived as pornography, but it really depends on what the artist views as "pornography" to be, and what the viewer of the art considers as "pornography", as well as what audience and purpose the image was intended for, as well as what "sexually provocative" means to the creator-slash-viewer of the image. While I personally would never sexually portray anyone I consider to be 'underage', that is my opinion, and is based solely on my own thoughts. Everybody views things differently, which is why this is a tricky Debate to tackle.

Although I must admit, while seeing images of nude underage dolls that are intended to be sexually perverse do disturb me, the images are not of living, sentient children, they are of dolls--inanimate, physically lifeless objects. I would much rather people viewed what they perceive as sexually perverse images (nude or not,) of dolls than of children, for the reasons I mentioned above.

 

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
I only have one doll who's character is meant to be 15/16 but she is also immortal, so in many ways considerably older. I would never show her in a sexual way because it wouldn't suit her character as she is desperate to stay a child. There is also that thing where teenagers suddenly become aware of and embarrassed by their bodies as sexual maturity begins, whereas a few years before they will run round the garden stark naked and not give it a second thought.

· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
Not if they are just unclothed because there is a world of difference between being naked and being sexualized. Photos of a child doll doing things like running round naked and taking a bath if they are innocently naked is fine. Children often are that way, but then CHILDREN are under 12/13. Your doll represents a teenager, someone who is approaching sexual development - I think saying your dolls character is 15 is one thing that perhaps only you know, 15/16/17 may all look the same to the observer of your photos.

It depends a lot on how the doll is presented, if it's obvious that the doll is meant to be a child rather than just a doll. Many of us are happy to see these as no more than plastic objects and so it doesn't matter how they are photographed... when someone is deliberately choosing to dress them as a child and then sexualizing them and pushing that photo in front of my face, then I'm not happy at all. I don't see it as a moral dilemma, it's just something I personally find distasteful and don't want to see. Everyone knows that older children begin to explore their sexuality and that is often explored sensitively in novels and films but there usually isn't any overt sexualization of the actors involved in these films. Someone posing their doll, who are meant to represent a child, in a sexual or provocative way, that seems a little unhealthy to me and I don't want to see that. But I also think you spent the money, it's your doll, do with it as you like, just be aware that you may be sailing into choppy water when you come to post the photos.

· 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 for many of us dolls are just an object. When you come to photograph objects they become loaded with meaning because that is the nature of art. What I see as just a pretty lump of plastic may be loaded with meaning to another observer. You can't really avoid these things. I've always been somewhat disquieted that many doll companies (DIM for instance, not having a go at them, but they are a good example) make incredibly childlike faces for their female MSDs but the body is anatomically correct and the bust over developed for a child the age the face suggests. I owned a DIM MSD and was a bit unnerved when I first saw the body (had only seen one dressed in childlike clothing before) so chose to make the face-up much more adult than I had originally intended and dressed her as an adult to compensate. She was no longer a child doll to me.