The ethics of photographing 'children' in BJDdom

Oooh good topic! =^o^=

Personally, I think there's a few 'ways' of photographing a doll's tattoo.

If you just want to show it to people and be like 'hey, this is my doll's tattoo' I really don't think it matters how 'old' the doll is.
But when it comes to photo shoots and photo stories with adult-ish themes, then it might be sketchy. Especially if the 'young' doll is put in a 'sexual' situation.

I personally am 15 years old, and my boy's 'age' is 15 as well. I have taken shoots of Shiwoo's tattoos but not in any way I think is suggestive. Personally, I think my doll is a kid, so I dislike putting him in sketchy positions anyways.

 

Since I have several dolls that are pertinent to the discussion....

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

I have no problem with it. My two Bluefairy minis are, according to their characters and how I view them, 13 years old. I have taken nude and sexualized pictures of them. I also own a YoSD who is, curiously enough, the oldest of all my dolls going by how old the character is supposed to be. He is 21. He's fully body blushed and I don't have any issues with taking naughty pics of him either.

To me, they're just dolls. These are not real children, they're not human. Hell, they're not even alive. I am not ashamed to admit I enjoy shotakon and sometimes express it through my dolls. It's an erotic fantasy that bears no resemblence to the reality of the same act.

There's no right or wrong here, just what you feel comfortable with.

 

You could look at it this way: she had to expose her bum in order to get the tattoo, and usually when one gets a tattoo they wish to show it to others. So, put yourself in Omphale's place; How would she show her tattoo to others?

I think that how one takes the photo is a large portion of how one views said photo. Is it Educational, Artistic, Familial, Pornographic, etc.? I have a book on anatomy, it has photos of both sexes, all ages, all naked, is it pornographic? I would think not, as all photos are very clinical, cold, and scientific. There are many ways to take a photo.

This leads to other questions:
If one were to view a naked body, would you consider it pornographic because it was naked, or because of what the body was doing? Is nakedness inherently pornographic? Do we fear nakedness because of itself, or because we fear what seeing it makes us think? Are we inherently bent towards pornography? So many questions. Perhaps how we answer them is a reflection of each of our cultural inheritances, or perhaps only our own past coloring our views. I once saw a drawing that looked like two dolphins swimming, my parents and my older brother saw a human couple embracing; we all have the same cultural background, but it's how we experienced life that led us to see something different.

 

I thnk it is more a matter of taste than ethics. To me, dolls photographed in a sexual manner are just crude, no matter how "pretty" the photograph or backdrops or props. However, I take naked pics of my dolls, and one is a baby and one is maybe 11 or 12--pre-teen, anyway. You can see my pics here at the end of the slideshow, there are only 12 pics total and the naked ones are near the end.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mylittledollfies/

I do have to remark that I have posted these same pics on a Picturetrail account, and they were promptly removed by staff as being "child porn". I was VERY upset with the idea that anyone would complain, much less say something so horrible, and that they would remove pics from a service that I PAY for. However in the long run, it comes down to todays morality and the urge to protect our children from predators-which I agree with--but as you said, these are DOLLS and there is nothing at all sexual portrayed by my pics, I was aiming for the innocence of childhood, the sweet unawareness of nudity we had as children. So take a look at the pics of my sister dolls and make your own judgement. As has been said, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

 

Personally,
i agree with the idea of context. However, shota-like things, while many people appreciate it, make me uneasy.

It's all a matter of intent, i suppose.

 

For me, it's all about context. There are plenty of situations where a nekkid child doll wouldn't bother me...showing off body blushing in Critique, for example, or body comparisons. Also, anything where a little kid would ordinarily be naked, like in the bath, or doing the "woo I'm not wearing clothes!" thing that young kids sometimes do.

But there's a line between artistic photography and kiddie porn, and some of the pics I've seen definately make me squeemish. I saw one with a mini doll, who looked about 8, posed on a bed with an open button-down shirt, striped thigh-high socks, and underwear. He was posed in a sort of "come-hither" way, and it reminded me of some of the pedo pics I see on Law and Order SVU. There was another with a MSD-sized doll who was basically doing a striptease, which I think is pretty disturbing too.

A lot of people use the "Waah, he's a 1343425 year old demon! He just looks like a kid!" excuse, but that's not really the issue. I think it's more about the image itself, rather than the backstory. There's a saying that says "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." Well, if it looks porny, then people will probably object to it. I don't think that children should be sexualized in any way, it's just wrong to me and it makes me wonder about the doll community as a whole.

But to each their own. The line between porn and art can be thin, but fortunately the labelling icons (when people actually use them, LOL) make it easy to avoid those threads anyway.

 

I agree with this, one on my characters is an ani boy, meant to be a very young looking 17 year old, but with him not being 'real' I was fine with photographing him nude and/or in sexualised situations - but others may be uncormfortable even with these being dolls, its just each to there own

 

Personally, I have no problems photographing one of my Yos naked. He tears around being a kid and not even realizing that nakedness is something that's taboo in the magical land of "grown-ups." It's definitely an innocence thing.

But oddly enough, the other Yo... I would have more of a problem with, since he's supposed to be a little bit older and more thoughtful and shy. It might sound crazy, but the idea that it might make him uncomfortable makes me uncomfortable, if that makes any sense. (I suppose I am agreeing with Kim's "no right or wrong here, just what you feel comfortable with" theory here.)

I will admit though, that I'm sometimes afraid to depict a naked Yo with a naked older doll, even if it's meant as parent-child nudity, because I'm terrified of someone misinterpreting my intentions. People strike me as always being ready to jump to the sexual conclusion, even if it's not the original intent of the artist/photographer/whoever. Especially if it involves a father figure versus a mother figure. But that's probably an entirely new can 'o worms. ^^;

 

Well, I figure at the end of the day, it's a doll, not a child, so it's up to the individual. I don't have any childlike BJDs at present, my closest is likely to be Mallory but I don't think I'd tend to put them into any suggestive poses, simply because I have very adult and busty dolls that would tend to be my first preference.

 

Hmm for me as much as I love my dolls their dolls. To attribute them to the same moral laws as most of human society would make other things like their sexuality in askance when I take pictures of them. So no it doesn't bother me to see it. I also wouldn't take a sexually explicit picture of my tinys because thats not their personality or role in life. Also this being DOA sexual photos are a no-no.
On the flip side I don't think nude photos are always sexual. I've seen nudes done of children by parents before or semi nudes. I even have one of me at 5 in the bathtub my mom took. And I don't see anything sexual in them. But diffrent people look at the same image and see diffrent things.

 

I think the tattoo depends on the photograph. If it's a more documentary photo to show your work, then it's fine. If she's getting dressed it's fine. If she's in a sexually suggestive pose then it may not be fine on DoA. Remember that your audience here is 13+ (right?).

As to whether it's right at all, I don't know. I don't think there are any laws against virtual porn and virtual naked children though there may be some day. I don't really consider a 15-year old to be a child and I imagine a 15-year old might show off her tattoo to her friends. If the photo is not lascivious it should be fine.

Carolyn

 

It honestly all depends on the person, and the doll's character, as to whether photographing it nude seems alright or not.
(For your case, I think it's fine- all you're doing is showing a tattoo, she's not acting sexual in any way, correct?)

Of course it's fine to see a doll naked! We all have.. that's not indecent at all, not sexual in any way.. just a naked doll.
However, I would never photograph any of my dolls nude (child character or not). My MSDs are meant to be ages 11 and 10, so if it were them.. say, bathing, or doing anything a young kid would do, then it wouldn't bug me. If I had a mini, as in a toddler age, I wouldn't have a problem photographing it naked- because toddlers run round naked lots- and it would be simply that- a toddler playing. I just personally feel no need to, and I sure as heck wouldn't photograph any of them in any sexual manner, not even adult characters.
I've always really like Hans Bellmer's works, and never thought they were inappropriate in any way. I think it's got to do with the way he posed them (so distorted), and how they were put together- as if they had no "soul" (this is the way I always pictured it).. and also the fact that he created them simply for that reason- to photograph them the way he did.

There's also a difference between something "tasteful" and something bordering on "porn." And as uh.. pervy as I may be (for lack of a better word >__>), I don't like any of the sexual stuff. I just don't get it- so I aimply just don't look at it.
No matter what, there will always be people who will be opposed to it, but I think (especially in a community like this) that it shouldn't be an issue. I don't see why if people have problems with it, they would bother looking at all.
But all in all, when you look at it, it is just a doll.

 

I really don't care what people do with their own dolls or what pictures they take, so long as they keep them to themselves and their friends and don't put them out on view.

However, if the photo is meant to be put up in a public forum or someplace not clearly designated for "art/possibly controversial photos of young dolls" then, depending on the photo, I might have an issue with it. There have been photos posted that do seem to cross or straddle the line between art and porn, IMHO. Where someone else's "line" might be, could be a very different place.

So I think the decision to take the picture, each person has to make for themselves because only they know what their artistic concept or intention is in taking the picture of the doll. The decision to post the photo places is a second, separate decision that has to be made with some feeling for the general community standards.

The problem with these types of naked doll photos is that a lot of the time there doesn't seem to be a developed story or art concept behind the shots. It just seems to be like "hmmm let's think of a way to get my doll all naked" and it comes off about as gratuitous as those people who think it's cute to sneak in on a kid past baby age and take pics of it naked. I realize a doll is not a person but given that BJDs are generally done up to look realistic, if not presented in a well-developed artistic context, naked young dolls can be quite a bit more jarring than, say, Winnie the Pooh with no pants.

 

Unless you ARE a pedophile, there should be nothing overtly sexualized about a naked child or a naked child doll. I hate the fact that even "normal" people are now thinking of the sexual aspects of a photo of a child (or child doll) because of this whole child-porn/pedophile problem!!! The unhealthy thing is to associate sex and children. A naked child should be merely that--to a healthy person--nothing sexual. It's sad, really...!

That background ought to make it LESS of a difficult topic. In Fine Art we do not view unclothed Greek statues as anything "dirty"!!! Feminism means that a woman should theoretically be able to walk down the street naked and not be attacked, and that if men can bare their chests, then it ought to be the same (for equality's sake) for women to do so without all the sexualization of the female breast. It is a part of the body, that is all. It is also something that is important for motherhood. But all the sexualization--that's the old Puritanism --and also this modern problem with child-porn and the internet...

Again--I find it all Very Sad and Unhealthy--associating sex with children and parts of the human body.

Sure, there can be erotic images of dolls. But what's your point??? Why equate a photo of a naked doll with that? Unless you're going to pose your doll in a lascivious manner??? The naked form--dolls or humans--is not in itself sexual or dirty unless the viewer is bringing that to it! OR unless they are obviously meant to be erotic or sexual. But just standing there, doing nothing??? I'm sorry, but that's just not right. Some people may not be able to see the distinction--but I think if one has a healthy view of things, they will be able to see that a standing photo of a doll showing a tattoo is not the same as dolls posed in suggestive positions!!!

Actually, to me, they are "just dolls." They are not capable of sex. They can only be posed "suggestively"--and if people want to do that, it's their business. But, like children, they are truly innocent. What people want to do with them or view them as, may well be far from innocent, but basically they are inanimate objects and if people want to see them as sexual, that's their business (or problem).

Again, this is only a problem with people who are pedophiles. For the rest of us, it shouldn't be corrupting or evil, since we don't have those tendencies. However, in this current climate, it may be that people will wish to err on the side of caution and self-censor themselves. Again--a sad commentary on our society!

See above.

 

With all due respect, I think this topic is being massively overanalyzed and overthought. This is a situation where I find myself saying 'Dude, they're dolls'. You can't browse the marketplace without finding a butt-naked one. And, indeed, that is typical and expected.

There is a vast difference between taking a picture to show a tattoo, a blemish, joints, etc, and a deliberately sexualized photograph. And personally I shudder at attempting to be the morality police for other doll collectors. If you think it's naughty, don't do it. As long as everyone else clearly labels their photos, which most do or they'll be removed, then there shouldn't be a problem.

 

· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
No.
· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
No.

The thing is, it all comes down to the way you personally feel. If someone wants to photograph their Yo in a sexual situation, it doesn't make me feel uneasy or squicked. There are so many different mindsets the person could have had when taking the photo-- the doll may be like Claudia from Interview with the Vampire and be a mature mind stuck in a child's body... or maybe the photographer is someone who actually enjoys sexualizing children. I don't know what the photographer was thinking when they took the photo, and I don't feel like it's something I need to find out. As long as I am not enjoying the image in a way that conflicts with my morals, then there's no reason to be bothered by it. What other people are thinking and feeling is none of my business.

 

Jenny, I found your pictures beautiful and innocent.

This issue is very delicate, in that while, morally, the actuality of "shota" is wrong, but the fantasy of it is supported and even enjoyed.

I suppose I do believe that different people can view the same image differently, whether it's to take it as pornographic or as simply artistic. I suppose it's simply based on the photographer or artist's intentions on whether or not they can be implicated as such.

Obviously, your aim is simply to show off a tattoo, and not in any suggestive manner at all. So, I don't believe you should have any qualms to do so.

Personally, my girl is roughly 15 years old as well. However unready she is for such types of "adult" situations, her sense of style is slightly revealing and more mature. (i.e. low cut shirts and showing her mid-riff). I think anything tastefully done is acceptable, though children in sexual situations disturbs me greatly.

 

The reason why nobody bats an eye when there's a naked doll in the marketplace is because we all know why the dolls are naked - to show that their bodies are intact and aren't damaged or faulty in any way.
When there doesn't seem to be a reason why a doll is naked, or when the reason seems to be to titillate the viewer, or it just seems gratuitous, that is going to make people think more deeply about the subject.
Like I said, I don't care what pictures take of their doll as long as they aren't publicizing them, but when you decide to offer up a picture for public view, you need to be aware of how everyone is going to regard it. Probably some people won't think twice about it, but the fact that a lot of people in this thread have obviously thought pretty deeply about the issue suggests that people just aren't going to go "oh, naked doll, big deal, it's an object" like you do.

 

As I clearly stated that there is a difference between a picture taken to demonstrate a physical trait of a doll and a deliberately sexualized photo, you either didn't read my entire post or have issues reading for comprehension. I don't think the topic requires the level of analysis that it's currently being subjected to. Personally, I find it disrespectful to leave my dolls laying around naked on a day to day basis, not because I find it offensive, but because I *don't* treat them as 'just objects'. However, there comes a point where one has to draw the line between morality and personal preference.

Whether or not one takes naked pictures of their doll which, regardless of whatever traits or personality we may attribute to it, is still an object, is personal preference. Morality is not at issue.