The ethics of photographing 'children' in BJDdom

Sweetiepie, it is illegal for 15 year olds to get tattooed- didn't you know?!! J/K

 

To me it's not even an age question, I don't like to see sexual/too revealing pictures of dolls, that's it, it sort of taints the whole experience somehow... I don't have an issue with seeing naked dolls, or seeing photos of doll romance (with some nudity) that's fine and it can be really beautiful, the most important thing is that there are many many many ways to show nudity without being vulgar, it's all really a question of good taste If you have such concerns I'm sure the photo would be fine.

 

Yes! This statement strikes a cord in me. It is very sad that child nudity has become so pornographic lately. Before you could find so many cute calendar pictures and other publictions of cute little kids wandering around, poking out their little rears as if it were nothing, and people found it sweet and innocent. Now someone would glance at it and have the artist arrested. It's so depressing.

You see, I have an adult Delf with a bambicrony for a daughter. I had always wanted to photograph him in the bath tub with her giving her a bath, for the sake of a cute father-daughter moment. I know, however, that there is no way in the world I could post that without somebody getting the wrong idea and marking me as some pedophilic child doll photographer.

Let the children have their innocence back!!

 

Americans in particular have gone WAAY over the edge on this. Did anyone notice that they have put PANTS on the Kool-Aid Pitcher? He's a CARTOON, for heavens sake!! And the darling little Coppertone suntan girl, whose doggie is pulling her pants down in the rear so you could see her little bum--not anymore, she is wearing panties and the dog is hardly tugging at all, just enough to see a bit of a suntan line.

TOO MANY people are screaming about the dumbest things, and because they are screaming, out cuture is slowly changing into a culture of prudes. We will be back in Victorian times before you know it.

 

I personally don't want to see images of minis in a sexual situation. Naked dolls in a non-sexual manner, whatever.
Mini-dolls, regardless of their character age, are for the most part, sculpted to look like children, and seeing them in a sexual situation is what I find "squicky". While some can get away with it as they are more mature figured, the rest I'd rather avoid.
I don't really like viewing that type of stuff to begin with but, that's me.

Also, with my own collection I don't think I'd want to, well Elfrida is only 5 and still innocent and unaware, so she'd be fine, but Raleigh is 12 and therefore aware that you wear clothes and cover yourself, and is beginning to become aware of girls. While five year olds may be nonchalant about being "in the nip" I think it'd be a different case with older characters. *my personal interpretation*

I won't condemn people for taking those kinds [sexualized situations only] of pictures, but I know I'll be sure to avoid it myself. Nekkie dolls in a non-sexual manner, well that's fine.

 

As many said, it's in the context. If it's just a shot of the doll's butt, I don't see it as very much different from the many other naked arrival pictures or naked marketplace pictures.

If it's to be done in a 'photostory' style, then again, it's the context of the photostory now. A lot of kids go naked in an entirely innocent manner that need not have anything to do with sex. So if it's a non-sexual picture, I don't see what's wrong. But, if you're taking a picture of a young-looking doll revealing it's tattoo in a sexual way, kinda like 'oh, see, sexy tattoo, come tap this ass', then I would be squicked. Context. Very muchly important.

 

I have a mini who I have photographed naked. I have no issue with pictures of naked children provided tehy are tasteful.

Unfortunately there are a lot of pictures on DoA and other doll communities where the photographer may not have intended for their pictures to look innapropriate, but they do (either because of the stagind of the photo, or the text or story associated with it.)

I also think that- even with art in other media and fandoms- we have to be aware that there are pedophiles out there, and we do have to be careful. We do not want to attract there people to ourselves, and I belevie that protecting the innocence of real children can be greatly helped by vigilance on the internet as a whole.

 

Unfortunately, when people start trying to protect the innocence of children in terms of the internet/media etc., suddenly everything over PG13 or anything that can possibly be taken the wrong way or seen as offensive, becomes a target. Just to make things clear--I don't mean just DoA, which obviously has a specific set of rules regarding posting photos, but the internet as a whole. It seems like a number of sites have begun going after artists and doll folks (often for very arbitrary things), and the trend worries me. It's not that I don't care about protecting kids, but there needs to be a balance between getting rid of the real creeps and protecting the rights of artists.

Real pedophiles and child pornographers need to be stopped, but there's a difference between actual child pornographers and people taking pics of dolls or drawing pictures. I understand why people get squicked out by questionable underage dollie content, but do realize that people don't all respond to dolls or drawings (especially very stylized ones) the same way they would a photo of a real human child. One does not equal the other.

 

I would never say that one does equal the other! What I was saying was more a general comment on why people are perhaps more careful than usual when dealing with this kind of thing on the internet.

I think the fact that this IS the internet makes a huge difference. In a real life art gallery nakedness is treated with less suspicion (at least in the pictures- not if you walk in naked, obviously....) becuase people can see you and see how you behave their. Online, all viewers are hidden completely, and anonimity breeds suspicion, and also (in those already inclined to act badly) a feeling of being able to act without consiquence.

 

I agree with what you're saying here. I've just had a lot of frustration over posting artwork and feeling a little attacked over some of my viewing preferences (not on DoA, specifically). Unfortunately, there are some people who really can't tell the difference between art involving no real children, and actual child pornography, and some people in the USA are so puritanical it frightens me.

 

Great post. This is what I was getting at before, only I stopped responding due to another poster getting rude. As I said before, I don't think dolls equal humans and I don't care what pictures someone takes if it's just for themselves to take, look at with their friends, etc. I'm not interested in being the morality police for doll owners either.

But everyone needs to realize that the minute these things go on the Internet, a wide variety of people with a lot of different perspectives are going to look at them. You have to be cognizant not just of how the photo will look to "doll people", many of whom might say "it's just dolls" but rather to the world at large who might stumble into a community and not "understand" or be able to dismiss it so readily. The Internet tends to breed suspicion, and also there are people on the Internet who like to term themselves enforcers for whatever reason and find new arenas in which to "enforce" (law enforcement people might try to advance their careers by finding a whole new group of people to go after, as has happened before in other Internet arenas), so it's something one needs to be aware of when taking the step of putting a picture on public Internet display.

So you've really got two separate questions going on here:
1) should the picture even be taken - and it seems that most people think that is up to the individual owner and don't really care to get involved in that
and
2) should the picture, once taken, be displayed on the Internet - and here is where you have to be concerned for community mores, differing tastes, and in general, "how is this going to look?"

 

As a culture the USA has a hard time dealing with any suggestion of sex. I would venture that in some other countries/cultures, they may be more relaxed about sex, but get overexcited about certain other subjects such as political symbols.

 

Intention, intention, intention. As these are dolls that we are photographing, they have no real age & therefore can't truly be compared to photos of underage people. In fact, unless their age is specifically mentioned in a caption or photostory, we have no idea of what it may be. Also, this is fantasy art & things that may be nasty in real life are quite permitable in it. It's self expression & not all of our dreams are sweetness & light.

That said, if it's being done only to shock or outrage, perhaps the artist might take another look at it & see if it's really neccessary. If it's part of a photostory or character developement then personally I have no problem with it. A 15 year old doll showing off a tattoo on her butt is really no big thing. It would probably bother me more if the doll was meant to represent a young child.

Also there are huge cultural differences in what is acceptable around the world. In America it seems that almost any image of a young teen or child even partially nude is taken as some sort of sexual portrayal. Yet in other cultures partial nudity of both children & adults is seen as the norm. So where is the photo set? What does the artist mean to portray? Too often conclusions are assumed that have nothng to do with the artist's intent. We can't police the reactions of everyone to the image nor should we have to. Perhaps it's time to stop assuming that most folks are some sort of pervert & allow an artist the freedom to express themselves.

Sure, some images are meant to be overly violent or explicitly sexual & may have no place on a board like this where younger people are but simple nudes of dolls of whatever imagined age should be permissable & not assumed to be other than what they most likely are...beautiful photos of beautiful dolls.

 

I am worried about all these 15 year old dolls running out and getting tattoos underaged :P No artist worth their salt would tattoo a human being under the adult age for their country of residence!

I don't really care. I personally think sexualizing dolls to an extent where it's serious (as in, more than omg-topless guys and omg-couples "kissing") is not on, so I don't look at it in the slightest. 4 out of 5 dolls feel the same, although Syd has turned into something interesting by dint of the way her body just seems to WORK...still, flashing what's under your skirt accidentally at people IRL is different from me plopping you down and taking photos in the altogether.

If you don't feel comfy, don't do it, lol. If you want to show off the tat, think about how she'd do it and do that. My fifteen year old doll wouldn't do that, but it's not in her character to get a tat OR show skin, much less both, haha. Either way, I wouldn't worry. There will be someone who loves it, and someone who hates it, no matter what you do, so just do it if you want!

 

I'm going to respond in a more general way, a more broad way, so I hope this sounds reasonable. It's a subject that comes up a lot on Flickr, actually, so if you are on that photo sharing site and ever skip on Flickrcentral, which is one of the larger groups, you will see people discusing if it is "ok" to post pictures of their children on the internet. And this is a hot topic, believe me. And this is WITH clothes on, which makes me shake my head, thinking, what has the world come to.

To me... as long as the photos are done well, I would say that taking pictures of underaged dolls is fine. Art is art. I think as long as you put warning labels on your photos so that people that don't want to see the shots can avoid them... then we are all good.

I find it very sad how people are afraid of self-expression and even more sad of others wanting to stop people from expressing themselves. I think if you present your work in a non-sexual way, you are fine. It's art. And if you warn people, then ok. Why feel uncomfortable?

There is a very famous photographer named Sally Mann (most of her work was in the last 30 years of the 20th century) that did beautiful work with children and teens. It's very contraversal stuff, but it is was never intended as porn, exploitive or anything other than art.

Hopefully I didn't miss the point of this. Sometimes I do.

 

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

So long as it's not sexual, I have no problem with it.

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

I find the only time I have problems is when people assume that MSD dolls or my LJ are meant to be children, when in my mind, I see them as adults... So I have a moral case in "I know these are overage but no one else does and... The mold can look childish and " and I get worked up and eventually don't post.

· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?

If they're on ConDoll and labelled appropriately, I have no problem with it because I won't be viewing it.

 

Umm. She says in the original posting that this 15-year-old girl is in the circus!
I don't know any of these folks personally, but I'd hazard a guess that carny tattooists are not famous for operating within the same strictures as the rest of society-- which is people always want to run off & join the circus.

I personally don't think that a 15-year-old girl with a tattooed bum has to be necessarily presented sexually. If your photo doesn't present her sexually, then just put a 'slight nudity' or 'bare butt' warning on your thread. If people happen to find it sexy, leave them to fight their own demons in their heads.

But if your photo DOES want to handle things in a way that more people would construe as erotic or provocative: you're better off posting it to an 18+ forum, like Controversialdoll. Tattooed kiesters are vanilla there.

Re the OP's questions: I have no problem photographing any of my dolls naked. But I feel uncomfortable looking at pictures of other people's underaged dolls in sexual situations (esp. 60/40), because it's not my thing. I think that Coppertone ad used to give me the creeps even when I was 7 years old myself, so I'm not surprised to hear that pedos have always loved it (it is a relic from another age). But I DO agree that too many people overreact regarding depictions of children, clothed or unclothed-- it's a shame people have such constant fear nowadays. I think it's an even worse shame that artists censor themselves preemptively in case they're fingered & prosecuted for thought-crimes they commit. And overarching all, I think...

... right, I think that there is a proper place & audience for everything. If you put it in the right place and label it properly, you'll attract those who want to see it, and repel those who don't want to see it. Amen.

 

I am very liberal when it comes to sexual things - I believe as long as you don't hurt others everything is ok :3 And a doll won't get hurt if you make it have sex with another doll, no matter if it's a YoSD or a Hound.
However, I wouldn't look at the images because yes, it disturbs me. Personally I don't like shota or that kind of things, but if other people want to take sexual photos of their 7 year old dolls - please do so. It's your dolls.