1. It has come to the attention of forum staff that Dollshe Craft has ceased communications with dealers and customers, has failed to provide promised refunds for the excessive waits, and now has wait times surpassing 5 years in some cases. Forum staff are also concerned as there are claims being put forth that Dollshe plans to close down their doll making company. Due to the instability of the company, the lack of communication, the lack of promised refunds, and the wait times now surpassing 5 years, we strongly urge members to research the current state of this company very carefully and thoroughly before deciding to place an order. For more information please see the Dollshe waiting room. Do not assume this cannot happen to you or that your order will be different.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dollshe Craft and all dolls created by Dollshe, including any dolls created under his new or future companies, including Club Coco BJD are now banned from Den of Angels. Dollshe and the sculptor may not advertise his products on this forum. Sales may not be discussed, no news threads may be posted regarding new releases. This ban does not impact any dolls by Dollshe ordered by November 8, 2023. Any dolls ordered after November 8, 2023, regardless of the date the sculpt was released, are banned from this forum as are any dolls released under his new or future companies including but not limited to Club Coco BJD. This ban does not apply to other company dolls cast by Dollshe as part of a casting agreement between him and the actual sculpt or company and those dolls may still be discussed on the forum. Please come to Ask the Moderators if you have any questions.
    Dismiss Notice

The ethics of photographing 'children' in BJDdom

Aug 31, 2007

    1. I know this is a bit OT, but still related:
      Personally, I appreciate warnings on any thread that has nudity of any sort. I do browse DoA on my break time at work, but I can get in trouble for nude photos if someone happens to walk by, even if they are just resin. I eventually just gave up, and now I only browse the discussion and debate threads while at work. It's just sad that I can't view the Games, Marketplace, or Gallery for fear of running across an unlabeled post with nude photos. It has nothing to do with my personal preference, it has to do with workplace policy. As long as it's on breaktime, work has no problem with me checking email or non-work sites, as long as they still fit the "appropriate for work" rules. Naked doll photos are definitely inappropriate for a work environment, though I have no problem with them at home, if they are not sexual in nature.

      As for personal preference, some sexual photos don't bother me... But it IS mostly the "young" or young-looking dolls in sexual situations that I find a bit disturbing. Yes, in reality it's just a piece of plastic. But it's a piece of plastic deliberately designed to look like an underage human, so unfortunately that is how I see it. No, it's not real, but is the emotion conveyed by the photo the same? For me, yes. However, photos of tinies running around naked can seem just like the innocent, non-sexual pics of toddlers who run around refusing to keep their clothes on (most toddlers seem to go through that phase). It's all about the photo context.
       
    2. This discussion makes me think of something that's been brewing in my mind for a while...(which might be slightly ot but relevant, I think, nonethless). There seems to be, in america especially, a very, very strong connection with nudity and sexuality. I watched a nudist family speak on a talk show once and it really opened my eyes to the fact that nudity=sex for most people, when really that shouldn't be the case. A naked picture of a doll, is just that, a naked picture of a doll in the form of a human body... Anyway, just a thought.
       
    3. i tend to not look at the nude dolls because nudity really isn't a part of my life. I will look at my friends' photo shoots though. I really don't want to photgraph my tinies naked nor Sadako as their ages are all underage for that sort of thing.
       
    4. I would personally say it depends on a number of things.

      first and foremost: the intent of the picture. If you are photographing your doll in a generally sexual nature, with no background...then I'd say that isn't ok. Mainly because the only reason you're doing it is just to to take a nude photo. If, however, you are photographing your doll partially nude because she has a tattoo...then that is Ok. You aren't _trying_ to make an overtly sexual picture...you're trying to portray that your doll's character has an attitude and lifestyle that includes tattoos.

      Secondly: I would say is the doll's character. Is this a young person who is based in this century? I have known several people who have their dolls based out ancient times. If this is the case, then 15 was almost an old maid (Renaissance Era). Is this a young person who has an "I don't care" attitude. If so, well, that's the character...not the photographer being irresponsible or un-ethical.

      Finally: I would ask if the nude pictures were even sexual in nature. it's one thing to take a picture of a child who happens to have been caught in an amusing pose....it's another thing to photo something along the lines of Child Porn.

      *shrugs* But those are just my ideas.
       
    5. forgive me as i haven't read through all of the posts on here but here is my standpoint.

      the act of photographing a doll that is "under-aged" in the nude, in itself, is not a problem. it's the intent behind it.

      nude photography of people of any age, if it is done tastefully and shows care for those being depicted, does not upset me in the slightest. we are all born naked and the human body (and resin replications of it) is a gorgeous machine.

      if your intent is sexual arousal, that is another thing entirely. i personally find it distasteful to see under-aged dolls in compromising positions because of what it represents. however if someone wants to explore that part of their own psyche i would MUCH prefer they do so with dolls than with human beings (obviously). it's not illegal. no one is being harmed by it. and so forth.

      a similar discussion came up in a photography class i took in university. a guy in my class had a photograph of his girlfriend (she was 22) in a tub. the piece was accepted for display in the public gallery. it was a GORGEOUS photo. in perfect taste. and more a show of emotional connection and inner vulnerability than anything remotely sexual. however a couple of the viewers thought that she was a young girl (she has a young face and could easily pass for 15) and labeled it not just pornographic, but paedophilic. i believe it says more about those viewing it than the photograph or photographer, but regardless of this, the photo had to be taken down. needless to say, those of us in the art program were livid, but as it was a school in a reasonably conservative area of connecticut, we couldn't really fight it.

      i suppose my point is that it all comes down to intention. and even when those intentions are misread by another person, it is still your right to share your vision of beauty with others. they can choose to view it or not. and if they are offended, that is, quite frankly, their problem. and if someone truly does have strong objections to it, just think of yourself as a pioneer, pushing boundaries and making people think about how they define the world around them.
       
    6. How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
      For me, it depends on which doll it is and the intent.

      With Fleur, who was orginally the same age as me but is now older than me, I'm fine with photographing naked. In fact, by the time I had her for a month, she had already had one nude photoshoot. Since she wasn't supposed to be sexual in it, I had no probelm with taking the pictures. I think her body is beautiful, just as the human form is beautiful. Her body was covered by her hair and she ended up looking innocent, like a fae, which was my intent in the first place. I wanted to explore her magical and mysterious side.

      However, I did try taking a more suggestive nude photoshoot but I rather disliked the resaulting photos. Even though she had more clothing on, she looked uncomfortable and somehow much too young. Some of the pictures actually frightened me because they looked so real. In person you could easily tell she was a doll but in the pictures, because of the angles I had used, the only way you could tell it was a doll was the joints.

      Alwyn, my other 'underage' doll, I don't think I'd be comfortable taking pictures of naked. Unlike Fleur, she's much more mature and proper. Unless she was supposed to be bathing or something, you wouldn't catch her without clothes.

      Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma? I don't think it really would, because I know that they're dolls. When I see very young girls trying to look 'sexy' or 'hot', now that make me squeam.

      Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
      It depends on the image, the doll and the background of the photgraph. Intent is everything. What may be sexual or suggestive to one person may not be for another.

      For exemple, at a fairly recent meetup, I posed Alwyn and one of the other dolls together. Alwyn was supposed to be comforting her. The first time I tried, it looked like they were fighting, which didn't seem right, so instead I put Alwyn on the other doll's lap, making them hug.
      After taking a few pictures, I repositioned them so that they were looking at one another. To me, it looked like they were having a private chat.

      When the owner of the other doll walked over though, she remarked that they looked like they were about to kiss. Only after hearing this did I spot it. I got embaressed so I explained what they were supposed to be doing and she saw it. When my mother saw the picture she made the same remark. Even after I told her that they were only talking and hugging, she still said they looked like they wanted to be doing more than just hugging.

      On another note, one of my planned dolls, Elsie, is a demon cursed to live in the body of a child. Curiously enough, she developes a child-like side who has no idea who she truely is. Becase of this child side and the fact they share a body, Elsie prefers not to dress her real age. At one point she talks to a demon friend who asks her why she bothers doing this. After all, she's the real Elsie and the kid is going to find out anyway. Elsie replys that her child self is innocent, pure and above all, a child. She doesn't want to expose her to the adult world, no matter how difficult it is for her to delay it. I suppose this must reflect my views.

      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'm not sure where I stand on that. I think it depends on what you personally feel and believe. I personally feel that anything we create reflects ourselves, at least in some way, shape or form. But that's simply my opinon.
       
    7. I'm apologizing off the bat for my strong stand on this. But I feel very STRONGLY about this topic....

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

      As a mother of an (real live) 8 year old boy and a 12 year old girl, I find it VERY unsettling. Yes, "toddlers" go through a period of disrobing and yes, it's cute. But they grow out of it. So if my doll is over 4-5 years old, I would not purposefully pose it naked and take photos of it. I would NEVER take a picture of my son or daughter in the nude. I stopped taking pics of them like that after they passed the age of 4 -- maybe even before that.... My 12 year old daughter would absolutely DIE if I even snapped a pic of her unclothed. And........why the heck would I even want to do that?

      So many people are quite adamant that their dolls are "real" to them. But then they take the naked photos and when someone voices their concern about it, they get defensive and say, "well, they're just "dolls"."


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

      Definitely!! It is immoral (and illegal) to take pics of underage children (except for those cute naked baby on a rug/in a tub pics -- and then it's only moral and ethical if those pics are taken by the parents or close relatives/family friends. I mean, you wouldn't want some stranger or simple acquaintance taking pics of your naked child. That would sit very uneasy with me. And you CERTAINLY WOULD NOT be posting those pics on the internet, even if they were totally innocent.) I strongly feel that if your intent is to show a provocative and/or immoral situation with underage "dolls", then you've crossed the line. I get absolutely no titillation out of viewing someone else's naked dollie. I can't separate the fact that they are just "dolls". Again, it goes to intent. But if the pic is erotic/suggestive, then the intent is NOT innocent.

      · Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?

      Yes. I guess because it goes to the heart of what the person is thinking -- their intent. Is their intent just to set up a tastefully artistic photo shoot? Or is it to shock and overwhelm others? Are they looking for attention or are they just doing it for themselves? I mean, obviously, if you're posting those kind of pics on the INTERNET, you're not just doing it for yourself. You WANT someone else to look at it. And when you do post them, is it in an artistic way, or is there some storyline attached that includes rape, crime, promiscuity, abduction, force, sex, torture? Are these pics being taken/posted for the SHOCK value?

      Now, I'm not trying to judge anyone. And I can't even think of an example, because I do NOT look at any of those pics. I purposefully avoid any kind of nude doll photo b/c that is just not my cup of tea. I do find it disturbing, personally. And I find it disturbing that there are so many UNDERAGE girls/boys who are the ones taking and posting those pics. I keep thinking of my 12 year old playing with her dolls. I can't ever imagine her saying, "hey mom, come look at this scene I set up. I'm going to take a pic and post it online for everyone to see. And, oh, by the way, they're all naked and it's very suggestive, but..... they're just dolls". Now, I know sexual exploration is a natural part of growing up.... but in should be explored in a healthy way. I seem to recall my Barbie and Ken getting in some compromising positions, but I knew that it wasn't something I should share with others. I KNEW somehow that it wasn't proper. I don't know, maybe I'm old-fashioned. Maybe it's just because I'm a MOM now. But I find it super disturbing to the max. (And yes, I'm one of "those" people who find porn DISGUSTING! :barf )

      · 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?

      Again, intent.... it's what's in your head and what you are trying to get across to others. Just because they are "just dolls" doesn't mean that all traces of morality and ethics should fly out the window. Just use a little common sense. And our legal system has proven that "just drawings" of fictional children is still "just child pornography". Personally, I don't see the difference between someone rendering a suggestive drawing of a fictional naked child and someone posing their naked doll child in the same suggestive manner. Apples and apples....

      Forgive me, but I have my "mom" hat on right now.........
       
    8. Some of the people taking erotic pics are younger, but a lot of people in the doll community are late teens and up. It's not always easy to tell someone's age on-line, so be wary of generalizing.

      A lot of people mention the intent behind the pictures--I think there's a lot of truth to that. Not all nudity is sexual, for instance (something that is often forgotten in the US where nudity is something to be feared). However, even when nudity is sexual, the intent can differ. Doll folks don't necessarily have the same reaction to a child doll that they would a real human child (not being bothered by erotic material with underaged dolls does not mean they wouldn't be revolted if it were a real child ***I think this is something really important to take into consideration BTW) or a photoshoot might have sexual content, but have a greater point its trying to make rather than just being erotic.

      And for that matter, people can be a bit, well...different about what they find erotic--think of the different roleplays adults sometimes do in the bedroom--the human mind is an strange and many faceted thing with it's definite dark areas. I personally don't see exploring the darker aspects of humanity with dolls as being a problem or unhealthy--actually, it's a pretty safe way to do it.

      And yes, people posting on the net do what others to see, however, there are usually others that do want to see it, and as long as photoshoots are labeled correctly, it shouldn't be an issue. Remember, art can be beautiful, but it can also be disturbing and shocking too.
       
    9. Thought I'd write in on this subject because it interested me, even though my opinion has - to some degree - been said.

      I think it's entirely about the nature of the photography and the character. As a writer/doll owner you know your character/doll; would SHE be uncomfortable showing off that tat? For example, I have a tattoo on my back. I took a topless picture of my back (looking over my shoulder) to show off my tat, and while that might be flirty, it's not what I deem "sexy". But I would never have turned around and posted THOSE pictures.

      I don't find underaged NUDITY to be offensive but I do find any (inc. clothed) sexualized photographs of child dolls to be disturbing. Sometimes there are going to be stories that involve child abuse but I personally don't think that part of a story needs to be photographed. That's my $0.02 and no one has to agree with me. I just don't click.

      That said, I think child or even teenage (doll or otherwise) nudity is just fine in photographs when not taken for sexual purposes. For that matter, I'm okay with someone pushing the envelope of teenage nudity or sexualization if it's to make a point. A photographer I know of did a series of teenage (human) photographs called "At 14" that were intentionally sexualized to emphasize the over-sexualization of the young girls in our culture. I feel that's different than ...porny-ness. I think the intent matters.

      I do think if you're this squicked about it, you should wait until you feel more comfortable. Because you don't have any obligation to push your own buttons and it very well may be your girl telling you something. :)
       
    10. naked dolls don't really bother me, infact i use my BJD's for pose references (preferable to using human models, naked people are embarassing to look at)sometimes for nude sketches (not overtly sexual, just artistcly nude) so if i saw your doll it'd probably be a "meh, cool tatoo" kind of thing.
      if it does make you uncomfortable, one idea is to dress her in loose pants, and have posed holding down the pants just enough to show her tatoo clearly, or apply the same idea to her in her undies (it's a little easier to pose this way). unless she doesn't have any, in which case just make her some ^_^
      but over all, no, i don't think it's much of a big deal unless it's say, a very obvious child doll, like one of the barbie toddlers, or one of the child like bobobie (they strike me as eerily similar to live children) but it's kinda your decision for preference, you doll sounds lovely and interesting and i'd love to see her ^_^
       
    11. I do not feel right photographing underage dolls in compromising or slightly compromising situations, unless its something where she/he vanquishes the evil dude who is trying to be a creep. If there was a story about a different era, like some girls used to get married anywhere from 12 to 15, then i would consider dolls of that age adults in that setting though. Under 14, regardless of era, and 17 if the setting is modern, i'd feel wrong taking pictures of them naked. It just wouldn't feel right, in a sugestive sense i mean. As for artistic nudity i say as above the intent is key.
       
    12. The subject matter, not only the model effects how I react to an image. I am not uncomfortable while looking at nudity in general. Naked doll comparison pictures do not make me uncomfortable. Full nude and partial nude doll photographs - when done tastefully (in the style of old classical paintings) do not bother me.

      When explicit, graphic sexuality enters the picture so to speak - then I feel some disquiet. When it involves depictions of minors in unquestionably pornographic situations I feel disgust and anger. By graphic and explicit sexual situations I mean depictions of minors masterbating, raping/being raped, having graphic and explicit sexual conduct with an adult ect.

      ~*~

      I will agree that it isn't clear how any of these depictions can harm actual children, though some have argued that it is essentially glamorising and advocating abuse. This becomes especially true when minors start to develop their own little pornographic scenarios to the warm welcome of community doll enthusiasts.

      There is no real research that I have found as to whether or not this has any effect on how a person will treat others or themselves. I CAN think of at least two negative scenarios - A minor who is being sexually abused might get the message that what is happening to them isn't a "big deal" since the community is having so much fun depicting similar stories with their dolls, or that the community is desensitised to it and does not move to offer helpful advice or aid to the minor.

      Does this ever happen? I don't know. Is it a possibility? Yes.

      Some people will even say "Not my responsibility. Parents should be watching what their kids (teens included) do on the net." I partially agree with this - but I don't agree with absolute apathy either.

      I think people should have a care, and ask themselves what it is about depictions of child exploitation they like so much.
       
    13. I find myself always questioning myself with this debate. I sometime think its okay and sometimes I get disgusted with myself even thinking it. I guess its cause I just got a girl doll from soul doll and she looks very woman like despite the innocent looking face. Miki from Dream of Doll Zen model never comes across me too much in regards of a child… I sometimes think of him as an adult even though he is a doc. His face sculpt comes across to me as a slightly more mature looking appearance.

      I have actually photographed my dolls naked. I mostly did it for body structure references. I mean you see the dolls naked on the sites they sell them at right? I think if they were in a strange surrounding and execution I would make myself slightly uncomfortable at the thought. I don’t think im so much concerned on the concept, mostly cause I have seen soooo much because im an artist.

      Its kind of a hard way to think about it cause im kind of inbetween and in the middle of it all. Im so neutral with it that I don’t even know the answer. I know I have a line that if it was crossed I would probably ignore it and move on cause it hit a chord. I sometimes think that a romantic child relationship is very wonderful though. I think my line might be around the lines of a very explicit and disturbing shoot, ones that include rape and other such scenes. Sex…. Well… Maybe… as long as it revolved around love and friendship, something light, romantic, soft and supple. But such shoots that incorporate dark topics adults should be doing (fetishes, bondage, kidnapping, etc….) should be meant for those who can handle the topic as well those who would be of an older and apparently older doll like teens and adults.

      In regards to your dilemma… I think the doll and its showing of the tattoo is actually quite a beautiful thing. I think a photo of it would be beautiful. It isn’t damaging the character in any way and is exploiting a child. I think of it as art.
       
    14. For me, the reaction is, as many others have stated, based on the perceived intent of the author. The difference is that I do not necessarily mind child-like figures involved in sexual activity if they're being used symbolically and if the situation is distant enough from reality, whether it's being done for the purpose of silliness or seriousness, and the general awareness level of the person involved (if I know them personally) about their own intentions. If it seems like something that could really happen in real life, my reaction is different than if it's a pure fantasy situation. My reaction also differs depending on whether it's a girl or a boy since it's difficult for me to conceive of girls as Other and treat them as symbols, even in a story. Does this mean I'm going to run off and rape a little boy or want to see one in a sexual situation? I honestly doubt it, if for no other reason than real nudity of anything other than a mature male body makes my skin crawl. I've been exposed enough to child-like representations involved in sexual situations that if apathy about sexual abuse or arousal at the sight of real naked children was going to set in, it would have already. It takes either a lot of conditioning or extremely traumatic situations to change the nature of a person's sexuality or what they find sexually arousing. And we don't just unilaterally accept all media representations that are shoved down our throats without thinking. Our social environment has a much larger impact than what we see on TV or on the internet, especially if you've encountered a real person stuck in a similar situation and seen the effects that violence, abuse, etc. has on actual people and how through them, cycles of violence and abuse get perpetuated.

      I think there are a couple of issues involved. If a person can't distinguish between fantasy and reality, then there is a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed there. There's plenty of ways that one person can hurt another without sexual conduct being involved. Hurling accusations of "pedophile" at perfectly innocent people based on an assumption (i.e. a fantasy) that they are interested in raping or having sex with real children when in fact they have no actual interest in that direction (i.e. reality) is one of them. Personally, I'd fear the self-fulfilling prophecy, which there are documented case studies of, more than a fantasy, which could be working in a lot of different ways, not necessarily as a one-to-one correlation with what's going on in the work.

      Also, the person would have to lack empathy and compassion. Society tends to foster these characteristics in women and tries to stamp them out of men. If you can relate to another person and their pain, you're far less likely to go around inflicting it on them, unless there are other problems there that need to be addressed.

      The other thing that people seem to be forgetting is that rape has little to do with sexual intent. I have read many books on this, I have had long interactions with victims of abuse and sometimes even perpetrators of abuse. Most rape occurs in a domestic or intimate context in response to a perceived offense or insult. It is a way of attacking and hurting another person. This is something that needs so badly to be understood and still isn't. You're far far far less likely to get raped if you dress like a "slut" than if you get into a relationship with an authoritarian man who has strict ideas about gendered differences and behavior. People need to start focusing on the facts about rape and violence and not just making assumptions, jumping to conclusions, or believing that the media representations accurately mimic the reality. If you care about this issue, as all of you claim to, then go and get yourself informed on the subject.

      And more importantly than that, sitting around on the internet trying to figure out what constitutes "correct" or "incorrect" behavior is a waste of time and energy. If you actually care about helping real children, if you're actually disgusted by abuse against children, then there are plenty of understaffed, underfunded organizations that could use your time and money. Moreover, if we want to get at the root of the problem, then we need to focus not on media representations, but on the way that real children are socialized, which unquestionably has an effect on how they treat other people as they grow older. I strongly recommend reading C.J. Pascoe's "Dude, You're a F*g."

      People who go online and start railing against pedophiles disgust me. You want to do something to help people, stop ranting on your blog and get out into the streets. Otherwise, you're just using it as a way of making yourself feel like a better person when in fact you're just acting lazy and full of yourself. People complain about apathy, but what are you yourself doing to help others or change the world? Stop focusing so much on the actions of others and start looking at yourself instead. What can you do? How can you help? The main reason I've actually bothered with this post is in the vain hope that my words might actually have an impact on one of you out there and you might actually be inspired to do something. Put your money where your mouth is. Don't just say you think something is bad or wrong, go out and do something about it. And I mean in the real world among real people. If a kid doesn't like how he's being treated online, he can sign off. Real children cannot sign off from their house or their parents or other people close to them.
       
    15. I didn't find Hans Bellmer pictures to be like: "Bellmer's work in particular has sparked some fairly heated discussions on the line between sexually loaded images of objects and all-out pornographic material" at all.

      I found them more disturbing (something close to Silent Hill type of art) than sexual. I'd like to call that adult/mature art wich many people would never understand anyway. Still Hans Bellmer acomplished what he wanted as an artist, be mentioned by people talking about his art and the way of showing his pictures wich many people will never acomplish in the first place even trying. I wanted to point that out because I actually do like his ideas (oh and I am a woman myself, I don't feel offended with that).

      I agree.

      But since everybody is talking about "general" naked underage child looking dolls then I have to understand that a picture (as example) of a little doll taking a bubble bath with her/his little rubber duck would be disgusting as well right? After all she/he would be naked... I can tell many people would say things like: "awww she/he looks just adorable with her little toy in the bath" ...Right?

      I personally don't have a problem with all this. It is the way people show their pictures to others and as an artist you should be creating what you like as long as you understand what that means and in many cases it's consecuenses, even if it's twisted and gross for other people. There are always extreme situations but as far as I am concerned I didn't yet see a picture of an underage naked doll that gave me the creeps or shocked me in the first place so for now I can't tell If I would be disgusted. Knowing myself I would just not comment and ignore it, I leave the moral issues to the person who is doing such things.
       
    16. This "over the top"- political correctness bothers me... don't get me wrong... I detest child-abuse... but we are talking about dolls... I don't know why people get offended so easily... for me they are fantasy-creatures and a piece of art... even if they are "real" to me, I don't see them as human...
      When it comes to art, there's nothing that offends me... in fact I love offensive art... a lot of my art is quite bloody and has gore in it...

      But since I see how people tend to react on these issues, I would lable all my pictures correctly and post "might-be" offensive stuff on ControversialDoll... just to be on the "safe side"...
      But a simple picture, showing a tattoo you made for your doll... I see absolutly nothing wrong with it :)

      I don't get why nudity per se is seen as something sexual... maybe it's because I'm from Europe and was raised very open-minded... :roll:
       
    17. Without reading any of the comments to this post except the most recent (so forgive me if I'm repeating anything..), all I'm going to say is...

      Some people can tell the difference between real and not real. If you can't tell the difference, well, that's your problem.

      For example, I can come out of a horror movie going "Wow! That was awesome! Wasn't the part when the guy got his head cut off with a chainsaw totally cool!?" But that doesn't mean I would actually think a guy in real live life getting his head cut off with a chainsaw would be, at all, cool.
      There are books and movies and comics coming out all the time that deal with dark things, but I fail to believe the authors or artists are glorifying these things. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but.. some people just want to tell a story. If you can't separate reality from fantasy..... well.....
       
    18. My main concern is really for people 18 and younger who are being introduced to this hobby and in some cases the darker side of it.

      There has been a few threads on the subject of how the doll community effects it's members behavior. It has ranged from buying a doll because it's popular, perpetuating bad spending habits, company prejudice and encouraging negative behavior like lying - for the purpose of gain.

      People are driven for the need to belong. They can be influenced very easily to see negative things as something desirable - especially if it's become trendy.

      The majority may rule but they are not always right.

      This also extends to child abuse in general. It is about power.

      A child can not fight back, may not understand what is happening and even if a child seems "willing" and seems to enjoy it - studies have shown that the experience will have negatively effected them psychologically as they grow up.

      This is why I ask - why is there a facination with depicting children and minors in these situations? Is it the absolute power of the perpetrator that's attractive - or is it the absolute powerlessness of the child?

      Trying to figure out the best way to protect minors is useful no matter how you do it. Getting involved is a good thing whether you're doing it online or off.

      There has been a yearly increase of sexual predators online - basically they are given access to children/minors they wouldn't normally have and are able to lure them out. Therefore - yes trying to understand the impact the internet has on predators and minors is important and you can make a difference online.

      Do I think popularising scenarios of child exploitation through dolls will negatively impact minors involved in the hobby? Yes.

      Younger people are still developing their wisdom and their sense of sexuality. Many studies (particularly done by the Kaiser Family Foundation) show that teenagers sexuality is influenced by their peers, family and the media (tv, video games, music and more recently, the internet).

      When I consider those studies - it is easy to conclude that teens may also be influenced by what they see in the doll community.

      Does that mean I think someone who invents these graphic child exploitation scenes with their dolls is going to go out and prey on actual children? No.
      Do I believe that they are intentionally trying to harm anyone? No.
      Do I believe people can monitor how everything they take in effects them? No. Many of the effects happen on a subconscious level.

      "Children, especially adolescents, are often curious about sexuality and sexually explicit material. They may be moving away from the total control of parents and seeking to establish new relationships outside their family. This being the case, some children and adolescents actively seek out sexually explicit materials and strangers with an particular interest in them. Sex offenders targeting children will use and exploit these tendencies. Young teens may also be attracted to and lured by online offenders closer to their age who, although not technically child molesters, may be dangerous. "

      The potential for a predator to use this hobby as a means of accessing a minor - especially through a supposed "doll" meet is also a possibility.

      Online predators are successful because they are manipulative and take their time, often becoming a "friend" first. When the victim realises what is actually going on it is usually too late.

      ~*~

      The law recognises that there can be artistic merit to material which seems to be obscene and has no intellectual or aesthetic value.

      But when these depictions become a hobby in and of itself - When you're exposing minors to it or encouraging them to produce similar material - and even telling them not to be offended by it - you are infact having an impact.
       
    19. I don't take "naked" as a problem.
      Fairyland takes a lot of photos of naked pukis.
      I think they are really cute.
      Yet, any photo looks like pornographic might offend me, no matter what "age" of dolls.
       

    20. But do you censor everything you create because a child might see it? I don't think that's right. I think that people should properly label their photoshoots/stories, and obviously as a forum with younger members DoA has specific rules in place anyway. However, there is no gaurantee that someone who shouldn't be viewing a particular story won't no matter where you put it up. At some point the artist has to be able to do what they need to do and not have to carry the entire burden of responsability for who views their work. I'm not saying people should just post anything they want everywhere they want without warnings and the like, but after awhile it becomes extremely frustrating.

      I don't see most doll folks encouraging minors to make adult material. I see doll people who want the freedom to be able to tell the stories they want to tell even if they're graphic. I see doll people who enjoy said graphic stories. But I don't see any kind of attempt to rope others into it.

      I'm not against having safe places for minors (and I agree that there is some material that is just not appropriate for kids), however, there needs to be room for other kinds of adult expression too.