The ethics of photographing 'children' in BJDdom

This issue can be taken several ways. First...as a moral issue. As a moral issue, there are certain things that are accepted by the majority of people to be morally wrong, such as using pictures of children in a way that would be sexual or violent. Since we're talking about dolls, this can now be said to be an art form, in which case a lot more leeway is granted by the moral majority. Especially when this is then taken one step further from reality by putting it into a fantasy/cosplay/rpg plane.

My opinion is that anything crossing into sexual or violent nudity should be labled as such so that a person can decide whether or not they want to view it.

As far as non-sexual nudity, such as just showing how cute the doll is, or a body art mod on a doll...let's not be silly or prudish about things. They are dolls. Look at the overly developed and unrealistic Barbie dolls ( ).

Children normally take the clothes off Barbies as soon as they get them. They are objects. BJD dolls are different because they can be so many different things to us...a character, an extension of our own personality, an art form, a child, a fantasy creature. We are all here because we love not only dolls, but this unique form of doll. I don't think seeing a resin hiney with a artsy tatoo on it even qualfiies as a PG-13. Besides, when we first recieve the dolls, they are nude...a blank canvas waiting to be made into an "entity". These dolls almost transcend catagorization.

 

Your concern is well-founded. But it must be dealt with reasonably. For people under 18 who are being introduced into this hobby, if they're going to places where the Darker Side is permitted-- those are 18+ sites, which make you declare your age, so the responsibility here actually does go to the parents. This isn't apathy; the artists who post on sites like ControversialDoll, which is a safe haven for adult material, aren't responsible for other people's gaps in parental attention.

Anyone whose child is getting into such an insanely expensive and high-end hobby had better be supervising the computer closely to begin with. The hobby requires a lot of online interaction, international e-commerce, foreign websites, and random people's personal websites-- in addition to exposing children to discussions about debt/lying/greed/etc., the negatives that northern_raven mentions above.

That's not even counting the possibility of stumbling on real nudity or kink, like when you accidentally veer into the Hentai Toys For Guys world..... Heaven help any teen girl who wants to read a nice Unoa article, and accidentally clicks to buy an issue of Idoloid. Those things are not always limited to 18+ forums. If you can shop from Yahoo Japan, you can accidentally wind up with a copy of that disturbing magazine, and I've seen plenty of minors who know how to work Yahoo Japan. So watch your computer, watch your kids' purchases, and get nosy with your kids' viewing history.

Parents of BJD-collector minors should also be having 'dialogues' with the child about the things they're seeing online, too. This is an adult hobby, and they will be encountering a lot of people who play with dolls in an adult manner-- and I don't necessarily mean nudity/sex/gore/etc. Even PG-rated artwork can be 'adult' in a way that a child just won't grasp, even a precocious child.

Thank you, Taco, I was about to say I don't see much coercion going on either. I see a lot of bare-baby-butts and tattoo-shots and artsy-nudes, but not a lot of blatant encouragement to come to the Dark Side. In fact, people are so terrified of being labelled a pedophile that the Shota/Lolita subforums, on 18+ ConDoll, are often fairly empty... nobody wants to even risk having their artistic intent be misunderstood. (With good reason.) There is as urgent a need for adult-safe places on the internet as there is for child-safe places.

DOA happens to be a pretty tame/safe forum. If your BJD-collector child is going to other, adult-only (18+) forums, and if they ARE talking to people who encourage them to make dollypr0n... you need to crank up the security-level on your copy of NetNanny. (Even better, you need to stay home some nights & watch over your kid's shoulder.)

Also thank you nadiaff for your supremely eloquent semirant/semiessay.

 

Really sorry, I kind of waded through half of this thread and tried to focus on what it was supposed to be about. But this quote from the OP just keeps getting stuck in my mind and leaving me thinking what the f.. udge

Um seriously , I have way more issues with the fact that this character is 15 and tattooed... on her backside. If that isn't sexualizing a child character I don't know what is. Tattoos are permanent marks, they're adult territory. I don't know about other places, but here you can't even get one until you are 18. What is a 15 year old doing with one on her bum. Obviously in order to have gotten a tattoo there the character must have dropped her trousers and exposed herself to some one else.

Sorry the whole question is leaving me feeling highly confused, it's like saying oh hey my 12 year old character has pierced nipples, but I kind of feel uncomfortable about photographing them because I feel it's weird. Again I am still caught up in this and thinking what the frick.

 

I'm so glad that my stance has opened discussion on some of the things that I've personally been worried about.

Just so that I'm not misinterpretted, I'm not talking about depictions of general nudity, general sexuality between adult characters, gore/violence between adult characters and other adult themes using adult characters.

I am talking about materials which are about children and minors depicted in graphicly/explicit violent/ sexual senarios with each other and between an adult character and a child.
Scenes which show sexual intercourse between an adult and a child, photographs of adult characters explicitly molesting child dolls, forced sexual encounters between minors/children by an adult doll - that sort of thing.

I can understand how the subject can be overlooked if the story is intrigueing. It happens in everyday media - in even the most popular movies.
For me personally it crosses a boundary when it involves children no matter what the medium.

I have encountered unlabled examples of this accidentally a few times.
I have read threads where this subject has been discussed and those who were concerned were told that it isn't a "big deal" and that they were "over reacting". While I may never create stories involving child exploitation, I have been tempted not to express my concerns just so I could fit in with the community. I may not be the only one who has experienced this or felt this.

 

I had been assuming that it was more like a tribal tattoo or something of the like. In some cultures it's normal for children to have tattoos, scarification, piercings, etc (usually during puberty or as a rite of passage to adulthood, but sometimes during childhood as well). That context it's quite different to going to a tattoo parlor and dropping your knickers. XD

It's not my character, so I can't say what the context is for the tattoos. Just thought I'd post my own 2 cents...

 

There are going to be a few that don't put up warnings, but there are also a lot of people who do. Not puting up warnings is a whole nother issue with good net etiquette and doesn't rest only with people who have shota and loli shoots. The same could be applied to violence, gore, graphic sex between adults etc etc etc.

I don't expect everyone to like shota/loli, and I understand why people can be very put off by it. But the issue of whether or not it's a "big deal"...well, that depends on what you see as a big deal. I don't have the issues with it that you have. I see it as adult oriented and not appropriate for kids and something that can offend so warnings are necessary. However, it is fantasy and not reality. It has no bearing on reality at all. I realize that you don't agree, but bear with me here. How would you expect people to react? To be concerned to the extent that this kind of material is no longer allowed to be posted in whatever doll communities (DoA is a moot point, obviously)? For artists to be afraid to post their work and self-censor even more? Even on 18+ sites? For concerned folks to peer pressure artists into not creating shota/loli content? I already see and feel a great deal of pressure to censor myself in this area.

Saying this isn't such a big issue doesn't mean anyone else has to like it, create it, or look at it. It means that artists have the freedom to post that kind of content if they choose to. It means seeing the difference between fantasy and reality--two things that don't necessarily have a whole lot in common. This isn't to say there aren't any issues at all--there are some--proper labeling of stories and what's appropriate in a mixed age forum are the two that instantly spring to mind. However, they are the same kinds of issues that can come up with any kind of mature content.

Most people, I think, are not going to argue with you over it being not-child friendly material, so that leaves the adults. I would hope that adults can choose not to look (the back button is a beautiful thing) and be able to tell the difference between what makes them uncomfortable and what are truly issues.

 

IMO, I'd rather have someone taking photos of dolls, than actual kids. Nude dolls, even in sexual situations, don't really offend me, because to me they're just ... dolls (heresy on this website, I know!). However, I am also well aware that many persons use this as "progression" en route to full-fledged pedophila with actual living children, so being a moral/ethical wimp, I'd have to say, I don't know...it depends on the photos, and whether there's a trend being seen in them (i.e. do they become more & more sadistic/masochistic? More overtly sexual or perverted in content? What other elements are creeping in? Are they being used to bait kids online?).

 

Actually, yes people have been arrested for things like that. One man had his children taken away from him, in fact. Nowadays anything that 'could be percieved as sexual' IS sexual in the eyes of the law. Personally, I have no issue with innocent pictures, and just the fact that your doll was naked wouldnt matter. We see naked dolls all the time in for sale threads and just about every time a doll is released we ask for nude body photos.

Why? the dolls are art to the people who collect them. More sometimes, but they are at a minimum art. The tattoos, no matter where they may be are simply an addition to your canvas, the canvas being the doll. Regardless of age or personality, taking a picture for the purpose of showcasing your art is not a crime nor should it be viewed as such.

When it gets to things like dressing child dolls how most parents let their little kids run around in the summer, in a bikini when they go swimming that is naught but fabric triangles and string, or in miniskirts and tube tops, then it becomes a bit irksome. Deliberately sexual pictures featuring nudity or intercourse with underaged subjects is also a bit risque, and personally I would watch that, whatever your degree of photo, if it features a nude or skimpily dressed underaged doll, you only take digital photos, and never distribute them.

The people that WERE caught were 'found out' because they took family photos to be developed and the workers there called the police. While it's true that these are 'just dolls', those were 'just' family pictures, of children rolling 'round on grandma's bed deviantly while pajamas were wrangled onto her, (which I did a lot as a kid. Never wanted to go to bed ) or of children hopping around in a sprinkler in summer. I am sure doll photos of nude dolls that were underaged could float someone's boat down the wrong river, and just the ability to do so is now persecutable by law.

 

Apples and explosions these days make people hot and bothered. Just about ANYTHING can, really. I mean, there are sites dedicated to guro because there's such a large fetishbase for it. anything that could be perceived as sexual is a lousy way of doing things, and just doesn't cut it. Then again, we don't have a justice system. We just have a legal system. :B

It's so sad that today nudity = sexuality. It really isn't. Maybe I've been desensitized, or liberalized, but I have no problem with looking at pictures of naked people. I was on a swim team for a while, and showering with other women (who did it naked) was embarrassing until I learned that this is how we were made. Gawking at that lovely figure across the hall for a few seconds does not mean I'm ogling her breasts. I'm appreciating her swimmer's figure. Naked children are even LESS shocking when I see them naked. Maybe because I was always muddy and dirty, and so I was always getting bathed, running through sprinkles, hated clothes, etc. I love little kids, and I view them akin to those little cherubs, which are the epitome of innocence in my eyes.

Then again, I like a bit of shota here and there (nothing too young, though). I like the adult/child relationship (mentors are very important to me) more than a sexualized version, but my opinion may still be biased.

What bothers me, is that I can't show my work to many more than a few people if I want to have shota-themed pictures. I KNOW there's more than a few people who like it as much as I do. Maybe they're just sitting on a chair. Maybe it's more of a "brotherly" love. Even if I want to share an emotional bond, I will still probably have to label it as shota, and since people get offended by it, I can't even LINK to it.

In a world of political correctness, fear plagues our daily activities and what we can enjoy.

 

I have to say, I find a little kid in a bikini or "revealing" clothing a lot more creepy than a little kid running naked around the beach. Something like a string bikini implies that there's something "exciting" underneath and... well... what underneath a little kid's bikini is only exciting if you get excited by what I will judgementally call the wrong things.

Of course, it depends on age, a naked infant or toddler in the bath or at the beach is REALLY different from a naked 7 or 8 year old photographed in the same situations. Obviously I'm talking about very little kids. Though I still find an 8 year old in a bikini or "sexy" clothes a bit... gross. I think kids who don't even understand what sex is, and what sexual urges are and who haven't even begun to discover their own sexuality don't see those clothes as sexual and don't understand the bad connotations, but it appalls me that adults market them! Once a child starts to begin the uh... "journey to sexual maturity" and starts going through puberty, I can understand why they might experiment with "sexy" clothes. Not that I think 13 year olds dressing sexually is A-OK but I understand that they are trying to explore this baffling new part of themselves, and I'm sure we all did it- even if it was limited to stuffing toilet paper in our shirts and putting on makeup in our own homes or whatever. ; )

But at age 2, 4, 6, 8? It's unnatural, and a bit creepy.

I know this is a big off topic, but I think in some ways dressing young children provocatively does a lot more damage than taking photos of them running naked through the sprinkler or whatever. I think the same thing can apply to dolls- I know there was a bit of outrage over a leather lingerie set for Narsha over on one of the subforums, and I think this very much relates to that. : /

 

With my opinion, I'm not going to go into what is appropriate on whichever forum--I'm just going to speak in terms of general art. Nevermind legality, either, this is just my honest opinion, plain and simple. I'll start by answering the given questions, and then elaborate.

I'm also going to say I in NO way support child porn, but I have no issues with loli and shota--it hurts no one.

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

I have no 'underage' dolls, and currently no plans to have dolls that are truly underage--only one who IS intended to look like a child, and have a child body despite being much older. Though I honestly think in a way this line of thinking applies to her, because of the fact she's quite definitely meant to BE a 14 year old girl in every way except her true chronological age. That said, however, I have no issues with it--I would photograph her, or a truly 'underage' doll naked simply because these dolls' forms are beautiful. I would likely not photograph a doll whose character was 'underage' in a sexual way without VERY good reason, however. With the aforementioned underage-looking doll, though, I would likely have no qualms except for a minor squick because of the slight realism the dolls DO have.

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

No, especially when said dolls have not be photographed in a sexual way.

· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?

Not terribly. They are NOT real children, no matter how much they look like it--and many dolls that can be 'underage' can also be 'legal age'. What changes it is merely what they are labeled as. And I'm not one to put down another person's kinks unless they're hurting someone. And this, just like drawn loli and shota, is not hurting anyone.

· 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?

Well, while I feel a great amount of love and respect for my doll, and even the one I haven't received yet, they are just dolls in the end. I would never do anything with them out of character, because that WOULD bother me. However, if anything 'in character' was morally questionable... I would not be too bothered by doing it. I'd be far more bothered by how it would be taken, really.

I'm not sure if I've quite hit the subject of the debate... I might've digressed a bit. ^^; So sorry if I did. v_v;

 

Goodness I know. I hate when people dress their children in 'sexy' things as if they are trophies or something. It especially disgusts me because people in my family do it. I have a 4 year old cousin whose mother dresses her in a string bikini thats very very risque even if the wearer were an adult when we go to PUBLIC POOLS.

I suppose somehow because there is 'nothing to show off' that people shouldn't get aroused, even though they are tempting fate, and that if people do think wrongly or even so much dare as to point out the nature of the child's dress THEY ARE A PEDOPHILE FOR NOTICING

Sorry, a bit OT there But really, I suppose child dolls don't bother me nearly as much as real children in compromising situations. Sorry to say, but nobody can rape a doll. Nobody can harm it against it's will because it doesn't have a will. At the end of the day no matter how cool your character is, your character is, once again returning to the art example, paint on a canvas. And the canvas is an inanimate object.
Just like shota and loli don't hurt anybody, niether does child dolly porn. Disturbing? Yes. But not harmful. Personally I'd have nothing to do with it.

Tinies that are very baby like, I have seen pics of them playing with bubbles in a 'bath' and they are cute- not erotic. However if they somehow were deliberately made erotic, I think maybe you should take the pics to condoll or your livejournal.. Not everyone wants to see that... Very few I'd hope.

 

I think it's all in how it's portrayed. If it is in an artistic and not overly sexual way there should be nothing wrong with it. BJDs are very beautiful, and their sculpt should be appreciated with an artistic outlook, even though some people may disagree on what is art what is porn. Again, it depends on the picture...

 

In child porn,there is a victim. There is ALWAYS a victim, child brain-washed and willing or not.
In photographing a molded piece of resin, there is no victim. It is an object. It is not real. It does not have feelings. It cannot be eternally traumatized.

Though our pictures may excite some pervert, I'd rather them look at the dolls than at the child porn. If there is a smaller demand for the child porn, there might because less of it, and consequently, less child victims. It's just a theory, but plausible.

I wish photobucket and the US government would understand this. .__.

 

Hmn, I think that if you just showing a tattoo, it's not really showing her off in a sexualized way or anything. If you go to a doll site, you'll see they often will post a picture of the naked doll, to show what the body looks like. If your not confortable with it, then you shouldn't, and could possible draw a picture in paint or something to show what it looks like. =] Then you could show what it is, but with out showing the doll.

I must say though, I've seen alot of 'It's a doll' things, but some people think they're dolls as children of theirs...anyway, back on topic...

I think it's wrong to post underaged ones in anything sexual. I think underage hugs, or maybe a kiss would be okay, but nothing like sex or nudity with another.

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
I don't have an underage one, but I have opinons on it. I think it depends how the nakedness is being used, to show something or the body, such as a tattoo in this case, is OK. I think that if it's done to show pornograpy or anything of the like, it is not right at all. If it was a real child, I'd prolly feel more affected, because I just would...(this also goes to the next qustion*

· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma? Depends how it's being used *Again* If some one was posting body blushing, or any thing like a tattoo they or someone gave their doll, it's fine. If it's used for something else....It prolly would.

· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
I don't really look for them, but if I were to see one, I prolly would say something. I DO think it's worse with real kids, much worse, but still wrong with both.

· 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 at all. I look at my girl *and now boy..er...head* as kids. They're both over 18, but I still see them as kids of mine. They're age is part of who they all, and what they do.

That's my quick 2 cents, sorry it's not better...As said, quick 2 cents.

 

well... a lot of teens are already having sex... so why not some doll-character? you can see it as a kind of story-telling... for example: romeo and juliet were also underaged...

 

I guess this is another point- the difference between underaged-and-16 and underaged-and-6. There are probably a lot of dolls that have mature bodies (say, a CP girl or an SD13 boy or what have you) but who are aged at 16, 17 years old. I guess the thing is that it doesn't look like a child to the eyes, so unless you know that particular character is under 18, it looks like an adult. While a MSD with an SD will always look like an adult and child situation, or a Yo SD will always look like a very young child (even if their character is aged over 18).

To me (and I'm taking about dolls here, not actual teenagers), if the body looks mature it probably wouldn't bother me that the character is younger- because it looks like an adult (and if I'm flipping through the gallery I probably don't know that their character is 16 or 20 or what). But if it's an immature body, regardless of what age the character actually is, it almost always looks like a child to me. For example, a lot of people have minis that are older characters and may look more adult in grown up style clothing, etc... but if that mini has an immature body, and the body is shown in the photoshoot, it still looks like a young person.

I also think that you can tell Photobucket that your MSD or Little Junior or whatever is actully 20 years old or is a 400 year old elf or etc etc... but so long as it looks like a naked child to them, they'll consider it inappropriate and class it with child pornography.

 

That's true, It's something very common at my school. But what I mean, is that I think it's wrong to post it. Because techinicly, if it's under 18, it's concidered rape *I'm sorry, this sentace seemed to come off hard, It's not susposed to at all*
Romeo and Juliet were also in the time when that was common, and sometimes even set up. *that may of accualy been later...* But you have a very good point!~

 

If just being under 18 shouldn't be posted, because it's rape, then a lot of dramas would be taken off TV. Someone over 18 with a minor (we'll assume teenager here) can be considered statutory rape, but two teenagers? And remember...this is fiction we're talking about here. Not real people.

Also, since we're discussing doll photos--there are no victims, there is no crime. It might make you uncomfortable, but that's hardly a criminal offense. When I go to put up doll photos, artwork or fiction, I'm happy to warn people of any material that could be considered offensive so they can choose not to look at it. However, it is not my job as an artist to never create or share work that could offend. Infact, if I put up a warning, and someone looks anyway I have very little patience listening to them whine and complain. Afterall, I did warn them! (I had this happen on numerous occasions with my comic, which by the way, was not shota but was explicit.).

If someone comes across something on the net involving the abuse of real children I would sincerely hope they would contact the police. However, when we're talking about art that involves no real people, we don't need the morality police ready to accuse artists of crimes against humanity. Who gets to decide what's morally ok enough (art wise) to be on the net? You? Me? Bob down the street? The Photobucket people? It's better to go after the real criminals who are harming real live people and leave the artists alone.

 

This is definately a very tough topic......but......IMHO:
I don't think that photographing anything that looks human and looks underage in sexual way is 'art' or morally acceptable. Painting that kind of thing isn't right either. It's exploiting the most vulnerable members of society, however you look at it.
Sexualised images of young dolls could encourage paedophillic tendencies, so I don't agree with them, regardless of whether you slap an 18+ stamp on it or not, that just encourages those kinds of people to look at it in the first place.
If you are photographing a doll to show their blushing, or body art, that's fine as long as it's not photographed in a sexual way.
There's little point in saying it's acceptable because they are dolls, as it was pointed out in the first post images featuring dolls can be just as controversial as those featuring real children, not least because of the kind of behavior it encourages.
Children are innocent beings and to display them as sex objects is morally unacceptable, regardless of wether it is a painting, a drawing a photo of a real child or a doll child.

Sorry for typing so much,
Sarah.