The ethics of photographing 'children' in BJDdom

Actually, there is a point. The point being that doll child doesn't equal real child. Your statement comes with the assumption that people who take sexy pics of underage dolls are also attracted to real kids. Guess what, that's not really the case. Dolls and drawings/paintings (particularly non realistic ones) are very removed from reality just by the nature of the style and medium. That is unless real kids come with ball joints or look like anime characters. It's very possible to like shota and loli but be repulsed by actual child porn. There is a very big difference between the two.

Whether or not some one with pedophilic (is that a real word?) tendencies is affected by dolly photos--who knows. Like everything, it probably depends on the individual. Do pedophiles like to browse dolly photos--who knows. But at what point should art work (and just because you don't like it, or because it's contraversial doesn't make it not art) be censored because someone who shouldn't be looking at it might see it? That's not such an easy question to awnser, especially since as individuals, people see things differently.

Healthy individuals that can tell the difference between fantasy and reality shouldn't be adversely affected by doll shota/loli--they'll either like it and look at it, or not like it and avoid it. They aren't going to suddenly turn into child molesters. If there were suddenly a ban on all things that could set an unhealthy person off, then you'd be banning a heck of a lot more than underage doll pics. And if looking at various forms of media were all it took to make individuals become pedophiles, violent, sociopathic, etc. then there'd be a whole heck of a lot more screwed up people in the world than there are right now--especially when you're talking about the 18+ crowd that are more likely to have a well developed world view, morality, and system of beliefs than a child. (which is why there are things that are considered ok for adults to see and not children). There would need to be a lot of deeper things going such as past trauma or serious psychological issues for someone to become a pedophile.

 

Paedophiles don't care what they see, as long as it looks like a kid, it's enough to turn them on.
There IS NOT a big gap between loli, Shota and real life child abuse. It still depicts the sexual abuse of young children, and that is something that I strongly disagree with.
Yes, there are many contributing factors that make someone carry out child abuse, but why encourage it with those kinds of images? Exposure to those images is NOT healthy, if you get turned on by little kids whats to say you wont take that one small step and actually molest/rape one?
Why would a moral 18+ year old enjoy looking at people having sex with little kids? Our society values children and anyone who harms them is displaying deviant behaviours. What is to be gained from sexualising children? If it turns someone on then I'd say that they were mentally ill, however harsh that may sound; supplying such a person with media of this kind only encourages them to offend, which is why I am opposed to all forms of media that shows images of children in a sexualised way. How much does it take for someone who likes that sort of thing to make the step from fantasy and pictures to reality and raping/molesting a REAL child with REAL feelings?


Sarah.

 

How big a step??? That's a pretty big step. Do you ever watch violent movies or TV? If you do, has it caused you to actually kill someone? Or at least seriously contemplate it? Does watching violent movies/tv/art automatically make you a mentally ill person? Probably not. Why? Because it's a very big step between seeing an image or creating an image and playing out that scenerio in real life. Real life--where real people have real feelings and can be really effected negatively for their entire lives. This is opposed to not real life--the world of fantasy--where someone may not be repulsed by a contraversial image because they know that it isn't real, there are no real feelings or lives to be damaged. People who like shota/loli probably have varying reasons for doing so, and it's not my place to speak for all of them, but don't assume it's because they find real flesh and blood kids attractive (I sure don't).

For people who really do have a problem, all kinds of things can set them off. Do you want to be the one to decided how to sanitize all of the media and all art to stop a hypothetical crazy person from acting on an image? When you start censoring others, you also leave the door open for people to censor what you do (that's why I feel so strongly about this issue). What sets them off isn't going to just be the things you have a problem with.

As for supplying certain individuals with harmful material--the doll shota/loli is intended for doll folks who like shota/loli, not pedophiles. Just as people with porn magazines aren't trying to supply material specifically to rapists. Just as people making horror films aren't supplying material to potential murderers. But it doesn't mean that such people can 100% control what their readers/viewers do. No one can, and to attempt that kind of control would make a pretty bleak paranoia filled world.

Oh, I just wanted to throw in that I personally don't think you have the ability to determine whether or not someone is mentally ill--not if all you're basing it on is doll pics on the internet. Be very careful of judging people you know absolutely nothing about. I know it can be tempting, but just don't go there.

I can completely understand why you or someone else would be put off by shota/loli. I really do, however, I also really think there is more to consider with this issue than just a pedophile might see it or I personally don't like it and it goes against the great moral majority. Our society does value children (as it should). It also values human life in general, but that doesn't stop violence in the media. It supposedly values freedom and human rights, but...well, that's a topic for another time and place. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

 

Fair enough, you can't sanitize eveything, but I think that media that exploits children has no place in this world, I work with children and thus this is a topic that is close to my heart. It sickens me to think that someone could view the kids that I work with as objects from which they can derive sexual pleasure, there is no place in the world for media that even SUGGESTS child abuse. I know I have some pretty strong views, but I feel very strongly about this issue as both a Christian and a person who cares for young children.
I do believe that people who are attracted to children are mentally ill and need help, I don't wish to crucify them, they need help to put an end to their deviant behavior and if they do not want this help then it is probably safer for them to be put in prison.
Taco, I appreciate your views but I honestly cannot see why images of child abuse of any kind should be avaliable to the public, children are vulnerable individuals and they need protecting from adult issues so why encourage people to involve them in sex through this so-called 'art'?
Photographing young dolls in a sexual way is something that is riddled with moral issues and is something that I view as taboo, I think it is a real shame that there are people out there who are willing to abuse children to get gratification whether they are dolls or not. I'd honestly be just as horrified to see photos of a child doll posed in a sexual way as I would if it were a real child, not least because of the larger problem that the image suggests. For someone to think that a child would willingly have sex they clearly have no experience with children at all (which is probably a good thing if they see them as sexual objects) Children are untainted individuals who generally don't even know about sex and so to 'explain' an image of a child doll that is sexual as being due to the doll's character is ridiculous, children simply aren't like that.
I'm sorry if I went a little off topic, but I believe that there is a much bigger picture to all of this.

Sarah.

 

If you think that it's a mental illness, then I don't know that doll photography has anything to do with it. I don't consider pedophilia to be a "catching" disease, it's the same thing as saying someone might become schizophrenic after watching movies featuring schizophrenic characters or after reading the autobiography of a person with schizophrenia. It just... doesn't happen. If you're talking about fueling people who are already pedophiles, then similarly I don't know that looking at drawings or photos of dolls or, heck, even honest-to-goodness child pornography will necessarily cause that person to go and do anything in real life that their internal fantasies wouldn't already push them toward. That also takes the blame off the person involved ("The pictures I look at made me do it!") which I think is a dangerous thing to actually accept. I think any pedophile who is otherwise more or less sane knows exactly what they're doing and how bad it is and that they want it, etc. A photo might titillate them but going and acting on the impulses they feel is something they do knowingly, and I don't think any amount of outside media will REALLY change whether a person does or does not act.

I know this is probably becoming more off topic, but I just find the idea that a photograph can take the blame for the actions of a deranged and mentally ill person, people who despite the mental illness are still usually very aware of what they're doing, to be a terrible one that takes the blame from where it really lies (the pedophile) and places it somewhere baffling (a doll photographer). Don't make pedophiles into innocent martyrs here. By the same token, I will say I have a kind of... respect? for someone who actually seeks help for a problem like that instead of acting on it, especially since it's such a moral issue and unlike something like depression, it can cause the person to be VERY persecuted (and with reason).

 

I didn't say it was a contagious disease....that would have been a dumb statement.
But think about it, if there is nothing wrong with these people then why don't we all commit paedophillia? There has to be something wrong, be it past trauma or them developing a taste for it throught exposure to the media showing it.
I'm not trying to suggest that they are innocent martyrs, but I don't want to say they are evil either. I believe that there is something that makes them behave in a deviant manner, which is why I suggested mental illness. Mental problems may not always be the case, but these people are clearly not normal members of society, however you slice it.
It would be naive to blame this behaviour on one photograph, but supplying such images doesn't exactly help to correct their deviant behaviour, if anything it encourages them to fullfill their fantasies.


Sarah.

 

Ok...stop for a minute and think. The problem is that you see little to no difference in photographing an underage doll or an underage child (if I misread you, then I apologize). To you they have the same meaning and lead to the same end. The problem, is that it's not the way it works. From my own perspective--I don't see a child doll as I do a human child (the same goes for drawings, but since this is about dolls...). I don't feel the same way about a child doll as a human child. The reason for this is that the child doll is so far removed from reality. It is child like, but doesn't really look like a real human child.

In real life pedophilia is a terrible thing. Children are not physically or mentally ready for sexual relationships. That kind of abuse leaves terrible scars, and there are no happy endingss. But that is real life with a real child. A photoshoot/photostory involving an underage doll in a sexual situation doesn't have to have that outcome, it doesn't have to stay true to life. You said is was ridiculous to have a child doll character that was sexual by nature, because real kids aren't like that. However, you missed the fact that not everybody's characters are realistic. The vast majority of people know the difference between the reality and the storytelling and it's not going to encourage bad behavior in anyone that hasn't already gone down that path--and even then, I doubt that whether or not a doll photoshoot exists on the web is going to ultimately change the behavior of a seriously sick individual who is not wanting to seek help. I'm also not sure that a true pedophile would see the difference in an artistic photo to show off body blushing and an intentionally erotic photo, either.

You don't have to like it, or approve of it. But you do need to understand the difference between photos of a doll and photos of a real child. Two different things, two different outcomes. Not understanding the difference leads to making very very serious and damaging assumptions about artists. I see in your posts that you seem to refer to artists who create shota/loli material and actual pedophiles interchangably--that is not only inaccurate, but it can lead to problems for people who are innocent law abiding citizens. There are real monsters out there, but you're pointing a finger at the wrong people.

 

No offence, but I DO think that people who write/read shota/loli are paedophiles.....why else would a kid having sex turn them on?
I do know the difference between dolls and children, but the child doll is being used to REPRESENT a child otherwise why would it look like a child. Such a doll posed erotically is sending out the same message and serves the same purpose as shota/loli/photos of child abuse.


Sarah.

(When I use the term paedophile I am not necessarily refering to someone who HAS raped/molested a child, but I AM refering to someone who has fantasies/sexual feelings directed towards children.)

 

How do you know? How, in the great wide world, could you possibly know what other people think? Are you psychic? Are you in their heads?? What makes you think you have the right to even claim to know how other people think or feel?

Who here said there was nothing wrong with it?? Nobody has said they see nothing wrong with abusing a child.

No offense, but I DO think you need to learn the difference between fantasy and reality.

 

sailorstarsun- no offence, but I DO know the difference between fantasy and reality.
My comment about 'if there is nothing wrong with these people' was in reference to an earlier comment I made about paedophillia as a mental issue.
As for what you said about me being 'psychic' you don't NEED to be psychic to know that paedophiles get turned on by little kids, that's what makes them paedophiles.
Please try and understand what I post better BEFORE you make comments on it.


Sarah.

 

What you said was "Paedophiles don't care what they see, as long as it looks like a kid, it's enough to turn them on." So I'm asking, how do you know a doll would have the same effect on them as a real LIVE LIVING HUMAN NOT PLASTIC child? You indicated you know what they care about looking at. So I ask, how do you know what they think and feel? How do you know they "don't care what they see?"

 

Paedophiles get turned on by PICTURES on paper....so why not a doll? If it is sculpted to resemble a child and it is posed in a sexual way, that's what they LIKE. An image allows a paedophile to create a fantasy,the doll allows them to construct a fantasy or scenario inside their head involving a REAL child.
I might not be psychic, but deviance is something that I have conducted research into. I have perfectly good common sense and can see the bigger picture, there's more to photographing child dolls than just the image it creates.



Sarah.

 

How do you know? Have you personally interviewed every single paedophile out there??

You're making obdurate generalizations about a few and assuming it applies to everyone of that mentality. You're saying paedophiles get aroused by anything even remotely resembling a child, even if it's a picture or a doll. According to that line of thinking, it would then follow that those who aren't paedophiles, like you and me, would be turned on by anything even remotely resembling an adult. But I'll tell you what, despite what you may think you know, an adult doll does not have the same affect on me as a real live person does. I may think they're gorgeous, but they don't arouse me.

 

If people don't get aroused by pictures, then why do a lot of paedophiles download kiddie porn? It's not to make a desktop background.....
I'm NOT generalising, of course I haven't interviewed every single paedophile, but MANY studies have been conducted into their deviant behaviour.
You are REALLY failing to understand what I am saying . I am stating the OBVIOUS here, of course paedophiles get aroused by kiddie porn, that's why they download it.....
Sure not every paedophile is the same, but many of them express the same patterns of deviant behaviours. It's terribly off topic to be debating the behaviour of paedophiles, especially as it seems to be bothering you SO much. You are utterly MISUNDERSTANDING what I have been saying, so please try and read it more thoroughly until you DO understand, or don't post.


Sarah.

 

Where did I say they don't?

I think you're the one missing my point. I never said paedophiles don't get aroused by child pornography. I'm asking how can you claim to know they all get off on doll porn?
All I've been asking this whole time is what gives you the right or authority to say "Paedophiles don't care what they see, as long as it looks like a kid, it's enough to turn them on." That IS a very generalized statement, directly quoting you. You said, in that statement and others, that if a paedophile sees a picture of a doll, they're going to get aroused by it. For sure. One-hundred percent. But how do you know they're not going to just say "oh... it's a doll... no thanks, I prefer living things?" You are claiming to know for absolute sure that dolls will turn them on, when you don't actually have any way of knowing what they think or feel.

 

Because most people don't react the same way to a stylized drawing of a child or a photo of a child doll. You assume that they do, that no one perceives a difference. That's the problem you have. I am telling you, and other people will tell you (and have told you), that people perceive a very big difference. Just because you don't bother to distinguish the two, doesn't mean that most people don't. Pedophiles are sexually aroused by real flesh and blood children. If a person is not sexually aroused by real flesh and blood children, then they are not a pedophile.

People can like shota/loli but not be aroused by real children and be absolutely repulsed by the idea of real child porn (you know, pics of real kids--ones not made of resin and strung with elastic). That is what you can't seem to wrap your head around. But until you do, you're going to be spending a lot of time completely misunderstanding others and looking for problems where there aren't any. I can't think of any way to state this more simply than I already have. You can choose not to believe me, but it would behoove you to admit to yourself that you aren't a mind reader and that your assumptions may be wrong.

Let's put it another way--what about couples who roleplay in the bedroom? By your standards every couple who likes to roleplay student and teacher or act out a rape fantasy would suddenly be pedophiles and rapists in real life. It might not be my thing, and it may not be your thing, but it isn't criminal and it...is...not...real Many things you will see and read are...not...real. They do not reflect real life, they are not meant to reflect real life, they do not reflect the real life of the artist, and you really need to realize that.

 

You really aren't understanding this, are you?
Of course, not all paedophiles get aroused by images of dolls, but they DO all get aroused by images of children. Images of child dolls posed in a sexual way provides a visual basis for a mental fantasy if they see such and image it is very easy for them to visualise the same scenario but with a REAL child THAT is what I was getting at, the idea that all paedophiles have at least a BASIC imagination.....
It's a shame that you've misunderstood what I've been saying.....
Taco- you are going WAY overboard. I DO understand the difference between dolls and real children, but if you are finding children (in any form) sexually attractive there is something VERY wrong with you. It's called deviancy and our society frowns upon it. Sure it's not all harmful but paedophillia CERTAINLY IS
It is pretty obvious that not everyone who takes sexualised child doll photos LIVES a similar lifestyle, but it suggests that it IS their fantasy. People with child based sex-fantasies ARE what we call paedophiles.
You can not comment on 'MY' standards, as you have no idea what they are, unless (par chance) you are a mind reader?
Roleplaying is non harmful (DUH) unless there is a minor or a person who didn't consent involved. THAT is MY standard.
Anyone who fantasises about molesting/raping innocent kids IS a paedophile whether you choose to believe it or not. Just because they haven't offended doesn't mean they aren't deviant, they have the tendencies within them.



Sarah.

 

Am I the only one seeing a contradiction here?

Dolls have little to do with a paedophile's imagination. In the end, they're not getting aroused by the doll, they're getting aroused by the image of a real child, regardless of where that image came from. They are not all getting off on pictures of dolls. What you're saying, that the doll is providing "a visual basis for a mental fantasy," is that they're not fantasizing about the doll, they're fantasizing about a child. .... Which is not a doll. Right?

Now if I say I like to watch horror movies, are you going to make the generalization that I, and anyone who likes horror movies, am secretly fantasizing about going on a kiling spree? That I'm going to use my "basic imagination" to "visualize the same scenerio" but with me as the killer?

 

Okay, it's obvious this debate is getting very out of hand and I'd like to just try and cool the water here. Basically comments are getting far too personal and it's probably a good idea of people give it a rest for a bit (my sister included) I wouldn't want anyone to feel as if someone was lashing out at them personally.
My sister and I are both people who work with children and, naturally, we are very protective of them in all respects (I'm not saying that no one else values children, of course they do) so we, ourselves, find children being sexualized a very disturbing thing. We haven't got blurred divisions between fantasy and reality, we merely tend to view things in a very big way, especially topics we feel strongly about.
I, personally, am someone who views a doll as something more akin to a representation than an object, it's not that I don't understand that a doll is not a child, it's that I see the doll as the image of a child, so seeing them being sexualized disturbs me. I believe my sister feels the same way.
The point, about paedophiles, that my sister was making was that they (and other kinds of serial offenders) build fantasies to suit them, often incorporating things they see into them. Take the example a serial killer (another example of deviant behaviour), usually, they begin with something they find attractive (be it children, shoes, women or young men) and form a fantasy around that. The formation of the fantasy usually includes use of pornographic material including their fixation and, eventually, they come up with the 'final scene' which they 'act out' with their victims, chiselling it towards 'perfection' as they go.
The point above is not suggesting that viewing porn makes people into serial killers, as that's blatantly not true. It is merely there to highlight the power of images in the formation of fantasies (which is something my sister was trying to get at). Paedophiles, rapists and serial killers (and other types of people) form fantasies and those are fine, providing they don't act them out (that is when something becomes criminal), and of course, one sexualized image won't turn them into killers/rapists etc, but when people crave such images (as these offenders generally do) and seek them out actively, that is when it starts to have an impact.
I'm not, for a moment, suggesting that paedophile's actively look for sexualized images of dolls, but when they do stumble across them then they can use them in their fantasy building. That is what worries me, the idea that someone could get hold of an image and it could contribute to a crime at a later date.
Of course, normal people do not commit such crimes, but anyone who fantasizes about children or other such similarly defenceless things (such as animals, disabled people and non-consentual partners) would probably do best to seek help just to make sure things won't get out of hand.
Please do not think that I am suggesting one little thing turns people into killers or paedophiles etc, I am talking about people who are already 'damaged' coming across these images, not normal people such as myself (who has no desire to sexualize any doll) seeing them and becoming an offender overnight, that simply doesn't happen.
In short, I guess that I could sum up mine and my sister's problem with sexualized child-doll images as being a somewhat unhealthy fixation that an offender could easily utilize for their own pleasure and that certainly wouldn't help such people stay away from criminal activity.

Sophie.

If you think I am making a point suggesting that anyone can suddenly become a killer or rapist, please read through my post again and try a different tone with it as the problem with written communication is that it doesn't put across certain aspects of speech that can be big indicators of what the actual point is.

 

Sailorstarsun- you misunderstand. Only people who have some kind of mental problem form criminal fantasies, that has to be stressed. Not everyone who watches a horror film is a serial killer, that would be stupid. The 'sick' people are those who form a fantasy around that.
On the 'they aren't getting aroused by the doll' point, they may not be, but the image was utilized in the formation of the fantasy, the scenario was changed to suit them. My problem is that, although the doll may not be included in the eventual fantasy or indeed (in the worst case) crime, it has still contributed to the illness of an aleady sick individual.
Please note that I said 'already sick' as normal, healthy minded people do not commit crimes against, or have fantasies involving, children.
On the apparent contradiction- my sister was not getting at the idea that all paedophiles become aroused by dolls, but, if you read the posts in context, that offenders use images to make a fantasy which they may eventually carry out. It is not about whether or not the original picture was of a doll or a real child, but it is about what the paedophile's mind shapes it to be. Of course, paedophiles do not see a perfectly mundane picture and include it in their fantasies, but sexualized images are presumably quite easily incorporated.

Sophie.