The ethics of photographing 'children' in BJDdom

This is a very touchy subject indeed... (Also excuse me if I type something that has been said before, I haven't read the entire thread...)

It all kinda depends on where the pictures are going. You can never stop perverted minds from thinking... So if a doll looks young, you might want to think twice before putting the picture online. Unless of course you have, say your own site or something. (What I mean is, is your doll's story and all on the site. Does it say the doll's age more speciffically.) You have to remember, in today's society there are young ladies who maybe 18 but they look 14 or something. And these girls go and pose for magazines and stuff. I personally believe that is wrong, its almost as if they are leading people on.

But what you do it your own bussiness.

Also I'm sorry if not everything I said makes sense... I tend to have a hard time getting my point across. Please don't hurt me!

 

Hmmmm...when you say that someone who likes loli/shota is a deviant and needs help, because things could get out of hand it ignores the fact that that person who likes shota/loli also thinks that sexualizing real kids is very very icky. Not a turn on, not something they would even have the desire to do. I'm not talking about having a desire, but trying not to act on it--I mean not having that desire at all. There is nothing there to get out of hand. Zip, zero, zilch, nada. That's what I'm saying, and that's what frustrates me about this conversation. That's what I mean when I say there's a difference. Obviously you realize that a resin doll isn't just like a real child. It's that someone can want to look at one and be completely repulsed by the other--that's where the difference is, and what you seem not to fully grasp otherwise you wouldn't be calling doll photographers pedophiles.

Whether or not a pedophile would be turned on by a pic of an underage doll, I can't say. I'm sure that there is someone out there that would be. People are different, some might, some might not *shrug* I'm not sure how likely someone would be to stumble across something like that by accident. I'm sure it's possible--occasionally people do, but to display something of that nature usually takes a host site that's set up for adult type material. They're usually 18+ and require people to sign up--someone would have to go looking. A person's more likely to accidently stumble across innocent photos showing off body blushing, tatoos, or sculpt than anything truly risque. Again, it's possible, but in all my dolly web wanderings, I've rarely just come upon something of that nature. It goes back to the question -- how much do you censor your work, because someone might see it that shouldn't. You seem to see it as very necessary, I see it as potential artistic death, because there's always going to be someone who shouldn't see something.

You're last post better illustrated where you are coming from, and I do understand your concerns. And while I don't share all of them or agree with some of your views, it's not necessarily a bad thing that when faced with a contraversial bit of doll art that people do take the time to think about it. But there comes a time when people have to keep themselves from making assumptions based out of fear.

One of the reasons I've been arguing so hard about this particular topic isn't just a matter of underage doll pics--it's about a general censorship of art--especially art of an adult nature. Over the past few years I've noticed more and more crack downs over material that could be deemed immoral or not child safe--Photobucket deleting innocent pics of naked dolls, LJ banning users for posting erotic drawings where a character looks underage (notice I said looks undera age and not is under age). These things happen more and more. When it comes to censorship, it can be handled one of two ways:
1. As long as it's not actually breaking any laws, it's ok. or--
2. Censor anything that could be construed as obscene or immoral.

Number two is where the problems begin arising. What is immoral? What makes something obscene? What is truly a danger and what is just someone's weird fantasy (and lots of people have those)? Where does fantasy leave off and reality start? It's a big responsibility to take that on. To be able to handle these questions and apply rules and laws fairly and a lot of people fail at that.

I'll admit, some of what you posted are the sorts of things that are scary to me. Why? Because the idea that the artist is automatically a perpetrator can lead to baaaad things. It can cause harrassement of the artist, it's the kind of thing that leads to site becoming more and more restricted and paranoid about content, and worse. What happens when those artists, law abiding people who would never harm a real child, suddenly get accused of being criminals? I'm not saying that you personally, would do those things, but there are people that will. After all, there's people out there deleting naked doll comparison photos from Photobucket. Protecting kids is important. Very important, but like all things, somethings can go too far until you have a witchhunt on your hands.

There are a lot of arguments people can use against underage doll pics. Who might see them, probably being one of the stronger arguments. But this idea that photographing underage dolls means that there is an attraction to real children too, that's what doesn't hold up and what is actually offensive. That will do actual harm to innocent people.

 

I think the argument that a photo of an underaged doll will cause a pedophile to fantasize about a real child in the same situation is a bit of an odd one. Whether or not they've seen a picture of something, people can fantasize about things on their own. I'm sure that, scary as it sounds, there are loads of people who have never seen child porn (or child-doll porn or what have you) but still have fantasies about performing sexual acts with children, and in some cases act on those fantasies. All on their own.

Also, by arguing that they can mentally replace the doll in the photo with a real child... well, can't they do that with any picture then? A photo of an adult in a pornographic magazine, some people may look at that and visualie a child in that situation. Or see a clothed picture of a child and visualize the same picture but the child is naked, etc etc. If you're going to say that a doll photo can become a trigger for a fantasy involving a human child, then I think photos of other things that have aspects of what they like (even if it's just a photo of a kid) can become a fantasy trigger just the same. So what, do we outlaw any picture of children? : /

I can see what you're saying, I just think that using the argument that one thing can make a person fantasize about another thing, replacing something in the original with something they want to think about more... well, that can apply to SO many things, you know?

Also, in response to your sister's response to my last post: Of course it's a mental illness, it's a disease of the mind. But if you're going to say that, then that's what it is. It's a disease that's already there, thoughts and attractions that are already there. I don't think looking at pictures is going to significantly alter behaviours- pedophilia has existed throughout history, before cameras were invented for certain, and before printing and paper were cheap enough for pornographic images to be easy to come by and widely distributed. There are also lots of cases of things like priests having sexual contact with minors in their churches (just to use one commonly known example, I'm not going to get into religion bashing here, but these have been in the news quite a lot), but as far as I'm aware none or... perhaps very few of those people have actually been found in possession of child pornography. And they were clearly capable of acting on their fantasies and committing the crimes (in some cases many, many times with many children).

As a side note, I think it might be good for your sister and yourself to create separate accounts, a lot of people don't realize that they are talking/arguing with two different people on the same account, even with the name signatures. It gets confusing. ^^;

 

I kinda understand where you guys (skwerlie and Taco) are coming from and I'm glad that this hasn't heated up any more. It's just that children are very precious to me and it bothers me that they are portrayed in a sexual way. Every Wednesday afternoon I work with little three to five year olds and the idea that anyone could abuse them just makes me sick. Every Wednesday I spend time with the sweetest children imaginable, so it's hard for me to understand why sexualizing a child (or anything resembling a child) is acceptable....they're just so innocent...it really bothers me that anyone could think of them in a sexual way.
I know not everyone who photographs sexualized child dolls/reads loli/shota is a dangerous paedophile, but I don't think it's wise to put stuff like that out there....the kind of people it attracts.....they aren't all paedophiles but I don't doubt that they're out there.
Maybe I'm just being over-protective, but I would sooner die than see a child harmed. This, for me, is a very emotional subject and it's something I feel very strongly about. Children are the most vunerable members of society and I think they need to be protected on as many fronts as possible.
May I also pose a question to aid my understanding? I grasp most of this, but there is one slightly awkward question I need to ask. I hope that no one takes offence at this, but, I am probably the most innocent minded sixteen year old out there. Excuse my phrasing but; do people take sexualized pictures of child-dolls because it turns them on?
Once again, forgive my phrasing, but I don't understand why someone would want to take a sexualized picture of a child doll and I would really like to know why. Please don't take offence, but my phrasing of this kind of difficult question is not good.

Sophie.

 

I think it really depends on the person who takes the photo to be honest. For some, I'm sure it does turn them on. For others, it may be part of a character's traumatic backstory that they feel like illustrating. For yet others, it may just be a desire to produce "shocking" work". And again others might just find exploring taboo subjects interesting, or find child sexuality interesting though not erotic to themselves.

Personally, I don't take nudes or erotic photos of my dolls. I admit that it would creep me out, because I do see them as children, and I would feel... well, maybe not bad for them because they are just dolls and don't have feelings, but... well, it wouldn't make me feel particularly *good* to do it and I have to interest in seeing them in that way, and I do find the whole idea.... very unappealing, to myself. But at the same time, I don't think that it's wrong for another person to take those kinds of photos if they're so inclined. As many have said the actual photographing of the dolls is a victimless "crime" (if even that-I don't remember where obscenity laws lie now in regards to portrayals of fictional children), and I personally don't believe that seeing such a photograph would spur a pedophile to do anything that he/she wouldn't have done on the strength of his or her own fantasies and desires. I'm really wary of censorship in general, and while I understand certain types of censorship (i.e. making some materials over 18 only, or keeping certain content off of daytime or primetime television) I disagree with anything that seeks not to restrict access to but to totally eliminate some forms of artistic expression (I'm talking about art here, not actual child porn, which I find abhorrent).

 

I don't want to see real children harmed either, and I suspect that no one in this thread does either

As skwerlie said, people's reasons for taking different pictures vary--there are many reasons why someone might choose to photograph an underage doll that way, many ways to portray that kind of theme, many different lines that people are willing or unwilling to cross as the case may be. It strikes me as not unusual to want to explore taboo subjects, and art is a safe way to do that. With so many story tellers around, it can also be part of a character's backstory that needs to be told to better understand that character.

I only have one child doll, and I do not and would not photograph her in a sexual manner. Amongst my dolls there are two different types of characters: Ones that are very much like real people and act and react like a real person in our world would. Then I have some that are a little more like the kinds of folks you might find in manga, anime or a fantasy story--they aren't quite like real people. My child doll falls into the like real people category, so photographing her in that way would personaly creep me out--not only is it not fitting for her character (and having my dolls do things out of character bugs me), but she's not removed enough from the real world. So I guess sometimes it also depends on the individual doll, character, and story as much as anything else.

 

If I were more into sensual art and photography I'd probably get alot of flak. I in no way have a thing for children, but I think petite and androgynous individuals are pretty cute. So my character might be 4'10", AA cup, some 30 years old, but everyone would be screaming pedophile, probably. So it's just a good thing for me I'm not really interested in anything sexy.

 

Wa, sorry~ Had to interrupt our stimulating conversation so I could dash off to work.
Now where were we?

Ok. But your sister did say, straight up, that she thinks anyone who reads/writes shota/loli is a paedophile. Not just criminals, but everyone. Which probably includes a lot of people on this message board. And it's simply not true. I know lots of people who read shota, but would be the first to stand up in defense of a real living child.

All I've been asking, and never got a straight answer to, was why Sarah thinks she has the right to say something like "Paedophiles don't care what they see, as long as it looks like a kid, it's enough to turn them on." A statement like that sounds an awful lot like she either thinks she knows exactly what is going on in every paedophile's mind, or that she has the right to judge people.

And you are saying the same things. You are automatically assuming any pedo is going to look at a picture of a doll and turn it into a fantasy. I understand what you're saying, and in some cases it may be true, but not in all cases. Maybe not even in the majority of cases. The only thing I'm trying to get through is that these generalizations are wrong. Or rather, it's wrong to make assumptions about an entire group of people based on what you think you know. I've tried giving examples, but you're not getting it.

If I'm misunderstanding, then please speak more clearly. Give me a clear answer on why you think it's ok to make judgements about people. What gives you (or your sister, or whomever) the right to say "Paedophiles don't care what they see," as if you know what they care about seeing.

And to say "offenders use images to make a fantasy which they may eventually carry out," in regards to doll photos, exactly proves Taco's earlier point. You're equating dolls with humans (and don't say you're not, because you've already gone on about how near and dear to your heart children are, so you already have a heavy bias), and you're assuming everyone else does too. You're saying any pedo who looks at a photo of a doll will see it as a living child, and it's unfathomable to you that maybe - just maybe - they could look at a picture of a doll and see it as... a doll.

... Then I was going to make another point, but it's pretty much exactly what skwerlie said, so I'll save my e-breath. ;P

 

I pretty much stand on the 'indifferent' side of this argument, as in, it's a photo of a doll, not much can be done if someone, ANYONE wants to fantasize it being an actual child or what have you. Like one of the posters said, anything can trigger odd fantasizes and the like, even photos of a doll, no matter how innocent the composition.

People get their kicks in strange ways ^^;

Besides, I've seen a lot of girlies at the legal age, look 14 or 15, posing for magazines. Nobody looks their real age these days; a 34 year old can look 54 years old, while a 50 year old can look 30 years old.

If it were me, if I know the gallery/thread I'm posting the photos up wouldn't mind that sort of thing, I'd put it up. But if I need to err on the side of caution, I'd put up more conservative shots instead and post the rest of the pics in my LJ or whatever.

 

Uhm...sailorstarsun....your post was...kind of offensive to me....I'm sorry, but I am only sixteen and barely out of childhood myself. As far as I know, people who find children attractive are a danger, to me, that's common sense. My sister also wishes to remind you that she has a right to an opinion, even if you disagree with it.
The thing is,of course I equate child dolls with children...I mean....child....they look like children....if it looks like a duck......
I have no problem with stuff like that in 'backstories' if it's part of the character's history, but what bothers me is when people do it for their own gratification.
My sister wishes to point out that paedophiles are attracted to children, that's what makes them paedophiles, so something that looks like a child must, surely, have a similar effect (if only with the aid of imagination).
Dolls are appealing to all kinds of people, for all kinds of reasons. I myself like them because of their beauty and customizability, others like them because they can exert some control over something and other people find them to be good companions (I've read plenty of threads on this kind of thing and, just by the way people treat dolls and other objects, you can get a grasp on their reasons for owning them).
I hope that wasn't classed as 'generalizing' as I only gave a few examples, there are millions of reasons for doll ownership. About 'generalizing' on serial offenders/paedophiles...of course, no one can speak for every single paedophile, one has to generalize to some degree. It's not as if we're bereft of knowledge on serial offenders or paedophiles but, of course, there are things we don't know, for example the way every single paedophile operates and I don't know how you can possibly criticise for not 'interviewing every single paedophile'. I do understand that every paedophile is different, but there is no way in hell that I can possibly say that 'the man who lives in that little bungalow in Dartmoor prefers to groom kids over the internet, whereas the tall man who resides in the centre of London prefers to look at porn'. I can merely give a fairly general view, which is something that everyone else has to give as well because no one has a hugely extensive knowledge of the habits of all paedophiles.
I think it's only fair for me to state what I know, because that is part of my opinion. You must remember that the way we view the world is very different, we live in different places, we're different ages and we were raised by different people. The only way we can resolve this is, perhaps, to agree on one small detail, or (as my mother says) agree to disagree.
I don't want to argue with you if it makes you angry, I don't like to do that to people. I'd prefer it if you could just be less offensive in your posts (and I'm sorry if I got the tone wrong, but I was offended). I am trying to put across mine and my sister's opinions calmly so that no one has to resort to getting personal.
I do grasp that you probably weren't serious about criticising my sister for not 'interviewing every single paedophile' and I hope you understand the reasons for my generalizations e.g. I can't make a comment on everyone in this community, but I can say that the vast majority of them are older than I am. That is blatantly a generalization and doesn't need to be pointed out as one. I see no problem with generalizations.
However, you seem very bothered by my sister's comment, judging by your reaction. I'm sorry if you're finding this topic disagreeable, but please, try not to jump down people's throats as they are liable to find it offensive.

Sophie.

 

I don't see that things have gotten that personal here for the most part. It's a debate thread, and if you post something that people disagree with, they will pull the argument apart if they can. That's the point of debate, and the reason why there is a seperate section for threads like this--they're a bit strong for general discussion. When you state opinion as fact and don't have proof, expect to get called on it. It doesn't mean someone is really angry with you, it means if you still feel the same way, you have to go find a more effective way to back up how you feel.

You yourselves (it's a little confusing at times since you and your sister are using the same account) did suggest I seek professional help a few posts back. That was getting very personal and very judgemental. I wouldn't have brought this up, but since you're concerned that you aren't being treated fairly or wondering why your posts get heated responses at times...but enough of that.

It's true that people do generalize to an extent to better understand the world around us. But its something to be careful with too, especially when it leads you to making judgement calls about other people that you A. Know nothing about, and B. Do not have the experience or knoweledge to advise.

We will probably never view child dolls/drawings the same way. You see them as being much more closely related to real children than I or some others do. That's fine, that's where live and let live, agree to disagree comes in. But agree to disagree works both ways. I can recognize where you stand, and why you feel the way you do (which is why I'm so careful to warn people about any kind of contraversial art I put on the net--so you don't have to see it if you don't want to) but that also means that you have to try and understand that people do not view child dolls the same way as you do and that will influence the kind of pics people take.

To you a child doll, as you said "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck..."

To others a child doll "looks somewhat like a duck and clucks like a chicken and walks like a dog" There isn't always the close coorelation.

I'm not sure the argument that a pedophile might see doll photos as being as much of a concern as you feel that it is. There is so much innocent material that could bring out similar responses in people, and even if you wiped all the shota/loli doll art and drawings off the web, I sincerely doubt it would make one iota of difference as to the way a true pedophile would choose to act.

The bigger issues to keeping kids safe, especially on-line is to keep an eye on who they chat with, stop them from giving out personal information, and teach them that people on the net are not always who they make themselves out to be.

 

Well, paedophiles getting hold of such images is a genuine concern (similar to the concern that serial killers getting hold of sadistic porn gives them something to use to form their fantasies) it works the same way for paedophiles. That is a fact.
I understand that you're an artist, I'm also an artist (though only self declared) and it's pretty clear that our artistic tastes are worlds apart. I do understand that people view things differently to me, and I was merely saying that I feel that way myself. I think you understand what I mean in my posts and I hope you think that I understand yours too.
I am someone with very strong views, as are you, so this is a very difficult debate to solve. It probably all boils down to our various differences (i.e. age, location and upbringing) and I appreciate that we think differently. Honestly it's interesting to see how others think.
I hope that none of my posts insulted you or upset you, that's not my intention. This debate is obviously one of the more contraversial ones and it's very easy for such a debate to get out of hand.
I know that the fact me and my sister share an account is confusing and I hope to force her to make her own soon, I apologize for the current situation as it must be...odd....to apparently be talking to the same person who's approach changes dramatically quite frequently.
Of course there are bigger issues in child protection.....but a small hole in an otherwise perfect building can let the rats in (sorry about the lame metaphor). I guess that we have to find something we agree on, even if it's the smallest detail. I don't want to argue with you over something that we both feel so strongly about because that kind of debate never goes anywhere.

Sophie.

 

As for myself, I'm not too keen on shota with adult/child... more on child/child...
I don't get aroused by it... and in no way, I would like to see "real-life"-shota
and I have to state, I had erotic fantasies when I was very young myself... so I would say, not all children have purely innocent minds...

and also thanks to Taco for speaking my mind... no matter where I read your posts, I simply have to agree with you

 

I'm not into shota in any way, shape or form, and I'm always quite careful about how I photograph interactions between my minis and larger dolls - for instance, the character of Miyobi (my RML K-02 head on DZ 1/4 girl body) is that of an ancient alichino (think vampiric demon) who is far older than Marius, my Hound - but she looks like a cute little Lolita girl, so any interaction between her and him would just look creepy and liable to misinterpretation. So Miyobi only ever appears by herself or with my other minis, and will never be photographed with Marius for that reason.

 

First of all I would like to apologize for my statement saying dolls and shota/loli hurt nobody. Apparantly it irked some folks and I really hadn't seen much activity here until today so I was caught unawares.

Secondly however, I would like to try and break down why I believe this is so:
A doll. Any doll, not just ours. What is it made of? Resin, silicone, plastic, porcelain.. Is flesh and blood on that list? Do our dolls have souls? personalities? Debateably so in some cases, but being inanimate objects, I must say no for the time being.
Now, being that I KNOW a few actual pedophiles and have spoken to them just to better understand their perspective, since I found it hard to believe all of them were child-beating, abusive, horrid people, I have this to say:
Many pedophiles do not get turned on by the ABUSE of children. They do not ENJOY that their fetish HURTS a child. Unfortunately for whatever reason, they are how they are.
However, they would rather, in many cases, look at things that do NOT harm children.

Are all pedophiles this way? I wont say they are. Maybe some do like abusing children for kicks. But the ones I have spoken to did NOT enjoy the fact that children were hurt and ultimately abused in real child porn. Many pedophiles do turn to shota or loli, or they buy themselves an adult doll to help with their problems if they are well off enough to afford it. (One person tried to order a realdoll that was shortish and had small breasts and he was reported to the FBI however. Way to go america. )

NOW, HOWEVER... I would like to address that, just because pedophiles DO look at and enjoy things such as loli and shota, which are ILLUSTRATIONS where NO CHILD IS HARMED in the making of them, NOT EVERYONE WHO LOOKS AT SHOTA OR LOLI IS A PEDOPHILE. I know many people, and yes, many people, who like shota/loli just because the characters look innocent and the things they do in many actual loli/shota doujinshi are innocent seeming things. Not all shota/loli is innocent, however nothing is wholly innocent, and I find it wrong that a relatively small amount of truly abusive/sickening loli/shota illustrations should demonize the whole lot.

Lastly, since I have explained my position a bit better I believe, I will explain my position on this as it pertains to dolls.
Many dolls have young looking sculpts. Why? Many of them are from asian companies- asian women and men are simply more petite. Also, as is the case with Volks SD10, they are meant to be 10 years old according to the name and it can further be deduced because each release afterwards, sd13 and sd16, is progressively more mature. Arguably the dolls are all massively overshooting their age ranges in appearance- perhaps by five years or so, since the SD10's look mid teens and the SD16 look 20ish- but that isnt the issue at hand.

Now, lets say someone has a character who is 30, but is on an SD10 body. They take lewd pictures of him/her. IF a pedophile is interested in doll pornography, and IF they happen upon the pictures- It will likely not matter how old the doll is intended to be according to their character. I am not saying it wont matter. However there are a number of lewd websites that make their money off of girls that look much younger than they are. So of course, you would expect that pedophiles have learned to disregard intended or actual age in photos.
What I am trying to get across by saying this is that if someone wants to get their rocks off to that picture, they will. It matters not what age the character is nor where it is posted or what the intention.

And as a closing thought- ANYONE will get their rocks off to a picture if they truly, truly want to, not just a pedophile!

 

While shotacon and lolicon are not generally illegal in the US, certain shota and loli material is outlawed in certain states on a case by case basis because the material varies by degrees. So comics and cartoons can and are judged like any other visual material whether it is live action, real people or fictional. I don't think anatomically correct dolls are any exception.

After all my research, reading the responses and hearing from people who create NC-17 material I've come to understand and accept that like any fandom there are going to be all kinds - that there are people who are genuinely interested in the story, character development and the expressive nature of doll photographs. I've also learned that the material in question involving fictional children (not real children) in abusive/sexual situations is legal in moderation and it isn't all pornography.

I do wonder if the trend for this kind of material has any impact on people who are 17 and younger - especially on their perception about being more adult like, and if they believe more edgy doll shoots will get them more attention. Though I think that might be an entirely different subject altogether and I don't want to hijack the thread!

EDIT - notes of interest: Seeing obscene material doesn't create pedophiles. Pedophelia is an illness. Not all pedophiles act on their urges and not all those who sexually abuse children are pedophiles. Pedophilia -from Time Magazine 2002

Legal Definition of Obscenity - and how the law determines what is obscene.

 

*so many responses. forgive me if someone's already mentioned this*
of course sexuality and dolls isn't a new thing! I am a huge fan of Bellmer, but the fact of the matter is that it's gone on long before him. Venus Statuarism (apologies if I've misspelled this) is the worship of or attraction to inanimate representations of the human form, such as statues, dolls, and mannequins. Pediophelia (NOT to be confused with pedophilia!) is the sexual attraction to dolls, specifically. Psychological subtext has been around long before there was even a concept of psychology!
However, I personally have no moral objection whatsoever to the photography of "younger" dolls, even when nude. Consent obviously cannot be an issue when the object of the photo has no consciousness or brain to begin with, and I often grow a bit weary of people taking offense at things that really don't hurt anyone. To me, at least, it seems that obscenity is what you make of it, and it's only offensive if you, personally, find it offensive. If that is so, don't do it, and don't make a point of looking at it.
In an area such as a doll hobby, it can often be a bit too easy to add excessive amounts of "humanity" to our little resin beings.
That is not to say we don't love them, give them characters, back stories, see their personalities shining through their little faces...but even if one tries to dismiss it, they are dolls. They can be toys. They can be art. They can even be companions (see documentary-not musical- "guys and dolls" to get an idea of how far some can take this with realdolls and such). Our BJDs can, sometimes, become an embedded part of life, even though they, themselves, lack it. And why not? They are quite realistic and poseable. We strive to make them our own. That is truly the soul of our craft, regardless of how far each of us may take it.

It's really your judgment call for your personal belongings. The point of toys at any age is to have fun, and if it stops being fun, you should quit what is hindering your play.
I think getting caught up in whether something is concretely offensive or not would definitely be along those lines!

 

Okay, I think I can come back in here~ I have a sort of question for you guys.

I just took a photoshoot of my doll that was...shall we put it... highly controversial? Shasta's about 12, on a "kid" delf body, and has no previous "bad" history with a funny uncle or anything. It's almost completely out-of-character for him to be in those poses (except that he *is* an exhibitionist). Being an avid supporter for children's rights against porn, part of me feels very guilty for taking the photos, even though they were meant 90% to be artistic and show off the body's excellent sculpt. (and yes, the extra 10% can be perverted because I enjoy some shota and lolicon here and there.)
I enjoy looking at the photos I took because they're the best ones I've taken of Shasta so far, and really, I'm very proud of myself for playing with the lighting and composition just right. I'm not getting "excited" by those pictures, however. They're artistic, like any other nude questionable picture you'd see on DA. Children's bodies appeal to my eyes because of the cherub factor. Does this make me a pedophile? It's not like I myself want to touch kid's bodies. Should I not be allowed to take pictures, because I would just be supplying the internet world with moar shota? I've got a lot of guilt here, and I'm not sure where it's all coming from.

 

@enedving:
you shouldn't feel guilty... as you said, you did it for art (and even if you didn't)...
I'd love to see the photos... so I can see how "controversial" they are... but when it comes to erotica, there's nothing too controversial for me, I think

 

I think it makes more sense if you see shota as a part of yaoi rather than a part of real life activitites. Yaoi is art made by women for women, and so is shota. Most (all?) of the shota fans taking nude pictures of their dolls are women. I remember reading about a Japanese survey that said that 9 out of 10 women who read yaoi identifies with the "uke", the "woman/passive" character in Boy x Boy stories. Since shota is yaoi, I see no reason why this should be any different there.

Women who read shota and take shota pics of their dolls, are more likely to identify with the younger person ("the victim" as some would put it), rather than the older one ("the pedophile"). Thus, if it ever comes down to a shota fan living out her fantasies, she is not going go find herself a kid to molest, that's not what turns her on. She's going to find someone who makes _her_ feel like the kid. It's my firm belief that the kids out there are perfectly safe from female shota fen.