The ethics of photographing 'children' in BJDdom

I'm sure what I'm about to say has been said, but I still wanna say it. Heh.

I think it depends on the both of you. You as her "parent" and her as the "child" as well as her character.

Let's start with her character:
It seems that she personally has no problem showing herself to others. Which would explain how she got the tattoo in the first place. If she feels comfortable doing this, maybe she feels comfortable with taking pictures.
My own resin daughter loves to take nude pictures and she herself is almost 15. I have no problems with it, sexual or not. It's who she is and she enjoys it.

You as a "parent":
On the other hand it's your choice as a "parent" to decide what's good for her. If you feel taking such pictures would damage her (much like real life...) then don't do it. In this case it has nothing to do with being sexual, she's old enough to question things and become curious. I don't know if she got the tattoo under your care or if this was beforehand... Which does play a part as well; as a "parent" did you give the okay? If you were comfortable with that why not be comfortable with pictures?

In the end it has to do with what you feel is right. If you as her "mother" feel it's wrong and no good for her, then don't do it. Even if she wants to take pictures like that you know what's best for her.

One thing I forgot:
I personally have nothing against drawing "child porn" or taking pictures of dolls in such a manner. I wouldn't look at it, that doesn't turn me on, but I don't find it un-ethical. Why? Because you're not damaging a real child. You're not subjecting an actual mind and body to such things. Characters don't live their lives out in pain after that (unless the writer makes it so). People, real people, suffer, cry, become confused, and even kill themselves over such things. Characters and dolls don't HAVE to "live" with it. Even if they do, it's all fantasy. As long as no mind, soul, and body was damaged, I see nothing wrong with it. It just has to stay fantasy to stay "okay".
That's all I have to say for now. Sorry for it being so long.

Also sorry for my bad punctuation and grammar. ^_^;

 

No flames for this, please, but...
I think regardless of doll or human, if it's in a non-sexual way, nude photography should be fine.
Think about it...the human body is a perfectly natural, beautiful thing. To hide it away makes it forbidden, and thus more erotic. If, however, the human form is merely glorified for the work of art that it is, it will cause people to recognize the nudity as a beautiful thing and not think of it as perverse or dirty.
That's just my opinion...
And on the note of your 15-year-old doll, she is over the age of consent in many countries. Just if that makes any difference in your mind.

 

you have a good point there....
even if I do indentify with both... "uke" and "seme"... kids are definetly safe from me... only that I may be a bad influence (smoking, drinking... dyed hair)

 

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
I probably wouldn't photograph my 15-year old characters completely naked, however, I recently did a photoshoot with only underwear on her. I was thinking about it quite a bit and I came to the conclusion that as long as the images are not intended to be sexual in nature, there really isn't anything to worry about. Being naked doesn't have to be sexual in any way so I see no reason to why this should be wrong or unethical, especially since the subject matter is in fact just a doll. It's not a human.

· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
If they are sexual in nature, yes.. But mostly, no, since they are still dolls and I don't see a naked doll in the same way as I see a naked human.

· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
Yes, to some degree. At least where I live, pictures of underage people in a sexual manner are considered child pornography and that includes drawings, paintings, sculptures, videos, computer-games and I would guess, also dolls. I can't see any reason to why someone would want to photograph their underage doll in a sexual manner? But then there is a thin line between sexual and for example, romantic. I wouldn't consider two underage dolls kissing or hugging eachother as sexual in nature.

· 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 think people have to bear it in mind and be respectful towards others that might feel bad about seeing such pictures even if they are just dolls. These dolls are incredibly realistic and thinking twice before posting any images that could be considered to be of sexual nature including underage characters, is a good idea.

 

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
Do dolls have an age?? If they do what's their real age?? Is it the time that we keep them under our possession or is it the age that we give them?? An example would be a Yo-SD that is a vampire and let's say he or she is over 150 years old. I think it's safe to say that he is of legal age to vote, drink, drive a car and do other things as well.

· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
No they don't cause me any moral dilemma. Should a picture of a naked doll cause me anything that has to do with moral? I either like the picture or I don't like the picture. Then again I only see them as dolls.

· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
As I said for me dolls don't really have an age, but I will make again an example. For this example I am going to use a 15 year old female doll. At the age of 15, many close friends of mine, were already sexualy active, so why would it bother me if a doll is? Depending on what the picture is showing I will either like it or not. Most people I know didn't wait until they become of age to become sexualy active, they simply didn't have their photos taken! Generally it is silently acknowledged that people don't wait until they become to get on with it, so why should we "deny this pleasure from our dolls?"

In the end it's up to the personal taste of the viewer, to judge if the photo is disdurbing or not and that depends on a lot of things, like age, family backround, education, country he/she is living, religion, etc. And since this is a public forum and many different people are going to see a picture that I might be posting, I will try not to provoke them, by showing something that would not be accepted by the majority.

 

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
It depends why you are taking the photo.If its in a way of 'okay here is the grease mark that wont come off of his butt' or here is the tattoo on the boobie" then to me its no big deal.

· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
If they are sexual in nature yes! it doesnt matter that they are only dolls.They are dolls that are made to look realistic and a certain age.Its creepy to me when people take photos of dolls in sexual positions no matter what age they are.
· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
Yes, . I wonder why people do it and I try to avoid seeing images that portray dolls like this but also most people if they saw you looking at pictures of young looking dolls in sexual positions are going to automatically assume there is something wrong with you. I mean the thinking process might go something like this " Hmm if so and so is looking at underage doll porn then whats to stop them morally from looking at the real thing?" That would send off a million red flags to me if I walked in on someone looking or taking those images. I mean really where is that line? Why is it okay to look at a portrayal of underage sex be it in a manga or a anime or a doll photoshoot but not the real thing?When someone says'Oh well they are not real so its not the same' I beg to differ. It will only be a matter of time before I think it becomes the real thing.
· 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?
It does have a bearing.You can think,"Well this is my doll and she is really 40 but she in in the body of a tiny and I am going to shoot some pics of her sexually' Um...most people are going to look at that and not see that she is supposed to be 40.They are going to see a doll that looks like its 4 or 5 years old.I know alot of people will say'Well thats just being artistic and to bad for the people that are close minded and not artistic' but really I think when you add the sex theme that is where the trouble begins. The fact that pictures that you take of your dolls can more then likely be held againts you in a U.S Court of Law to prove a case should be enough for people to stop and think'What am I really endorsing or advocating here?"

 

The line is that a doll or a drawing isn't a flesh and blood person that has to deal with the consequences. Also, as pointed out repeatedly, people don't always have the same reaction to dolls as they do to real children. I don't have a problem with shota, but the idea of actual kids is very very icky, has always been very very icky, and will always be very very icky. Looking at pics isn't going to automatically make a healthy person into a pedophile anyway--those tendencies have to already be there. Same as watching a slasher flick isn't going to turn a healthy person into a mass murderer nor does it endorse people going out and commiting violent acts. Most people can tell the difference between what is real and what isn't and react accordingly.

They should be portrayed as the owner wishes, whether or not it makes you, me, or anyone else uncomfortable. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to look at pics that they find disturbing. Don't click on them, or if you hit one by accident, go for the back button. It's inevitable that you won't like everything floating around the net, but that doesn't mean it has no right to exist.

As for the law, that depends on where you are. In the US there's some leniency when it comes to art.(however, it's not something I would share with everyone--as this thread proves this type of subject matter breeds a lot of assumptions).

***edited to add*** Sea-chan's post on the bottom of page 8 makes some really good points that might make shota and loli make a little more sense. Indeed, I'm a yaoi fan first and formost and shota to me is an off shoot of that with cuter characters.

 

I agree with what has been said about non-sexual photography. As long as the doll is not in a sexual pose or in sexual clothes I think it is fine. I mean every parent has pictures of their kids naked in the bath or in that toddler stage when they take off all their clothes.

I also agree with the character of the doll - only ok if the doll does not mind being naked in pictures.

I also think we must consider the personality of the characters. Some child characters are really at the maturity and thought process of adults. To me that makes them more adult than child. Heck some might even be adults trapped in a childs body or reincarnated. In that case I think that since the owner is giving these adult characteristics to the doll, it should be considered adult as is the owners decision. Still no sexual photos I think though, as the owner also chose to put them in the body of a child.

 

Taking picture is art to me so nude pics or partial nude is ok. You see models walking the cat walk partial nude and it does not mean in a bad way and some are underage as in under 18.

 

Um, RIGHT so I'm probably going to end up repeating some things, but oh well.

One statement that did stand out to me though, made a few pages back-

Alright, I was a little irritated here because I am also a Christian and while I do not work with kids directly, I work as a forum moderator on a MLP-inspired petsite that's informally rated PG and thus I do end up working with a lot of kids. With that said, I really don't care what someone else does with their doll, no matter what 'age'/sex it is - it is a beautiful, humanoid BUT inanimate object and this must be remembered.

Me personally - I'm a fairly liberal person, and an artist as well, currently attending an art college. To me, looking at pictures someone has taken of their BJD and making assumptions about that person's character would be psychoanalyzing - and I absolutely loathe when people consciously try to psychoanalyze ANY work of art, let alone mine. We can't always explain our artistic sides, and if that's how your art is pulling you, then so be it. If that's the kind of art you feel inspired to create, I think it would be worse not to create it and tend to the need than to let it stay in your chest. We all need outlets and I don't want to be painted a pedophile because of the art I decide to make or enjoy.

I don't think I'd photograph a child BJD in a sexual manner because I don't think I'd get any pleasure from it (artistic OR sexual). But if someone else wants to do that then it is not in my place to tell them they can't or that they should be ashamed of themselves. At the end of the day it is STILL an object. Children are another matter, anyone who abuses a child sexually should be shot, and I would be a lot less accepting of children being photographed sexually. I don't consider 'doll children' to be on the same level of morality, though.

So in a nutshell - I'm a Christian who works with kids, too, and I see no problem with photographing or drawing, or writing about or whatever... child dolls. I'm sorry to offend anyone by saying this - but they're just dolls.

 

I certainly agree with Ntkufreak.
In the end, dolls are dolls, art is art.
Pornography is pornography.
What I mean is that small things end up big and that big things have always started out as somthing small.
And yes, people do not become Mass Murderers after just watching a film.
I do art and i hate it when people say:
"Omigosh that person looks so sad... ___, are you depressed or something?"
Argh, I hate that. But I do have to say that taking pictures in a sexual manner is a bit iffy. So I guess that I'm just repeating what's been said, but... Yeah, that's about it from me.

Thanks.

 

What I could say is that you have to feel good about it if you are gonna stop sleeping and think about it every time don't do it.
Other thing that was already told but I'm gonna say any way is that the character have to be okay with it, and if she made a tattoo in her derriere she problaby is. Let's face it she couldn't made a tattoo with it covered.
And it's just a tattoo, it's a innocent thing,it's not like you are selling her body!

How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
I don't have any underaged doll yet but I will have and I wouldn't mind, I think this happen as you work on blushing and face-up or just to show a natural scene. Kids run naked everywhere, there's nothing wrong with it or malicious. And some Characters may be much more confortable with showing their body, the body is natural and nothing to be ashamed or sexual being naked alone.

Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
Not realy, it all depend why they are naked. If it's something natural like bath, beach or just at their home that would be problaby cute. Other point is if the charcater are okay with it, the chances I'm too. If was more mature reason what could make me unconfortable is what is being portrait not the fact the dolls are naked per se. I can be weak when it come to child abuse but I'm always up for a good plot.

Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls
Not really and how much underaged? Teenagers have sex, even 11 year old kids have sex sometimes, and I guess it depend what type of story or photoshot you are doing and how much of this side of things the author want to show. Trying to pretend people only have sex or start to explore sexuality after a magical age is unrealistic. People don't wait them to be legal age for sex and some characters won't either, do you need to show this? It's up to the author.

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 rewrote this now because my opinion changed a bit, they are dolls and they are not alive, they are like any type of art that you use to pass a message not worry if someone think is inappropriate. There's a clear line between fantasy and reality here but if you make a character for the doll, this mean it also need to make sense for the character. So do what would make sense for the character and their story, it would look weird to make a tiny doll portrait a seductress but maybe this is part of the plot, maybe this kid grow up in a messed up environment that acting this way become natural to them even if they are not an adult yet.

 

I personally can not make a connection between dolls and real people, so I do not have a problem with it.



Also: I completely agree with darkangelxix on this. Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?
I wouldn't. Unless it's to demonstrate a technique (like 'Look, this is how to string a *so-and-so*' or to show body blushing) or non-sexual in nature. I wouldn't draw any of my very underage characters naked (shirtless, yes, for males) and it seems a bit odd in keeping with their personalities.

Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?
Er... they disquiet me, but I wouldn't say they upset me. If they're obviously sexual- I might get squeamish and click the back arrow, but I wouldn't call the owner out unless it was fairly obviously meant to be that way. Like... faerie dolls- say, inspired by Brian Froud, who hasn't exactly been plastering on the Little Mermaid style shell bikinis- wouldn't bug me at all. There's a big difference between those and say, child pornography. As AngellDoll said, art is art, pornography is pornography. There's rarely an overlap.
There's a difference between work containing sexual content (yes, under-18s ARE sexually active, and it isn't always nice or consensual) and works that are sexually oriented, designed to titillate the reader/viewer. The main element in a lot of shota stories is the power play rather than something innately sexy about age differences.

Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?
It's never bothered me Showing underage dolls dating or kissing or having a non-explicit roll in the hay upsets me much less than a provocatively dressed doll even having a walk in the park. You can show a doll in nothing but underwear and have it be perfectly normal. What else should they wear when they get up in the morning, a muumuu? If it's in the character's nature to run around in a slip and panties or to bathe in the moonlight with nothing on but a smug grin it'd probably be more okay than something obviously intended to be exploitative.

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?
You can't take art and try to superimpose moral standards or ideas about the artist's mental state on it. It doesn't work that way. A doll is a doll, but you should take into consideration if you'd actually be OK with depicting a living, breathing human in that way, even for art. The last thing I'd want would be the archetypal 'sweaty fanboy/girl' treating my photostories like a stack of pinups.

 

Yes lets face it...if someone gets off on photos of nude underage dolls in explicit situations, they have some issue that has a really long name in a dusty psyche book somewhere. I think if I saw photos of such, I would laugh. Like those raunchy little Southpark characters are all the time getting into odd sexual situations. At least from a comedic point of view, this is an accepted, if reserved for late late night, thing. Do it all you want! I'd just make sure there was a disclaimer on your site.

 

seconding on this. real life and fiction, as much as people would love to say they have an effect on each other, sometimes they just dont. what i dont understand about people who say these things, is do they feel itd be the same in reverse? going by Aichans thesis i would eventually come to love ten year old girls because i love my ten year old girl doll. (which, by the way, will not happen. my dolls are on a TOATTLY DIFFERANT LEVEL to real kids, and i hate children, and im not comfortable around women or girls) or do people just look at the negative effects? what i just said should be perfectly plausable if you have the belief that looking at sexualised young dolls will make you like sexualised young children...


....which quite frankly i feel is ridiculous. i can completely see why people would think that, on a face value level it makes perfect sense, but think about it more. put yourself in that situation. what you have to think is why the person likes to look at the images. how much it means to them. how sexual they are in the first place. their personality. some people, like myself, can love sexualised art (my biggest medium is women or girls - most noticebly, ill draw young girls who in a sense look 'sexualised') but just wouldnt ever apply that to real life. what puzzles me the most is this "It will only be a matter of time before I think it becomes the real thing." where is the theory behind that? you just think it is so therefore it is? this needs to be thought about at a less face-value way

 

I'm still working my way through the thread, but I just wanted to add in here... that this is a huge issue in the modeling industry... and there are NUMEROUS forum threads regarding the line between "art" and "porn"....

there are many things that come into play.... and many that overlap.

However, in my opinion, it has to do with the purpose of the photographer, the model and the photograph. If the photographer and 'model' have it in their minds to create porn, then they will stage the photo in such a way as to create porn. I don't want to ramble too much, but my point is that it's all in the purpose.... whatever people see after that is in their own minds.

Take sally mann as an example :http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=sally+mann&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

she's been very controversial because she's photographed her pre-pubescent children nude... however, I've only ever come across one of her photos that even VAGUELY made me uncomfortable..... most of them made me remember what it was like to run around naked as a kid.

Anyway, my point of view:
it's in the mind. it's in the mind of the creators. it's in the mind of the viewers. if YOU are uncomfortable, don't create something that you're not going to enjoy. Chances are, it'll make other people just as uncomfortable....

 

one more quick note about sally mann.....
in this article : http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp960324/03220089.htm
towards the end she talks about her daughter virginia's reaction to being censored in the NYtimes. A worthy read.

 

I read this article and the opinion of the writer is neither appropriate or wanted.
How can it be enforced that the children are "most definately" uncomfortable? What I mean is: How can you say they're ashamed as if it's true if you don't know them? The poses they make and the looks they make are out of expression, that's how they hold themselves. When I was young I used to sit and lie in sensual ways without knowing what I was doing. It was natural for me.
The fact that the child herself was insulted by the censorship tells all. Why on earth would cover a 4-year-old's chest and genitals? They aren't aware of themselves. Now the child feels she's supposed to hide her body when that shouldn't be the case. No one, nobody, no matter what, should be ashamed of their bodies. Especially not a child who has no idea why it was covered.
To say that photographing children/underage people nude is pornagraphy right off the bat is to deny art. This really got me angry. My mother would be insulted.

 

Chii,
I totally agree with you... that's why I posted about Sally Mann's photography being a positive thing...