Violence and depictions of abuse in the doll world?

Excuse me, I didn't bring up the age topic, the poster above me did.

Who did I condemn? Good grief, talk about misinterpreting what I said. I believe I said that I simply don't understand rude people who expect me to still want to spend time with them.

Good grief. I knew I shouldn't have come back here to look. Rest assured, I will not return here to further condemn more people.

 

that's always what i've thought too. it's sort of in the same vein as superhero comics empowering their readers in a way they aren't empowered in real life.
also sometimes people have a need to explore some train of thought in a relatively "safe" way. doll play has traditionally been used by a lot of psychiatrists and psychologists to let people do this - it seems very natural.

 

Depicting violence may be an artform for many people, but for some it is a symptom of violent tendancies or mental distress.

The VA Tech murderer's stories have already been mentioned.

I know a guy who wrote violent fantasy stories with cruel characters. He tried to strangle a girl in his classroom. A year later he tried to kill himself.

I knew another guy in a multiplayer online game, who was well respected, well liked, and a great leader. He was a college student and was doing well in college. His characters in the game were all evil and had names from history and mythology. One character was Lachesis, one of the three Fates. She was was one that snipped the thread at the end of someone's life. He killed himself.

When I see someone butcher a new doll and then present it with a broken eye socket, blood, bruises, and 2 bloody bandaged nipples, I worry about it. I saw that on DoA.

Carolyn

 

Absolutely! I tried to say this a few pages back but failed miserably. It's almost like during the developmental stages, particularly the teenage years, a person is testing the waters, so to speak. They are trying to work out where they stand on issues, how they feel emotionally, and what logically horrifies them.

I remember reading a book on feminism once, but I think this applies to teenagers too. Or perhaps even all of us. It's the idea that we are expected to be everything, to achieve everything - to have the perfect grades, the perfect body, the money, the perfect future. In short: we are expected to own the world. It's little wonder the reaction is to turn away from that in droves, as we seem to see time and again with rebel-group teens (punks, then goths, then rockers, now emo). Are the groups actually getting bigger in response to the ways of modern society, with its increasing technology, or does it just seem that way?

Either way, it seems natural to me to want to fight against that, and surely violence, especially to a representation of the self, like a doll could be perceived as, would be a huge stand against responsibility teens in particular would feel as emmerging adults? To make 'onself' (the doll) flawed, through an abusive history of some description, surely puts up an automatic barrier against perfection right from the start, but at the same time absconding from responsibility.

Maybe the human image of dolls would go a way to explaining this. Would the desire to depict violence be quite so attractive without the human qualities?

Or maybe I'm just talking rubbish.

 

I'm not sure if anyone has responded, but here is my answer:

Rape play is not rape. It is consensual sex, with a little window dressing.

 

I don't think that it's proper to denigrate anybody for their personal style here, particularly for wanting to have an "edgy" style-- by dismissing it as childish, self-indulgent, merely fashionable, or otherwise disposable. This is saying to a kid who already feels like an outsider, "You and your worldview don't matter. Just shut up & follow us." And frankly, that kind of condescension is just as childish as a Li'l Gothling saying "Well, YOU'RE all fluffy sparkly sunshine-snorting butterfly-heads in denial, so nyah nyah".

These kids are using just as valid a mode of expression as anybody in the mainstream. That style affects non-kids too, of course, but teens seem to feel the strongest need to assert themselves, because they're in the process of defining themselves. One of the primary ways to define what they DO want to be... is by discounting themselves from what they DON'T want to be (i.e. 'the mainstream'). Why should they be condemned for trying to fumble their way into an identity? And as long as they stick to the "no rivers of visibly wet blood in photoshoots" rule, why not let them have their stitched-up zombie dolls?

Another question: Do you really think that people whose personal style happens to follow the mainstream are any MORE selfless, loving, sharing, or devoted to Community than those angsty Hot Topic teenagers? What makes them any less self-indulgent? What makes them any less a pack of fashion victims?

Thank you, yes.

All this talk of "putting the needs of the community ahead of the individual", on the past few pages, has made my blood run a little cold. While it is true that community standards must prevail on a 13+ forum, in order for harmony to prevail... lumping our little DOA community here into the larger syndrome of Our Violent World just doesn't fit. Or, it shouldn't. Remember, putting Community First All The Time is how some very scary things got started, even with the best of intentions: fascism, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, jihad of the sword, Jim Jones's Peoples Temple. And so on.

I keep thinking there MUST be a balance somewhere, between individual & community-- especially when it comes to the Big Duo of Sex & Violence.
But it's been a devilish business trying to find that balance, so far.

 

No Sher, you give good imput. The poster who went off on you about bringing up age, obviously didn't bother to read the post above you that you were responding to - which is the one that brought up age.

Their response to you didn't make any sense considering you were responding to someone else's comment on age, not bringing it up yourself.

 

No one is condescending to anyone here. I don't think the "mainstream" kids are any better or worse. "Edgy" is being put in quotes because it's ironic, because when we say it that way we mean what really isn't edgy at all. We weren't discussing the way people dress we were discussing the way people behave. Large, large difference.

Aww, Sher, your insights are good! It's not your fault whoever that was didn't pay attention.

 

I think some of it is definitely for shock value...like how far can you push it before its just too much. But also as an RPer, like many of us, it can be to live another life...or experience things in a safe way, by proxy through the dolls' lives. I doubt for most people that it is a substitute for real desires or violent intentions...just exploring the darkness inside in order to understand more about self.

 

That's interesting, most 'dead' characters on this board seem to be zombies, vampires, ghosts etc so are animated, your idea is totally different from that. I wonder what the overall reaction to a doll that is truly dead would be. (Even though I'm not into the violence or war stuff, your idea really interests me.)

 

I don't see that anyone has brought this point up yet, and I hesitate to be the one to do so as I don't have a lot of knowledge on it and am so far failing to turn up any valid research or information about it, but one alternate theory I have heard about over-interest in violence, torture, and hurting one's characters (in this case, I suppose, dolls) is that it is derived not from actual desire for violence, or from internalised anger or similar sort of things, but rather from a confused mothering instinct. IE, we make them suffer so that then we can take care of them and make it all better.

I've mostly heard this one bandied around in fanfic fields, particularly ones where the hurt/comfort genres are popular. I can't say how much stock I put in it, but I will agree that for whatever unknown reason, whenever my favourite characters are injured (say, in a TV show or book) I do find it appealing for unknown reasons. (And I do want to cuddle them and kiss it all better, heh.) Is it wrong to think "Wow, he looks really hot limping and covered in blood"? Probably, but the thought still comes to mind.

Anyway, I thought I'd throw it out as an alternate theory that isn't grounded in violence, anger, or frustration.

 

Oh! You mean like Münchhausen's-by-Proxy?
(Shorthand pop-culture reference for non-readers: The mother who gradually poisons her daughter in The Sixth Sense.)
Wow, you've brought up a goodie, Cassiel.

I can't tell you how many kids I've seen-- we're talking toddlers and up-- who hurt or abuse their teddy-bears and dolls, so that they can take care of them and make them better. And no, before you ask, they were not all Ritalin-cases, abused, or in other bad home-situations. "Play-hurting" doesn't always come as a post-traumatic reaction. It's as simple as observing the tender loving attention that Mommy gives you when you hurt your knee... and trying to recreate that.

Normal children do it to their toys. In the Münchhausen's cases you might've read in fiction or reality, incredibly-messed-up adults do it to their own children. I guess somewhere along the line, some crucial mind-circuit goes on the fritz.

Similarly: I had a very sane childhood (which may surprise some of you), but I put my Barbies & Steve Austins & Big Jims through gruelling adventures & ordeals out in the mud, ice, and thorn-bushes... so that they could RESCUE each other. After all, how can anybody be a hero/heroine if there's nobody in danger?

And thank you for your effort. ^^

No, if you want another Deep Psychoanalytic Moment, it's not wrong to think that guys look hot in bandages. It is so common, and so simple at its root: The man is vulnerable. He & his manhood are not in a position to hurt you & your womanhood. You're in charge. He needs you. This is hot. QED. ^_^ Why do you think that nurse-novels are still such a popular genre of romance-fiction, after how many centuries?

And, might this also tie easily in to the reason that some people (female AND male, I don't wanna leave anyone out!) enjoy lookng at boy-dolls with scars or injuries, even without a lot of gore? Because... even those of you who hate True Gore, fess up, a lot of you find Cecil the Scarface sexy. ;D

 

I found an interesting study published in the British Medical Journal regarding Goth culture and increased rate of suicide and self-injury (link to study is below the article):
http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2006/04/goth-subculture-linked-with-history-of.html

Perhaps the goth presentation of many BJD's is somehow related to the increase in themes of death and violence. I am not trying to imply that most people who are goths or dress their dolls as goths are more likely to mutilate their dolls. But might it not be a factor for some people?

Carolyn

 

I'm thinking this is a very plausable theory, in that, I remember there being commericals for, and owning at one point, various childrens' doll toys that came with thermometers (which read: sick/ok randomly when pressed).
I think that draws from an instinct that is ingrained to give us the need to take care of things a person is attached to. Be it themselves, their family, friends, or possessions.
With figures and dolls, I'd feel that it could be a "you make me feel happy when I'm down, why arn't you ever down so I could return the favor?" sort of idea. I'm including all sorts of figures, dolls, stuffed animals here; I used to put a band-aid on some of my stuffed animals as a little kid all the time.
I feel the thread really took of on the violence and anger due to the original wording.

Not a huge amount for me to add, but just a penny thought for the moment, maybe I'll think a bit more and add the other cent in a later post.

 

The Munchausen-by-proxy theory certainly holds alot of water! I know when I create characters with dark pasts/presents, it's generally because I want someone (be it me or someone else) to rescue/comfort them...!

I never even thought about that, that's a really good point!

Though that article about goths seems a little unbalanced. They had 1165 "not goths" and only 25 goths? Then their percentages really amount to less than ten people. Whereas the 5 percent of the 1165 "not goths" is actually 58 people. How do they know they didn't just get a bad group or someting? 15-25 people does not a fair study make.

 

A lit~tle...! ;; Like Ann Coulter! (OK, OK, I exaggerate by a mile.)

Not meaning to put down the work you did in looking up that article for us, Carolyn, but.... Those "What's All This Goth Stuff & How Can We Prove It's Bad?" articles & TV documentaries appear every 5 years or so, whether they need it or not. (With special appearances whenever there's a crime committed by someone in a black jacket.)

Again, some-but-not-all: This article (and all the identical articles of its ilk written since the '80s), once again, assumes that the dog wags the tail. Consider the other way around: Children who are already hurting, and already into physical pain in this manner, may seek the goth subculture, because it has imagery and ideas to match their feelings. A 'normal'-dressing kid who feels that much pain & alienation already-- maybe she's tired of the bloodstains showing through her pink sweater-- might naturally gravitate towards 'ready-made darkness', with an easily identifiable tribe. Their logic makes sense.

Fun fact: Go read any of a zillion other articles on self-mutilation, drugs & eating-disorders, and you'll find that cutters are just as likely to be hyper-normal, approval-hungry, perfectionist children who do NOT act out or dress up goth. They don't want to risk drawing attention to their problems, which might earn them disapproval & ruin their "perfect" facade. Their logic also makes sense.

Hard to peg the roots of violence, innit?

 

Jenny you may have missed this:

"Robert Young, lead researcher on the study, said: “Since our study found that more reported self-harm before, rather than after, becoming a Goth, this suggests that young people with a tendency to self harm are attracted to the Goth subculture. Rather than posing a risk, it's also possible that by belonging to this subculture young people are gaining valuable social and emotional support from their peers.”

So no, it is not another dog wags the tail conclusion (if that's the right metaphor).

And if people with a tendency to self-harm are attracted to the goth culture, might they not also be attracted to goth and disfigured dolls or various kinds?

Carolyn

 

This is very relevent I think. Studies seem to indicate that a culture or exposure leads to a behaviour or emotion, but if we look at it case by case we'll probably find that the culture appeals to those already experiencing feelings/havin behaviours that make the culture appealing.

So does that indicate that violent fiction attracts certain people, rather than influencing people to change?

 

This is the very thing some of our greatest thinkers have dedicated their entire life's work towards sussing out - the idea that Individual Morality SHOULD be the way that cultures and societies are "governed." But...a truth that has become apparent in both philosophical and political idealogies is that the eventual exorbitant demands of the individual interests leads to a dissolution of that culture. Some of us do...believe that the human animal will reach a utopian place at some point in the future of our evolution - but at this time in our travels - the Individual and his Unique needs taking precedent over those of the Community result in the very same situations you cited - Jonestown, fascism, nazism and brutal behavoirs wreaked upon weaker Individuals by stronger Individuals.

It's a conundrum.



And is "gore" really art? Rape is not.