Violence and depictions of abuse in the doll world?

Cassiel, I think you bring up a very interesting and valid theory, one that I would be willing to put a lot of stock in - I've seen it used so many times in fiction (how many times have you yaoi fans read a manga where a traumatized rape victim is cured of all his woes by a good round of...yeah.).

You know, in some cases (such as Cecil the Scarface) I think a little "roughing up" makes the doll look a little more...masculine? I guess it's the idea that if he can carry that scar like it's nothin', he has to be one tough cookie. No?

 

I did see that part! But boy, was it a gloss... I can't help noticing that this brief blog-entry ran out of statistics by the time it got to that paragraph. But, numbers or no numbers: Sure, I agree, some kids with self-harm tendencies might be attracted to doll gore.

But I also think that some well-adjusted kids use this kind of art-form to channel their pain, so that they don't become cutters, bulimics, goths, or pick-your-societal-evil. Which brings me to Zag's very pointed question:

The eternal What Is Art question can't be answered objectively! Many people find artistic value in things that are bloody or repulsive to others. Early-era Clive Barker springs to mind... he wrote beautifully , just gorgeous lyrical writing, about the fascination with the symphony of blood, bone, nerve and life-force that is the human body... and his characters (human & otherworldly) did go on to rip those bodies apart in some very vivid ways. Ellis's American Psycho is a river of consciousness that'd rival Ulysses (also considered pornography by many), albeit such a convincingly twisted one that it made me pitch the book across the room countless times before finishing. A nauseating but amazingly-crafted work. Some people think that Art should make you squirm.

In fact, art often does make me squirm. Every year, at the calendar shop, I ask myself, "WHO keeps telling Ann Geddes that she's an artist?!" *squicketysquick*

Another extremely salient point, Zag. The Will to Power is always the wildcard in trying to make a utopia (or an anarchy, for that matter). One of those Individuals is always going to take charge.

At what point do a group of Individuals become a Community? Don't all community needs begin as the needs of multiple individuals?

One Jonestown survivor put it in a way I'll never forget: "Nobody joins a cult. Nobody joins something that is going to hurt them. You join a religious organization, you join a political movement. You join with people you really like."

 

Well...I certainly rank some serious squirm factor ART at the top of my list of favourite things (whenever I'm singing along to The Sound of Music) - Gira's music and prose being probably one of the HIGHEST forms of art I know and I am a serious Joel-Peter Witkin fangirl...HOWEVER - and THIS is a subjective/objective opinion, I hold both of those evisceral artists to another standard than I do the "work" we've seen with gore and sexual abuse on this forum. Perhaps...the difference lies in fetish versus kink, craft versus art, intent versus glorification/titillation.

I don't think so - I think when we reduce the equation of Individual down to it's smallest form we are left with mother/child. And that then is a Community.

 

There's a simple answer to this debate: take it to ControvercialDoll. Den of Angels is referred to as "the lounge of kittens and rainbows" for a reason, and anyone who tries to post "offensive" material here probably doesn't understand what this forum is meant to be. I mean, we're talking about the forum that automatically changes the word "bi*ch" to "lady pup". That's way below PG13, or even PG. This is baby town. Of course depictions of rape, violence, etc. are not allowed.

Basically, people need to realize that as wonderful as Den of Angels is, it's not the end-all and be-all of the doll community. There are other forums out there specifically designed to encourage an adult environment, where pictures of sensitive doll material are allowed. If your doll has a new wig, post it here. If you have a billion pics of you opening your doll's arrival box, post it here. If you want to make a photostory where your dolls argue over a cookie, post it here. But if you want to make a statement or stir up controversy, this is not--and will never be--the place to do it. It's as simple as that.

 

DoA is not below PG13. We have full frontal nudity and gay couples.

The profanity filter is automatic and not done by a mod. Probably a board setting.

Carolyn
bitch (just testing if it's automatic)

 

There is "full frontal" but they're dolls. It's pretend nudity. It's only a little worse than taking the clothes off a Barbie.

And gay couples are PG13? Silly me, I thought it was just a normal part of life. I knew what "gay" meant when I was little. I'm not sure how depicting gay couples in an innocent pic, i.e. holding hands or hugging, qualifies as PG13. Could you please clarify? Are you saying that two boys holding hands is inappropriate for a child to see? How is it any different than a straight couple? Should it be censored? I think not.

Edit: Yes, I was aware that the language filter works automatically. But it's not an automatic function of vBulletin, the mods turned it on by choice to keep this a child-safe atmosphere. What I'm saying is that they're trying to keep DoA safe for all ages.

tl;dr version: If "bi*ch" is not ok, then you can bet that rape and violence aren't ok either. Simple.

 

This isn't really a debate about if that sort of thing belongs on DoA, though...

Ah-ha! We are getting down to some very basic basic fundementals of what defines "art", are we not? This is an argument I take up with art teachers on a daily basis, being a worthless comic artists myself. What defines "art" versus "craft"? Let's take basket weaving as an example. That's taught by the art department at my school. So are all the baskets produced art? But they're functionally useless. So are they crafts? At what point is a woven basket art? When it's good? Which then implies that if you aren't skilled, you can't create art. Is art only art when it's good? Is every amateur, then, or hobbyist, not creating art but simply crafting? Is painting or scuplture automatically more legitimate? Why? (I don't know how relevant any of this is, but I was thinking about it when reading the thread so I thought I'd put it up.) By the way, Jenny, I agree about Ann Geddes. >_>

 

Stoner Kitty -

Your original statement:
"I mean, we're talking about the forum that automatically changes the word "bi*ch" to "lady pup". That's way below PG13, or even PG. This is baby town. Of course depictions of rape, violence, etc. are not allowed."

I responded that the forum is not below PG13 and named a couple of things that I don't think you would find even in PG13 media. And I believe that is true, even if it was a cartoon or claymation.

I did not say it wasn't ok for kids to see two guys holding hands. Where did you get that from?

And BTW there is more than holding hands on DoA - there is embracing partially clothed, etc.

Carolyn

 

She probably got that from you, assumedly not intentionally, including full frontal nudity and homosexuality on the same level of "not below PG13"ness.

 

My senior seminar class got into a similar debate one Tuesday. Fiber artists (and similar people): are they artists, or are they crafts people? Are their works art or craft?

The class established this:
Art as art lies primarily in the concept. What is it trying to say? What does it mean? Is it trying to make the viewer aware of the tragedies and horrors of violence by some means?

Craft as a craft lies primarily in technique. How excellent is the craftsmanship? Have they invented a new technique? Is your interest piqued by the pattern, the weave, the shape? In a similar vein, was a scene made just to show off some awesomely new special effect that involved blood or swords?

With dolls, I think the line gets a bit more blurred than that.

A face-up artist or modifier, that is a craftsperson, in my opinion. How good is their technique? Their technique with a style of face-up is why someone hires them. Their ability to craft scars or burns or gore is wonderful. In the end, if they're only doing the crafting, there's no intelligible meaning. It can be wonderful work, but it's beautiful in that it's beautiful. Not in that it has a particular meaning attached.

The actual owner of the doll is the one with the concept. They're the ones that turn something that's beautiful technically into something that's also meaningful. They have a backstory, a concept. However, whether that backstory is worth two beans or is just an attention-getter is something only the one posting the story knows.

You can see how the line gets blurred when it comes to dolls...

 

Kicking and Screaming, PG rating, Lesbian couple. (just to name something recent)
Not only is the world warming up to the idea of men holding hands, but women too.

I think there is a HUGE difference between a 13 year old seeing an artistically photographed naked resin doll body, and a 13 year old seeing a naked resin doll body that's accompanied with text about how it had just been raped/is about to be sexually tortured, or is in the midst of such activities.

Much like seeing a gay couple hold hands does not = PG13, but seeing a gay couple (or ANY couple) discuss explicit sexual content does.

 

I personally don't care. As long as there is a warning that theres going to be gore, or other things, then I'm fine. And sometimes, I look at the gore just to see how well the person did it.

I don't see a problem with it as long as there is a warning in the title. And that way, the people that don't like it can see it and then not look in the thread.

 

uhmm I bought a Idoloid magazine for pictures of the new Unoa mocha but I ended buying the wrong volume.
I have the magazine locked in a closet I find it very disturbing.
Idoloid is mostly targeted against male audiance and people interested in sexdolls(this also includes violence/snuff). It had pictures of silicone dolls that were injured missing limbs whilst it was suppose to be erotic. Also pictures of pedofilic artwork.
I was planning to sell the magazine..but I'd rather burn it than sell this to anyone!!!!
I think people are exploring their own sexual boundries and since doing these horrific things with dolls isn't hurting anyone it gives them a safe way to explore.

=_=...I just can't imagine someone that truly loves dolls being able to do these things. But then iff you are in love with the doll :3 I still wouldn't understand cause that would mean you're crazy XD!
I love my dolls like I would love my cat I wouldn't poke my finger in them or chop off their paw...that's just wrong XD!!

But don't get me wrong I don't mind doll nudity or even dolls making out! I'm also very curious about how realistic dolls can be made!! I just don't understand the need to have sex with a doll XD!!!
And I hate the combination of gore and sex..it's too disturbing..for me =_=..
I geuss we should be happy a large group of people do these things with dolls and not with reall people!!!

And I don't take BJD related stuff too serious since a lot of us like the whole role-playing theme. And I geuss sex and violence are certainly a part of that.

Perhaps too many people have seen the "Bride of Chucky"!!

 

Hmmm I also agree with this wish I've seen this sooner would have saved me my comment XD!!
We can discuss about it all we want but basiclly iff people alert us about the content this means they respect the fact that some people do not wish to see this kind of materials. And in return we should respect their uhmm interesting doll view of things.

Besides I geuss the world would be a tiny wee bit boring iff such extremeties didn't exist!

 

The debate is on where does the violence with dolls come from, and does it have an effect on people (those were the debate questions). Not whether it should be on DoA - so labeling threads doesn't end the debate.

And BTW - Interesting article re Realdolls (silicone lifesize dolls) in Salon.com

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2005/10/11/real_dolls/index4.html

Douglas Tucker, a forensic psychiatrist at the University of California San Francisco's Department of Psychiatry who specializes in treating sexual offenders:

"Tucker says pedophiles or doll owners with violent tendencies toward women -- a group that he speculates is a small subset of doll owners -- possibly could use a doll to "rehearse" offending behavior. And while it's not known whether fantasizing about pedophilia or violence leads to action, in the psychiatric community those fantasies are considered very troubling. It would be dangerous for a pedophile to use a young-looking doll, for example, because it would reinforce his fantasies with orgasm."

(Later in the article the dollmaker says he refuses to make child or animal sex dolls for people who ask for them)

Carolyn

 

Thank you Ladyumbra and Armeleia for noting my earlier post. I'm glad someone actually took time to read it up.

I've been wanting to reply to what people have been saying but I wasn't very keen on joining in the heatedness of the argument of certain people. Somehow, people seem to be fighting with one another with one another instead of a argument against another argument...

The number of theories and new faces that have joined in have really contributed to the debate and brought other arguments up. It's all good. It's no fun when the debate's all about one side. In British Parliamentary form, there is always the need for a second prime and opposition governments to elevate and give the debate some spice. Finally. I've seen it come in.

Carry on everyone.
___

Another argument other than my earlier points of perception and art within communities - which was supplanted so wonderfully by Armeleia. You guys should go read her points. Those also made me think and realize how fragile things are! - would be the use of violence and abuse makes us...basic and very simple. As I have already mentioned, humans are such complicated creatures. They have created a very complex society that is grounded on culture, history and virtue. Sometimes it has become their own prison...
There is a need to break free from that complexity that cloaks our person.
I'm sorry to those who are sensitive to this but Marx is right.

There is a thesis and an antithesis. The two must battle with themselves and then results in some form of synthesis. It's a cycle. A neverending cycle of conflict and interaction. We cannot escape from that.
...Though really it was Hegel who said it first and he simply repeated it in proving that capitalism is just an economical stage...BACK TO THE TOPIC.

What I mean is: We humans in a way want to break free from this life we live. Violence and abuse is something we find taboo and primitive. We resist being anarchic and put a systemic rule over one another to control each other's will to be violent towards ourselves and others ---that would be the reason why the social contract of Rosseau and all the Greek...Roman and early early thinkers operate by which. By either consciously or subconsciously heeding to our desires to become simple and uncomplicated... We fight. Violence is our weapon to be able to achieve that.

The result? I don't know really. Has it happened? Not quite sure. I think we're still fighting really.

Please clarify or ask questions if need be. My argument sounds a bit fuzzy. It's weird. I'm not a Marxist inclined person. I'm a realist. O_o;

 

Yes I know about that argument it seems that people who watch childerensporn actually have the tendency to eventually harm a reall child.

Hmm I geuss sex and violence with dolls could just be like a snowball turning into an avalanche!

 

There is a very important difference in that your cat can feel pain and a doll can't.

 

That's true but although dolls are material things like jewlry etc. I wouldn't damage a gift I got from someone or bought myself just because it doesn't feel pain.
And it's not about damaging just any object that doesn't feel pain but what it represents what is disturbing.
iIt's kinda strange a person needs a doll to provide for his/her sexual or violent fantasies. That is what I can't understand even iff a person has had bad experiences with people instead of overcoming their fear they just buy a doll they can lay next to them and do whatever they want.
They just kill the whole idea of dolls meant to be taken care of like you take care of your favorite shirt etc.
=_=..I geuss I'm not very good at comparing stuff but ye get the point.

 

Oh, Mr. Witkin. I personally DO hold the zombie-modded BJDs to the same artistic standards as I do a man who saws an indigent cadaver's head in half to make a portrait of a man kissing himself. Why not? Art is where you find it, or where you carve it. And our Undead Chiwoo Henry is far more beautifully carved than Marc Quinn's bloodsicle-head. But, that's just me.

I think your last sentence is the kicker-- and don't most debates boil down to this in the end?-- that perhaps it's all in the delivery. Like most things. Which takes us back to Square One about establishing clear standards, so that people know where their delivery will fall on the scale of Art vs Titillation. 13+/18+... and the grey area in between gets hashed out case-by-case.

But how do we separate intent? I think that's the kernel of my main discomfort. Since there can be such extreme levels of shock/gore/sex/etc. in things that are considered High Art (M.Gira, JP Witkin, D.Hirst), how does one determine the intent behind it, vs. the intent behind a porn or snuff film (i.e. not art)? Where do we put grey-area schlocksters like Jeff Koons & John Waters, who are neither wholesome nor truly ghoulish? Who gets to decide the intent between Glorification & mere Expression? And if we do separate intent, at what point does it become a matter of thought-crimes?

It's no wonder the Supreme Court has always had such a devil of a time with these cases... and in the end, it's no wonder that obscenity rulings still boil down to subjective community standards, as lucidly set by Justice Stewart in 1964: "I know it when I see it". ^^ In the absence of clear rules that direct you where to take your Eww-Icky material-- if you're allowed to express it & take it anywhere-- we've got to fall back & let Community prevail. Sad but true.

Of course, they didn't have ControversialDoll back in '64, one of the many reasons I'm so happy that I live here in the Future.


Sidebar on the love-dolls: Carolyn, thank you-- that's one of the better articles on the RealDoll phenomenon that I've read in years. The middle few pages do touch on the "positive transition object" side of things, and there is some good analysis of how love-dolls may fit into the lives of normal, non-pervert people. The whole article doesn't just focus on "omg these d00dz r creeps". I've always dodged the issue of love-dolls, in discussion with anybody, because it just hits too close to the BJDs I love (i.e. both being very realistic looking). I can all-too-easily imagine what Salon.com would say about a Lusis with an O-faceplate, or a B-El with kitty ears and his Big Gun at full salute, found sitting in a young girl's room. *cringe* I'm pretty sure they'd slap a Lonely Fruitcake label on all of us anyway.