Violence and depictions of abuse in the doll world?

Carolyn, that article on the RealDolls was certainly one of the better I've read, too. I like this part, in particular, and thought perhaps it could apply to here...

Not maybe precisely to us as BJD collectors, but still... (It's a lovely sentence in and of itself, as well...)

I agree with Jenny. Art is all in the delivery, which is such a grey, fuzzy, subjective area...

 

has anyone seen much of bellmer's work with his BJD? it's definatly sexualizing a young doll, even showing it in dissasembled peices.

 

And you have the right to not damage your stuff. But if someone does want to modify their own stuff to look like a gory...whatever, they have the right too do so just as much as you have the right not to. That doesn't mean that material thing means any less to them. Actually, because they put so much work into it, you could say it means more to them.

But that's neither here nor there. All I was saying was you can't really compare a doll to a cat, because obviously one is living and one is not. Comparing a doll to jewelry does make more sense, but wasn't the point.

And actually, people do cut off their animals' body parts all the time (declawing, tail-bobbing), and nobody thinks twice of it. .... But that's also not the point.

Sometimes they're not playing out fantasies. Sometimes they really are just telling a story.

 

Oh, ouch! You're right!! The violence inherent in pet-shows... the surgical grooming, the eugenics of selective inbreeding... is very squirmworthy to some, because they're living critters & not passive dolls. But it is societally acceptable. You're right, it's a little beside the point here-- but I think it does have some relevance to the argument of Acceptable Aesthetic Cruelty vs. Mere Exploitation.

Wow. I hadn't even thought of that. New vistas to ponder.

No, I had to go look him up! I was about to look for him here before I saw you were talking about somebody who was working wa~ayy before the Internet. *titter* Oh, yeah, funky stuff, those ol' Germans.

I forgot to mention this, but ACK!! You poor thing. ;; I also vote for "burn".
To get subjective for a moment: Idoloid scares me in ways that "Cannibal Holocaust", "The Exorcist", and the entire filmography of Lucio Fulci combined could never manage.
But it has its right to exist, too. It serves the needs of its audience. I just stay as far away from its audience as I can possibly get.

 

Someone said earlier in the forum that, while writing violent stories to keep oneself from killing a particularly annoying neighbour was alright because it vented frustration, drawing violence and gory pictures was not. All of this, both literature and art, are a form of self-expression. If someone is in a particularly nasty mood, they're probably inclined to wish something negative on someone--although hopefully they won't go into great detail such as specifics of rape and murder details (although I have done the latter because high school males can be really immature and annoying ).

Speaking for my on experience, I have fought with depression for over four years--one of which included hospitalization because I was a danger to myself. Drawing "dark" images and writing "dark" poetry became a good, healthy way to vent the feelings out of my system--just like some people will listen to angry/soft music to relax if they're particularly angry themselves. I'm not saying that I glorified in violence. I didn't proudly show off my really descriptive works in order to disturb others (although I did make the mistake of scaring a couple of friends over a misunderstanding).

I don't really understand people who fantasize over sexdolls that are mutilated...although I really don't understand owning a sexdoll at all. I'll admit most of the dolls on this forum are beautiful in a way that cartoon characters (read "manga") can be. But I wouldn't buy a doll just to have sex with it. That's...just disgusting to me.

Really, this is all opinion and personal preference. Some people enjoy BDSM, some are attracted to the same sex, and some are extremely naive and such still.

I started learning about adult situations in the fourth grade, so I can't really pity those naive 13-year-olds here on the forum. In fact, I don't really believe that there are any naive teens out there anymore--unless they live in some extremely secluded little town that doesn't have TV or internet...in the latter case, they couldn't be on here. The media, along with the freedom of computers, has pushed sex and violence (and the combination of the two) so far that I'm still shocked when I meet people my age who don't know something I learned a few years ago.

If it becomes such a big problem, perhaps the DoA could make a seperate section for those kind of things that are password activated or something. Or, those people into paraphilia and violence could just go to ControversialDoll as it's been stated before.

(Just my two cents...or more. Hopefully no one's been offended, and I'm sorry ahead of time if you are. I tend to be very blunt.)

 

I still fail to see how "full frontal" doll nudity is PG13. Shows like Family Guy and South Park show varrying degrees of animated nudity regularly. True, some 13-year-olds are extremely nieve, but if a doll peen offends someone...I don't know. It's not like most of the doll parts are anatomically correct. Just like the heads are too big and the hands/feet are too small, doll genitals never look very human either. (Not including mod jobs, heavy blushing, etc.)

As for the "embracing partially clothed", that is also no worse than anything you can see on TV, internet, movies, etc. Someone would have to live under a rock with their hands over their eyes and ears in order to avoid anything even suggestively sexual, like afforementioned half-naked hug.

Now, back on topic. These dolls are an art form. Any media, be it dolls, music, poetry, painting, etc., will have aspects of their creator in them. Rape, torture, violence, and suffering exist in all forms of human expression. There are a number of people, myself included, who enjoy the darker side of things. I've seen hundreds of "pretty" dolls here, and after a while they all start to look the same to me. I can't even go in the gallery threads anymore, there's too much damn cute everywhere. Sometimes it's nice to look at a doll, which is usually a beautiful thing, and see something ugly, like an open wound. Henry the Zombie Doll is one of my favorites here on DoA, he's so unique. (My apologies, I've forgotten the owner's name, but kudos to you.) And while these darker topics might frighten some 13-year-olds and a few exceptionally prewd 40-year-olds (you know who you are), people still have the right to do what they want with their dolls.

It's like going on DeviantArt (if you don't know what that is, Google it) and crying because there might be a few "scary" images there. The people who make those images are not neccessarily a danger to themselves or anyone else. They could just be expressing themselves, or trying to get a reaction, or trying to work through something in their personal life through their art. While I don't condone the use of rape, torture, etc., I have to admit that I'd much rather read a photostory about rape than to read yet another "ZOMG LOOKIT I GOT MY DOLLIE IN THE MAIL!! HERE'S THE BOX!!!SQUEE!!!" thread. I've seen what a box looks like, I don't want to see yours. Give me Henry and a big ol' heaping pile of drugs and violence any day.

 

First off, I do apologise for only minimally coming into the debate off-and-on -- I'm not a good debater, I'm much better at preaching to the converted. (ie, ranting about things to my flatmate who already agrees with me. )

Anyway, one other thing that comes to my mind as I read this debate and keep seeing people getting stuck with having to stick to the 13+ and then the 18+ labelling ideas is that the USA doesn't have enough different ratings specifications for teens which makes rating anything a lot harder for you guys. :P

In Australia, we have PG (which is similar to your PG-13), and then we have 'M' which is "not recommended for persons under 15" (but there are no restrictions on access), and then 'MA' where one is required to prove they are 15+ to see it, and then 'R', which is similar to your NC-17 -- one needs to prove they are 18+ to see it.

I've always liked this distinction a lot better because it gives three sets of age warnings -- 13, 15, and 18. I find that a lot more comfortable than merely differentiating between 13 and 18.. because there's a LOT of difference between being 13 and being 18. Children do a lot of growing at that period in their lives, and they change profoundly in those few years. I find 15 is the comfortable middle ground -- and if I had a kid, there are a lot of things I might show then at 15, but not 13.. and things I'd show them at 18, but not 15. But if I only have the choice of PG-13 and R/NC-17.. what do I do for them when they're 15?

I realise of course that ratings are overgeneralisations and that as many have said, some 13yos are more prepared to see things others are not, and the like.. but if there is to be a standardised system, I prefer the Australian one to the American.

 

A perfect example (if you have ever had the honor of seeing one) is the "Autopsy Babies" that a doll artist makes on Ebay. These dolls go for 500-700 each. They are modified baby dolls, and they look INSANELY amazing. The artist in no way (yes, i've talked to her) wants to mutilate or perform "Autopsies" on babies. Its just an artform that she's good at, that makes good money. (If you've seen them, you'd know what i mean)

art is art. Why did I make my BJD character a Vampire? Is it because I secretly want to run around hurting and killing people? Is it because I love the idea? NO.

It's because I love writing, and creating, and Characters just flow from me. I have probably 40 or 50 characters, and yah, some of them have little parts of me in their stories. We make characters we can identify with. However, that does not mean that we identify with EVERY part of that character.

My point is just because someone has a character that was raped, or mutilated, or kills, does not mean the individual has even experienced any of that, or wants to.

I know an individual who has a character who was raped. And they have that character, because it is something they actually have sympathy for. They wanted a character that actually had some human trauma that they experienced. It makes a character more real.

We are very quick to place judgement and say "oh there must be something wrong with this person" if they have a doll that has some backstory such as this. It's a misconception, plain and simple. Some do, but not everyone does. (Not saying anyone here has suggested this)

Another example of grotesque artists styles (but hauntingly gorgeous) would be Clive Barker (Creator of "Hellraiser", or Gieger (Artist and Designer for Alien, and Species).

 

I haven't been following this thread very, very closely (been reading when I've time and I might have missed out some parts) but I don't think I've seen anyone dictating how someone else should handle their dolls. I thought this was more of a discussion on depiction of violence and abuse, how it has grown, why some people do it, what are your reactions, etc. Admittedly, it's less of a debate and more of an expression of opinions with random debates popping up, but it's still not a cry for people to stop doing whatever they do to their dolls.

If people express discomfort over violence and abuse depicted by dolls...well, then, it's the same as how you don't like to see yet another 'omg, new doll in mail'. Perhaps some people are frightened and tired of yet another doll that was raped, was abused, is being abused, etc. These are all opinions (yours included), not a call to arms. I can see why a person would be bored with looking at arrival pictures. But I can also see why a person might be bored or even disturbed by violence and abuse even in fiction. Horror is not always to everyone's taste. And that is the way life rolls.

On the other hand, while everyone's taste is different, comparing arrival pictures to pictures that contain violence and abuse is pretty much like comparing a puppy to a tiger that's savaging a puppy. They're in different categories and they'll evoke a different type of response, with a different level of intensity as well. The thing about abuse and violence...even if it is art, even if it is another form of fiction, not everyone will embrace it whole-heartedly. In fact, I would think a lot of creators of things dark and gory are well aware of that.

I thought part of writing/creating with darker themes is to get a darker response, not a puppy and rainbows one. Actually, here's where I find it strange. If someone told me, 'this is too dark and you have a disturbed mind' about something gory I've written, I would say 'I'm sorry it seemed that way, but thank you as well because that was the point of the story.' Can people who make zombies or put in darker themes into their stories actually be expecting a response along the lines of 'OMG, so cool! I love that abuse there and the rape there~' When you have creeped someone out, isn't that part and parcel of what you're trying to achieve?

And...the lack of sleep is causing my topic to meander about. I shall stop here until my sanity returns.

 

*applause* Me too, Cassiel! It's just that... umm, we're kinda stuck here. =P Until we catch up with you guys. That's brilliant.

The gaming & comics markets, here in America, are starting to catch up to those finer points of distinction. There are now comic/manga ratings of "OT" or "16+" for Older Teens, and games have separate ratings for "T" (teen) and "M" (mature). The MPAA hasn't gotten this far yet, for movies-- but their job is much much bigger, so we'll give them another few years.

Personally, I cannot wait until these standards become more universal, because that would really help make things clearer for parents & consumers, as well as the artists & publishers. Also, it would make it much easier to decide what to do for the 15-to-17-year-olds, who are stuck between childhood & adulthood at SO many varying stages. It's true, things that freak you out at 13 may be your favorite thing at 15. (And as I mentioned several hot-blooded pages ago, I wish we could offer a place for the mature 14-17 teens on ControversialDoll, but because we're here in the USA, with the hard-line rule of 18+, we can't. ;; )


A philosophical sidebar for LKJ:

Nicely put! No, people who do doll-gore or abuse are probably not expecting sparkly shiny reactions. If you're writing/photographing something of a dark nature, you want to give your audience a shiver, a fright, a gasp, a stomach-churn, or make them feel sympathy for the victim. There are cross-genres of comedic horror, gory slapstick (think "Army of Darkness" or "Shaun of the Dead") where you ARE going a laugh or a squeal. But no, if something's done in the spirit of seriousness or sympathy, the artist is probably not looking for a "Wow, nifty rape scene!!" reaction.

(This ties back to Zagzagael's ponderings on Intent in Art; but I talk too much already, so I will resist pondering that here!)

Also, graciously said... Thank you for providing me the 'sympathy' angle for my above statement.
Exploring unsafe themes through art can make people feel safer.

 

This is an EXCELLENT rule! This is one of those things I love about this board. I don't see the point of bringing one's persoanl history into things. I have a hrad time believing the reality of someone who just likes to 'let things out.'

As for the subject:
I like horror movies and I have no problems with dolls enacting such things because to me its like their actors on stage. I don't see the harm in giving a doll a painful traumatic past, it gives him character and makes him more real. But what I find upsetting is taking pitcures of a rape going down. To me that look like someone who gets a pervy buzz over it. It may not be the case, but it always looks like that to me. Its creepy, some adult alone with her dolls taking play by play pictures of her boy doll getting raped. It has the same effect as some sort of rape porn fan.

I am not trying to accuse anyone who takes pictures of such things pesonally, but to me and anyone else I have talked to it has struck us that way.

 

In debates, sometimes using personal experiences helps, I've found.

 

In a trend such as this that uses art (the dolls themselves as well as the photography depicting them) it's common to depict some sort of traumatic or horrifying event. Art isn't always pretty or happy, and thats not to say that the actuality of rape or violence is art. But it does express something that creates emotion in the viewer. Sometimes it may be used as an outlet or simply for shock value. Glorifying it may not always be the intention, and its hard to point to someone and say "this is how you intended it" because it's often interpretted differently by different people. In any case, it's hard to avoid subjects like these because we as humans are often so intrigued by horror or over the top violence. We see it everyday on tv and in movies and hear it in music - its a device used to create strong emotions, and whether its effective or not is based on who the viewer is and their reaction to it.
This is all my personal opinion, but I see a lot of the BJD fandom as an artistic hobby, similar to drawing, painting, and writing. Photostories depict a story just as a book or an illustration of something would, so using a common or darker theme to express something or cause emotions within the viewer seems typical. A doll, even if its not living, comes off as a living character of one's own imagination when given a story, particularly one that is filled with darker themes, and thus makes it seem more real.

Like I said, personal opinion and it likely sounds like rambling.

 

Personally, I do not like horror or gore. I find it disturbing. I like pretty things in general. For me dolls should be pretty and they don't have to live in a world where any kind of ugliness exists.

Luckily, this board doesn't allow too much of this and one has to go elsewhere to find it. I am not inclined. For those that are they seem to know where to find it. Same as with any behavior that is deemed unsuitable for the majority.

Using the excuse that it is a reflection of our society is pretty thin. So is murder. Is that next? Just because our society is filled with tons of negative behaviors does not make it acceptable to the majority.

One can judge a society--by how well it treats it's most vulnerable members. If a society has no or little regard for those least able to defend or protect themselves, then it is not a good society.

Showing rape, under age sex and violence is showing that it is okay portray the victimization of those that are weaker. This is fundamentally wrong anywhere in the world no matter how you slice it.

 

I see nothing wrong with showing violence and depictions of abuse of dolls, I mean for some of them that is just part of their backstory and I feel that to see it brings people closer emotionally to the character of the doll (then again I have always loved the characters with angst ridden, horrifying pasts. I know my boy has a 'difficult' past simply because I love the idea that I can make him feel better, heal and everyone can watch his personality grow and change as he becomes more confident within himself.)
I don't mind seeing violence and abuse when it is done in an artistic way or a way that furthers the story of a character, but personally I don't like it when it is done just for the sake of doing it, like a 'I can hurt it just because it can't feel' type of idea but I guess that stems from the fact that I have a tendency to get really attached to my characters (doll or otherwise) almost to a point where to see them hurt kind of upsets me (thats not really the right way to explain it but I'm hoping you'll understand what I mean).

 

Agreed. I mean this is what warnings are for, if you read the warnings on a post and think that it may be too disturbing a subject for your liking then don't view it. I know I have actually stumbled across a few photostories or whatever that have been too intense for my personal taste but at the same time I could appreciate the artistic intent behind it (even if I did leave as soon as it got too disturbing for my taste...and I do have a pretty high tolerance for these things so that is rare lol).

 

I couldnt agree with you more.
There are few things that make me go if i find something i dont like i just wont look at it.

 

The sad truth is there is very little distinction between how our society really treats it weakest members today and the depiction of said violence in doll "art". Art is a reflection of life and of it's creator--it's a personal view.

(Strange--I do read murder mysteries--but they're not illustrated...)

I am glad there are warnings--I skip those posts anyway. I hate the portrayal of victimization and feel it's gratuitous and attention seeking. One can describe the character's sordid past background in words if one is a good storyteller. It's good to let the viewer use his or her imagination sometimes. It has nothing to do with the Disneyfication of the world--mayhem has been all too real in my life--mostly as a bystander. I just hate to see the depictions of abuse in any form and cannot accept it as art. Documentation perhaps, but not art.

Just not ready for dolls to be that bad