Violence and depictions of abuse in the doll world?

wasn't it very popular in the 1800-1900's to write about the adventures of prostitutes and other morally ambigous types?

maybe it's just the same thing, just in a new format?

 

Something that I've heard addressed in other fandoms that might be interesting to bring up here- the subject of "Why rape?" The theory that someone (forgot who, wish I could credit) brought up that I personally found interesting was based on an observation that most rape stories are being done by young teen girls. They're just coming into their sexuality, and rather than being encouraged to explore their newfound sexual feelings, they're basically told that all they need to know about themselves as sexual beings is that they should keep their virginity shrink-wrapped for freshness until they're married.

So, rape stories are used because it's a way of exploring sexuality without it being the individual's fault. IE "I was forced to have sex, therefore, it's not my fault. I'm not the one responsible." It's a way of trying to balance the fact that while they're just discovering that they have sexual feelings, they've been told that it's wrong to act on them. They are told to be a good teenager and just holding out for their future wife/husband, and by placing the blame for their sexuality on someone else (hence the rape idea, the idea that they are still good and chaste and someone else forced them not to be) is often used as an outlet to try to reconcile their own feelings and what behavior is expected of them.

They used the same theory to explain the predominance of rape as a subplot in yaoi- the person doesn't have to outright accept that they are gay, someone else simply forced them into gay behavior. They can still be the ideal 'good kid' and have gay relations, becuase they really didn't *want* to, but someone else just forced them into it.

It's a way of having their cake and eating it too.

Agree or disagree, it's certainly an interesting theory to put forward. I'm sure some people will quite strongly disagree, and it'll be interesting to see what their counter theory is.

----

As one of the few members of the board with a doll with a corset piercing, since they were thrown out as a question of allowability in the excessive gore announcement thread... when Rose's piercing is the center of attention and the reason for the photoshoot, then I do take it to Condoll. If it's just kind of there (IE, you see a glimpse of her in a backless shirt.), then I will post it here. Corset piercings are generally considered a 'fetish' piercing- if I'm heavily focusing on it, then I'm doing a fetish shot by general understanding of what the piercing means. But if it's just there in the picture and not a focus point- well, leather is a pretty strong fetish for some people, but I wouldn't call a picture when someone is folding pants and a pair of leather pants happen to be in the pile, unless the picture was obviously trying to draw attention to the presence and fetish nature of the pants.

If you have a particularily gorey or potentially offensive doll and don't want to cover it physically- well, perhaps photoshop/gimp (FREE!) can be your friend. Mosaic blur over the open wounds so they can't be seen, and don't post a giant "MOSAICED BECAUSE OF GORE" note in the thread. Or similarily, grab the blur tool and drag it over a fresh-wound scar until it becomes too blurry to detail from an acceptable (IE, Cecil the scarface) type wound.

 

People are mentioning how they feel stifled by the new enforcement of the PG13 rating rules here..but it makes perfect sense. PG 13 does not allow for explicit details when talking about violence and rape. It can be alluded to, sure, but a Hostel caliber play-by-play? Heavens no.

Rape as a plot tool is always an iffy topic. Because far too often, it isn't handled properly. Not all rape victims turn into introverts that practice self mutilation. They don't decide to become prostitutes. Many grow up to live normal lives (normal being a debatable term..).

An individual is allowed to just be naturally withdrawn and shy. Or can have a high libido and like kinky things. They don't all have to suffer from some childhood attack.

 

I've come across this theory (also can't remember the source, sorry!) and with what I've personally come across, it rings very true. I do think that in some cases, a similar argument could be applied to the other 'traumatic events' that are being discussed here. There are probably hundreds of stories floating around featuring the old cliches: slavery, rape, the isolation of the main character vs the world... the fact that these themes recur again and again (and usually, I would say, in stories written by younger people) is a clue that they are often being written in response to the feelings, emotions, and struggles (unique to that time of life) that those young people are going through.

Some people have mentioned the 'cool' factor in relation to violence. I can understand this, although I wouldn't call it 'cool' - anyway, I think it's very much based on escapism. We watch these violent films, play these violent games, and we are so incredibly far from our reality that we feel comfortable with cheering on the zombies, hoping that the good guys kill the aliens, watching half-naked Spartans kill and slaughter.... These films and games, etc, are usually stylised or portrayed in an unreal way.

Some people will then argue that they're glamorising/desensitising gore and violence by stylising and dramatising them, and there is evidence to suggest that violent video games do desensitise players to some degree. This is a tough one - and if the person is incredibly impressionable, they may see the glamorised images and act on them. However, in most cases I think people have enough common sense and social awareness not to do this. When it comes to violent doll images, I'd say the same applies, although I doubt that seeing a gory doll is going to desensitise you as much as playing Farcry, for example...

'Cool' turns very definitely into 'disturbing' when the reality is similar to our own (e.g. some films run too close for comfort - and are meant to). I think this is key to the question of 'Violence in the doll world'.

When someone posts a photostory/photoshoot/etc with a gory doll, the reception it will get is going to depend very much on how stylised the portrayal is. A good example of a heavily stylised (and entertaining) but also violent photostory is Hitasura's, over here. It's very obviously not meant to be taken seriously.

A photostory can be a difficult medium to get meaning across in. Often there's just the doll photos, the doll's own commentary and then the owner's 'in doll world' commentary (by this I mean that they're speaking to the doll). When there's a level of pretence like this, we sometimes don't know if the owner's voice is actually speaking the truth. Are they revealing their own opinions and thoughts on the violence/abuse/other event their doll is undergoing? Are they keeping up the pretence, as if they were another character in the story? We don't always know their position, and this can make the story upsetting and disturbing.

Even in a simple Gallery post, the same can be true. If an artist presents his/her work in an art gallery, and the work is violent, there is often some context to help the viewer, or at least some idea of why the pictures were created (and of course, depicting abuse would be a whole different kettle of fish... I don't know the laws on this but I would imagine it's at the very, very least heavily frowned upon). In a Gallery post there's no context to help. In some cases it may lead the viewer to again ask questions like "Is this a reflection of a real event?" or "Is this something the poster is approving of?"

 

I actually had a lecture about this in one of my psych classes here at Uni. The most compelling reason for people, most especially females, to be fascinated by/write stories containing rape, specifically, as a plot element is because it absolves the woman of all responsibility in the situation.

Now this is not to say that women don't want any of the responsibility when it comes to having sex, but instead speaks to cultural ideology. Women aren't supposed to have sex outside of marriage. Period. While this is a changing ideal it is still present enough to cause these 'fantasies' to emerge.

A study of North American romance novels containing rape as a plot device found several rather interesting things:

1.) Earlier publications (i.e. 1970s and earlier) very seldom showed women having consensual sex outside of wedlock; when sex did occur it was usually a rape and then successive encounters would become acceptable due to her 'fallen' nature

2) As the societal expectations of sexual behavior have changed, so have romance novels; as it becomes more societally acceptable for a woman to have sex outside of marriage the 'rape' plot device began to disappear, being replaced by consensual encounters

3) In very few cases was the 'rape' portrayed realistically; it was most often portrayed as pleasurable for the woman and it was occasionally suggested that the woman actually wanted the sexual contact

I wish I could remember more specifics, but the overall point is that 'rape' as depicted in romantic literature was seldom ever actually a true rape. It was instead a fantasy that absolved the woman portrayed of responsibility for the sexual encounter, thus eliminating any guilt that might have come from acting like a 'slut' or 'whore'

Other studies have found that many women have 'rape fantasies' at some point in their lives, for much the same reasons as stated above. Again, it is never a desire to actually BE raped, but instead a symptom of societal rules and emerging sexuality.

So the point of all this chatter is that to see 'rape' appearing as a plot point in a fandom largely dominated by young women is hardly surprising. Graphic depictions of it are certainly not acceptable in a PG-13 forum, but it is not some weird, unnatural thing or even particularly unique to the BJD world.

 

I think context of and motivation for violence in art are the key issues. Two artists could have similar violent scenes in their works. But if the first person is using it to explore the social repercussion of class differences and the second person is emulating a similarly violent character in their favorite show, there is most likely a difference between how these two people feel about violence in fiction, even if they are writing/photographing virtually the same event. That's what I meant earlier by creator vs influenced audience.

Of course, even a "responsible" or "appropriate" portrayal of violence will only be regarded as such if the artist can make the context clear. And even then, as with the TV show I mentioned earlier, some people will still completely miss the point.

I've heard that before and very much agree. However, I'm always a bit iffy on the use of the term "rape fantasy"... I forget who/where it was said before, but the phrase "ravishment fantasy" always seemed a bit more appropriate.

 

Hmm...I've never heard that before but I think I'll keep it in mind. It is a much better term, and really speaks more clearly to what the issue is actually about.

 

I don't really think it's just a part of today's pop culture. If you're looking at say romance novels/historical fiction, what Rhett Butler does when he carries Scarlet O'Hara up the stairs is rape her. Through out the 1800's sexual relations of the barely consensual to rape appear in several books, Dracula and Tess of D'Urbivilles to name two, and going really far back, you have Dinah's rape in the Torah.

I also might argue that in certain respects, for the majority of people in the western hemisphere violence has become something mostly viewed in a more "sanitized" form thanks to TV/movies/books. Historically, people use to come out to picnic to view beheadings and witch burnings.

I think in certain respects, sex and violence have just always been a part of human culture and it's not too surprising to see it show up often in doll pictures.

And as noted, it makes for a more dramatic story.

 

Yep. Check out all those women's romance novels: dramatic rape and sexploitation up the wazoo (excuse the pun). It's not a doll-exclusive, or even online fandom-exclusive phenomenon. [Restating a point, yes, but I typed this up before I finished reading the responses. ^^] People have a morbid fascination with it. Our lives are mundane, so we get a thrill hearing about rape and murder and babysitter seduction, or what have you. Just as long as it's not happening to us.

Bingo.

In fact Kim said just about everything I would have tried to painstakingly extract from my brain in her first post.

Touching on "ravishment fantasy" (haha), there's also the insecurity of women (and men!) about sexual performance. You see it a lot on magazine covers, in Ask So-and-So columns, etc. Having a fantasy in which someone else does all the work and gets their jollies makes sense, then. But I'm not sure if this goes to doll photo stories, however.

On a different note, I have seen plenty of instances in which rape and violence are reduced down to a cheap plot gimmick. The story is not about any kind of emotional development or insight into the dolls as characters. It's just something the owner decided to use for fast and easy drama. The irony is that if one can't show an engaging, thoughtful story about simple human interaction, any story involving grotesque horrors will come out flat, too. It makes you wonder if the person is so detached from the subject that they can't empathize with suffering caused by it in real life. I do find trivializing the act to be a little offensive, because that can easily be interpreted as reflecting personal opinions on the matter. I know this is completely subjective but I wish these kinds of stories were only attempted by people who know they can do them well.

 

Going back to the original question series:

As BJD have become more popular, there has been an increasingly popular trend of depicting violence and sexual abuse using dolls. Where does this come from?

There is not really a place where it "comes from" - violence in fiction has been around for several hundred years, as well as dramatized angst and gore in both the written word and other forms of art. The mutilation of St Agatha is a very old legend, and while certainly horrific, is part of Catholic history. Real life is reflected in fiction, and real life has violence and sexual abuse in it. That people would choose to incorporate this into the fiction surrounding their dolls is not unexpected. Or at least shouldn't be surprising with a cursory examination of historical fiction.

Does viewing depictions of violence/sexual abuse against a non-human object have an effect on real people?

Certainly it has an "effect". This question is very hazy - a dog is a non human object, as is a lamppost. A doll is in fact a human-like object, and studies have shown that the more human seeming something is (even a dog or a statue) the more that people empathize with it, as a whole. We cry at movies because we empathize with the situation. Seeing a doll in various states of mutilation, or reading about a history filled with abuse and violence, will certainly effect the viewer; from those horrified by it, to those who find it interesting, to those who find it exciting.

Is this quantifiable or supported by any sort of existing research, or is this view based purely on opinion?

It's certainly quantifiable. The very human response to fictionalized situations has long been chronicled, it's the reason that art appreciation exists. I'm not sure where the debate is here - reading over later responses, people have begun arguing whether it is wrong or not to depict gore. There is nothing wrong with it, whether purely for the artist's expression, or for an audience's entertainment. Whether or not you personally appreciate the artwork or the situations it depicts, does not make the actual artwork "wrong."

 

As BJD have become more popular, there has been an increasingly popular trend of depicting violence and sexual abuse using dolls. Where does this come from?

I don't remember seeing much violence with BJD's in the beginning when they were not well known, and harder to get. With the BJD's being more visible and easier to purchase, I think they catch the eye of lots of different people. The dolls are edgy and beautiful, realistic and easily available. Some are dressed and photographed by people in very dramatic and sexy ways and shown all over the net. I think it's natural that many people are drawn to them for many different reasons.

I think there are probably many different reasons that violence and sexual abuse might be depicted with dolls, depending on who is doing it. The reasons could be range from artistic or depicting a character to an outlet or enhancer for self-mutilating behavior, emotional distress, abuse, or violent sexual thoughts. I do not think a single reason can be named.

In December 2005 the University of Bath released a report on research into the reactions of 7-11 year old children to various toy brand names. They were asked to say if they thought each was "cool" or "not cool". When they were asked about Barbie the researched discovered some very violent hatred to Barbie, and also that many of the children routinely maimed and tortured these dolls. The reasons could not be generalized.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2005/12/19/barbie161205.html

Some reasons may be more disturbing. Several articles I saw have cited that cutting behaviors (self-mutilation) is on the rise, particularly among teenagers:
http://drdeborahserani.blogspot.com/2005/07/cutting-quiet-epidemic.html

It has repeatedly been noted that many serial killers mutilate or torture animals before moving on to people. I feel that pets and dolls can be similar in some ways, for people who love their dolls.
http://www.all-creatures.org/sof/animalabuse.html

Does viewing depictions of violence/sexual abuse against a non-human object have an effect on real people? Is this quantifiable or supported by any sort of existing research, or is this view based purely on opinion?

I could not find a study on the effects of viewing violence or sexual abuse against inanimate objects. Many studies have been done on the effect of the same in film and videogames and the results are varied.

One study noted here found that children who watched a doll being yelled at and hit with a mallet, live, on film, or in cartoon form, responded more agressively than a control group when later presented with a frustrating situation. More studies are also noted here, including ones with adults:
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

Scary media can produce persistent fear or anxiety:
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/research_documents/reports/violence/tales_screen.cfm

Another often mentioned effect of viewing violence is desensitization - becoming more willing to tolerate violence in society:
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p011070.html

Sexual and violent imagery evokes a response that can be measured.
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060614_ero_images.html

I know that dolls are not real people, but many are meant to depict real people. My opinion is that viewing violence and sexual abuse done with realistic dolls might have similar effects.

Carolyn

 

Where does this come from?
If there is an increase of violent photos of BJD it's because of the increased fan-base. More types of people with different ideas will result with lots of different protrayals of BJD.

Does viewing depictions of violence/sexual abuse against a non-human object have an effect on real people?
I personally do not believe this. For children and adults we are more likely to take cues from and became desensitized to violence dipicted with humans. Dolls are fantasy, and I think generally people can decern the difference. Of course there are exceptions, as there are with everything.

Is this quantifiable or supported by any sort of existing research, or is this view based purely on opinion?
This is my opinion, I don't really want to go digging around for case studies just to back my opinion up

I love all the points people are coming up with on the rape issue. I think most rape protrayed in stories isn't really realistic rape. More of the fantasy ravishing.

 

You make a good point with the serial killers, but I think there's a definate difference between the torture of a living being and taking "icky" photographs or carving up some plastic.

 

While I'm not too fond of over-excessive violent/abused dolls' stories, I can't find myself agreeing with this. Mostly because when you're doing something like modding injuries/scars/gore onto a doll or taking photos for a photostory, it needs time and detail instead of a sadistic or violent inclination. I believe that for most people it's more of a story-writing/creating process rather than any real urge or enjoyment of mutilation.

Hmm...I don't think it's wrong to depict gore and I've always been pretty open about most things violent and gruesome. However, I do wish people would understand themselves what they're doing with it. I never enjoy gore or violence that is used as The Ultimate Plot Device, meaning that everything in the story revolves around the violence or abuse. Without the violence or abuse, sometimes there's nothing left to the story. I'm not saying gore is wrong, but as a matter of personal opinion, it can sometimes seem very contrived and doesn't get very far in either getting across the artist's expression or providing audience's entertainment. I think that's why so many have a negative impression of it.

 

I've seen a few dolls being resold with fast scars that look like they took a red ball point pen to their doll in an effort to scar it quickly to meet a twist in a story they'd come up with, or fit a certain situation that had arisen. There's no artistry in it, and it makes me sad to see it done to such an expensive thing. That said, though, irregardless of the time put into the modification/story, or the eventual artistic value - if any - of a piece once finished, it is still an expression of art. Fundamentally I agree with your point, but it should be said that the quality/time put in does not make the expression valid, it is the art itself that validates its own existence.

This is another argument of is it right or wrong, and when it's right or wrong - I'm not sure if this is the heart of the debate, or if it CAN be debated. It brings in a personal and subjective measure of worth, which would then vary from person to person. There'd be no actual way to quantify it.

The article itself gives a reason for the children's behaviour:

"The girls almost always talked about having a box full of Barbies. So, to them, Barbie has come to symbolise excess. Barbies are not special, they are disposable, and are thrown away and rejected.

“On a deeper level, Barbie has become inanimate. She has lost any individual warmth that she might have possessed if she were perceived as a singular person, becoming an ‘it’ rather than a ‘she’.

“This may go someway towards explaining the violence and torture.

“Whilst for an adult the delight the child felt in breaking, mutilating and torturing their dolls is deeply disturbing, from the child’s point of view they were simply being imaginative in disposing of an excessive commodity in the same way as one might crush cans for recycling.”

The children do not view these dolls as anything but things, no more important than a can of coke, rather than like a pet or a character they loved. Further, studies of the behaviours of children towards very cheap disposable children's toys don't scale to the actions of teenagers and adults with largely expensive dolls which they generally create elaborate back stories for.

Unfortunately, this article does not give any hard and fast numbers to compare past reporting of cutting vs current reports of cutting, only declaring it an epidemic, while the actual numbers of those who do cut vs those who do not is rather low. While it certainly has been on the rise, this is partially due to more people coming out about it, and it being shall we say a bit trendier these days, much as acting out by having weird hair colors your parents didn't like or taking up smoking was in earlier decades.

While a doll can certainly represent a character, it is not alive. Further, this implies that those who modify a doll to fit a backstory with violent elements are budding serial killers, which is a ludicrous assessment of the behaviour. The dolls are either objects, or they are not. A doll may have the same emotional significance as a dog to one doll owner, but that is again a personalized standard that cannot be applied to all doll owners.

 

Personally, I feel that the fasination with gore, violence, whether it's sexual or not, usually refers to a desire to make a character more interesting; it's an easy way to give them emotional motivation.

We tend to gravitate to the dramatic. That's why Romeo and Juliet is still popular after several hundred years. That why teenagers all over the world threaten to kill themselves for attention (yes, I know some teenagers actually do, but for the sake of this model I'm only referring to those who are not actually going to do it).

As a writer we're told to avoid emotional cliche's like rape. We're told to focus on emotional depth from what decisions the character has to make now, not focus on the trama of the past. But violence remains a staple because it elicits a visceral reaction out of people. We know that people will respond to violence, gore, rape, and graphic depictions of sex.

 

Ah, I wasn't actually trying to say that quality/time validifies any expression of art. I was trying to get across the point that someone who sits down and works on modifications or photostories isn't a good comparison to someone who goes out and tortures animals for a kick. I don't think I said it very well because I was in a rush... >_> Clearly, there are people who can take time and effort to...enjoy torturing an animal, so my point doesn't come across very well.

But for a better explanation, what I was trying to say was that most people here are creating or expressing a story, albeit with violent themes. They're not actually sitting down and really whipping their dolls to get them to bleed and going 'yay!'. They're creating by modifying or drawing on the dolls or so on...which is why I didn't think it was a good comparison to serial killers who start of with torturing animals (which was what I was answering to in the first place).

Ar, darn. Perhaps that didn't come out right. I was trying to explain why people have such negative views of artistic violence and abuse, to the point where they have very set ideas of why it's right or wrong. And then I was explaining why I, myself, who actually doesn't mind violence and gore, find some aspects of it off-putting in a photostory. I wasn't actually saying it's right or wrong, but rather expressing my personal view on it. While expression of an art is difficult to quantify as right or wrong, it's undeniable that people can have negative perceptions of certain genre or certain type of expressions.

 

Modifying dolls to portray explicit gore, violence and sexual scenarios is not new. Infact pertaining to gore and violence, these things are already in the mainstream market. Living Dead Dolls for example.

Perhaps the real question is: What makes ABJD so much easier to identify with than other conventional dolls?

Is it because other dolls are mass produced and therefore viewed as disposable? Is it because ABJD are closer to representing humans? Is it their overall rarity?


I will admit to having distinctly different reactions to similar modifications and scenarios done to and portrayed with a vinyl doll and a BJD. While I dislike these kinds of stories and modifications I experience a sense of pity for the resin ones and sometimes revulsion.

However I feel that you should be able to enjoy your inanimate object in whatever way you want to as long as you add proper warnings when you post [ex: not safe for work. Contains gore violence, explicit sex]. That way people who don't want to see that won't accidentally open the link.

About desensitization ~ Mellie brought up a good point: you may also be desensitized to the point where you lose sympathy for people who may have experienced that sort of violence for real.

I think it is important to realize that therapy and medication help people to cope with their painful memories, it doesn't erase them.

~*~

 

Ah, that makes a bit more sense, then. I can see that we're mostly in agreement, then.

Regarding desensitization (not aimed at you, just other arguments I've scoured in here!):

While there are some things in art that I find boring or of no artistic merit (about as personal as I plan to get, in this), the point of art is to evoke a response, even if it is only to make you think "Oh, how horrible, how sick" - if there is a response at all, it's done its job. If the only response is "Seen it, whatever," then the artist has failed in their goal. This is not necessarily a comment on the nature of the modification (after all, one can say "Eh, seen it" to a regular face up but then post "Wow! That's very well done!" to another, the same way they might react to a badly or well done gore mod to a doll), only the response it generates.

It's the difference between saying "This character was raped when they were 17, and the guy broke their nose" and writing a sympathetic story of a character who, during the course of living day to day, is kidnapped and physically assaulted, receiving a broken nose that forever reminded them of that day. There need be no mention of rape, in fact there's no reason for it unless the story further dictates it, one can break one's nose accidentally walking into an open door. When an article of life is included only for shock value, it loses its meaning - the character of "Starvin' Marvin" in South Park doesn't illicit much more than laughs within the context of the show, but the same sort of imagery of a starving African child by photographer Kevin Carter evokes a heartbreaking response (unless one is well prepared to cry, I would suggest one does not look that up).

Photos, both fortunately and unfortunately, are a very visceral medium - a picture is worth a thousand words, and it can instantly communicate a time, a place, and a situation, as well as evoke an emotional response. Not everything is pretty, in fact many of the most memorable images that come to memory years later are not still paintings of flowers, but of shocking images made to stick out in the viewer's mind. The importance is context. Simply saying that all images of a cruel nature are wrong and should be flushed from the sight of the general public is ... short sighted at best.

One need not have experienced trauma to be interested in the depiction of gore/violence, either. I feel safe in saying that the vast majority of the people in this forum have never experienced a full scale zombie invasion, but might enjoy a movie such as Shaun of the Dead, where people are impaled, blown apart, torn apart, clubbed to death, or shot into several pieces and then set on fire. Does enjoying this film mean that someone needs to enroll in therapy? No. Do the makers perhaps need to explore their deep seated issues with death and gore? No.

Creating or modifying dolls and their backstories in such a way should be taken as nothing more than what it is - an expression of creativity.