Violence and depictions of abuse in the doll world?

Humans are truly complicated creatures ne?

For that they need to have a medium to express their desires and wants for their own satisfaction. This expression of desires have then been called "Art."

Art is a very complicated thing to explain. It is the by product of culture, time and history. It reflects the many experiences of the people who revel in it.

In my opinion, everything we're talking about is really just about perception. What we find violent and disturbing is beautiful and artistic to another. It just so happens we have a somewhat unified perception by virtue of my humanity. We're wired to think alike in one way or another.

Acceptance of violence and abuse is something we all have to swallow. It happens all the time. It's a by product of conflict and interaction which we'll never be able to avoid. Humans are political animals and need to feed off on each other's existence in order to maintain their own.

To me, it makes some sense to see depictions of these. It's an expression of a person's creativity. I sometimes do question what drives people to make such vivid imagery... but I'd rather not step on that part of the loft. It's too personal. There are many reasons for why people create these.
They have been expressed on earlier quite well.

People create art to express and share their feelings. So there's an element of attention. Artists talk to people using their art. A certain type of art (like guro culture and horror) wouldn't end up being so popular if it weren't for their warm reception. So for a genre to flourish, it needs a steady if not growing fanbase. Even if there's a small fan base as long as it exists, people are able to express their art of a certain genre with a given community of peers. I think the same applies to violence and abuse depictions with BJDs.
There is a niche of it here because there is a demand/fanbase for it.
Though it's more of a fanbase than a demand in my opinion.

Please feel free to clarify if I'm not making sense or anything.

 

white_beast you took the words from my mind.

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?

Depending on how you look at it the people who create photostories that some consider violent and inappropriate due to their content are merely relaying what they consider to be everyday life. it is entirely possible for a person to see the world in a way that makes rape and violence commonplace and a normal part of their character's story.

it's also possible that these people see a certain beauty in it or derive a form of pleasure mental or otherwise from getting a certain imagine from their minds out onto a suitable medium. people don't create snuff films because they are cool or an awesome trendy thing to do. There is a reason, most likely one we don't care to know about but there is a reason.

Essentially this new wave of violence and abuse ( should you see it that way) based art comes from hundreds of different minds all portraying their own personal view of one subject. to some it may look like a copycat trend but it's important to think about the fact that everyones mind is different and just because several people show us the same scene in a shoot doesn't mean they were portraying the same scene.




Does viewing depictions of violence/sexual abuse against a non-human object have an effect on real people?
Yes but the extent of that depends on the person viewing it and what they take away from what they see.

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

 

On your first paragraph...even if there are people who consider violence and abuse as commonplace, we can't expect everyone else to view it as commonplace as well. And, I think it's not a bad thing to get a wake up call that violence and abuse should not be commonplace. I'm not talking about photostories now. I'm saying that if someone is in a situation where they truly believe that violence is normal and an everyday thing, I think it can only be a good thing to hear that that is not how everyone's life is or should be.

Individual minds do work in different ways and I won't say that if we see a repeat of something that has been done before, it's clearly a copy. But I think we also can't avoid the fact that there are people who do what they do because they're following what seems to be trendy. It's just another way of thinking.

 

True, however the fact is that for some people it is a reality and to say that they shouldn't be allowed to portray their reality because it is not everyones is well.. just a step below censorship. you can't make a problem go away just by making it so people can't see it. Who are we to tell people that their perspective on life is unacceptable or not to be viewed by others because it's not how we see it?

Certiainly people who don't have that point of view shouldn't be forced to see it and accept it as such but that's what warnings or at least descriptive summaries are for. If watching violent stories on the news bothers someones they turn it off, if you see something you don't like on the net, click to a new page. There should be room for everyone to express their views without anyone feeling put upon.


* Provided for these boards and within real life that they stay within what is considered lawful.

This in and of itself is a whole another argument, what is trendy and what causes people to feel the need to be so? However I won't argue with the fact that what you say there is true.

 

Today is the day where I can't explain myself properly it seems... Anyhow, I hope that I haven't for some reason come across as trying to stop anyone from portraying what they want. My point mainly was that no matter what a person thinks is commonplace, not everyone is going to see it in the same light so we can't expect everyone to react neutrally or positively to it. I suppose my response was mainly because in your previous first paragraph, it sounded like you were saying that we should welcome violence and abuse in fiction because it is someone else's view of everyday life.

Telling someone that violence and abuse is not commonplace for everyone is not the same as forcing someone to change their perception because it's not acceptable. I have to ask, how can telling someone that they shouldn't have to expect violence and abuse in everyday life be something that is wrong? If a person views these things as normal, it would speak of a rather dire situation. In this case, I'm not saying force them to change their minds. I'm saying help them. (I am assuming when you say violence and abuse, you're not talking about something like...S&M or others of that line... Because that's a person's choice and in a whole new world of its own.) This is tangenting off the topic a bit though, so apologize beforehand to other people who would like to debate back on topic...

Sadly, while it's ideal that everyone uses warnings, that is not always the case. As the forum is a PG13 one, warnings or not isn't the point anyhow.

 

I think that your whole post is really thought-provoking, whitebeast, but this paragraph is particularly interesting to me.

I have felt that the internet is a really dangerous place for those with with proclivities toward violence/etc. While there have always been people with various unusual interests, the internet has made it possible for people of these interests to find others with similar tastes very easily to support and encourage each other. In some situations, that's great - for example, the BJD hobby in the US probably would have never gotten off the ground without the internet. However, in other situations, it's very worrisome because these people who have always (probably rightly) felt that their interest was somehow deviant are now able to feel normal doing things that could be dangerous to themselves or others. There are support groups for people to help them continue to be anorexic, there are LJ communities to show off marks from self-mutilation, there are email lists for people to share child pornography. These people all feel "normal" within their community.

I think it's really important that while people should be allowed to share what they feel, some things need remain taboo or at least have negative social consequences from sharing. The things we like do say things about us, and to expect people not to judge based on sub-interests within the hobby is unrealistic.

I think sometimes that viewing casual depictions of rape and violence using dolls falls into the other forms of visual media. They do make an impression, and more than being a passive observer of a television show... Because this an interactive community, posts here are a form of communication, rather than a static broadcast. When the poster of a violent/sexualized story gets good feedback, they will probably continue in that vein... and others, seeing the popularity, will probably also do some copycatting. I do think this is also leads to desensitization... or at least normalizing offensive words and concepts. The words "rape" and "self-mutilation" appear on this forum more often and less momentously here than on many other forums, and I do wonder if this casual usage of these words creeps into people's real-life vocabulary more often now as well, even when not talking to "doll people."

 

I completely agree with this post, and armeleia had some great insights as well.

Just because we live in a world that has violence, should we focus on it?

Quite frankly, because our world has some horrific violence, I prefer to infuse my hobbies with elements that do not glorify or focus on it. Maybe it's an attempt to have some balance in life, and to remember that not everything is about violence, darkness, anger, angst etc. There ARE still beautiful and joyful things in life.


And, just because I prefer to focus on happier imagery, in no way minimizes my awareness of those dark, painful elements in our world. It just means that I don't want that energy to be the "core" of my focus. Hopefully that made sense.

I also accept and understand that for some people, using imagery that is violent or cruel is a cathartic experience, so I would not in any way try to tell people how they must express themselves. That is not my judgement call. However, in terms of the board, and it's PG13 presentation, I think the limitation of violent imagery is a very good, and necessary call.

 

The idea of "don't like, don't look" when used in the context of "I should be able to do/post whatever I want" is slightly distrubing to me because I dislike the move of society towards the individual's wants as supreme over the needs of the community. There's a danger in majority rule degrading into mob rule, but there's an equal danger in letting everyone do as they will at the expense of the greater good for the community.

Thus, what's important if you're going with the idea that everyone should have a venue to express their way of seeing the world is the idea of *time* and *place.* Not every community is going to be open to every viewpoint, or be willing to provide a place for that viewpoint to exist.

 

"A Kewpie doll for the lady!"

And there is the entire argument at its crux. Not neccessarily answering the original debate question - but cutting to the heart of why it needs to be discussed at all. When the argument about Free Speech and Censorship is used like a shouting match for "allowing" all manner of degredation and depravity to be publically posted - then it becomes impossible to speak above that din. Yes, Censorship is an Important Issue - but we must give equal weight to the idea that some things just aren't Public Consumption material.

And HOW do we decide this, who gets to draw the paramters of permissability? Quite obviously, on a private forum such as DoA or say a privately-owned fanfic website - that answer is "easy" but what about non-private sectors?

 

This is a very simplified answer, but I generally look at it like this: Freedom of speech should never trump freedom FROM speech.

 

Oh not at all, you're doing very nicely ^-^.

Now if we look at the bolded part of your reply here's where it gets interesting. While this debate takes place here DoA is not the only site for bjd ( though from what I've seen it's one of the biggest if not the biggest forum out there) and technically this topic is about the hobby in and of itself not just limited to the boards. Therefore while some things may or may not be allowed here it can reflect on an owner who could possibly feel that the hobby stifles their creative outlets because one site in particular if considered an authority feels that that's not the direction the hobby should go in.

It becomes a matter of when and where is it acceptable for these people to post. and should they simply be trying to get an artistic point of view across how limited will their audience be becuase of this.

What exactly are the supreme needs of the community and which one? DoA alone or the entire world of collectors? not to mention that this trend,wave,phase seems rather large and permanent having soaked into a great deal of today's society. I have seen several members lmention in other threads that it is hard to find "casual" clothing for dolls because so much is dark based, obviously this could not have always been true but had to have become the norm when more people with darker tastes began to demand/buy/make this clothing.

Also just how many people are on either side of the divide? If majority eventually becomes in favour of allowing violence and abuse and those people move to a non pg 13 forum would it be considered a loss to these forums as their insights into things other than this may be lost.The community in and of itself itself is likely going to continue to change and evolve and while we don't have to make room for everyone we have to acknowledge their existence's especially when enough of these people require are around to require this debate at all.

I hope that made sense and was non personal sounding.

Edit: Right then just discovered controversial doll and now feel like removing foot from mouth ^-^. although not all people posting here are 18+ and thus allowed to be on those forums legally meaning they get the raw end of the deal if they want to express themselves without breaking the rules.

 

Wow, what a absolutely terrifying statement.

Because who decides what speech is "okay" and what speech you need to be protected from?

(I am discussing "world at large" here, not DoA. DoA being a private forum, the answer is obvious - they do. And I understand and support the Mod's decision, feeling that it was not so much a "censorship" issue as it was a "We'd like to not get kicked off our server, thanks" issue.)

 

Again, time and place. One's creativity is not stiffled because they can't post something on DoA- they just have to find another board, another community that IS accepting of their particular creativity.

To make a somewhat silly analogy, you wouldn't join a community dedicated to "paintings of the color red" and then post a bunch of blue paintings and complain that the community was stiffling your creativity to paint in blue, would you?

Who decides what is appropriate or fits the community standards in the larger world is a very complex issue, and probably beyond the scope of this debate.

 

I debate with myself over this topic. I don't believe in censorship, BUT I wish we all weren't so desensitized to violence due to the popularity of violence in media. I WANT the movie Saw to disgust and repulse people, but the people who made it have the right to do so.

 

Great points!

Another consideration is the proportion of willing vs. non-willing viewers. I think DoA's "play nice" rules can give an inaccurate appearance of acceptance. Someone might post a gorey, sexualized photoshoot and get a handful of positive comments and think "Wow, people really like this!" When in reality, those who posted positively were relatively few compared to those who were either apathetic and did not reply or those who were offended and were prevented from flaming by the gallery rules.

DoA may be a large audience, but it doesn't always mean that its a large receptive audience. Specialized forums like ConDoll do give people the opportunity to choose their audience and let their audience choose them.

Meaning no offense to the under-18s on the forum, but not all adults are comfortable seeing the violent or sexual expressions/explorations of minors. I feel like our underaged members do get the short end of the stick in some situations, but in general, I think 18+ forums are 18+ for many reasons... even just aside from the purely legal or the purely "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN" viewpoints.

 

Unfortunately, this changes the entirety of the argument from a debate to a discussion. A debate is a topic which is then debated - with two clear cut sides. Euthanasia is wrong, euthanasia is right. Offensive art is wrong, offensive art is right.

However, by the very definition of "free speech" - a generally American concept, fyi - there is no material made beyond the realm of public consumption. None. Nada. Either speech is free, or it isn't. The debate would become "Should offensive artistic expression be protected under the realm of free speech as it is known in America?" This is the debate that rages across much of America, every time someone pickets a movie or a painting.

One assumes that there are still "non-private" sectors. Depending upon the showcase of the art, what is and is not allowed changes. In the middle of the desert, on land that no one owns, you can, by the definition of free speech, showcase anything you please. If one so chose, they could display an image of Hitler having sex with his mother, done entirely through the medium of fecal matter. Disgusting? Yes. Gross? Yes. Not something many would want to see? Yes. But also allowed.

The venue where one is currently standing, simply put. If one is standing on a street corner, the public government decides. Against a wall of a museum? The museum. I am not sure where the debate is here, these are fairly cut and dried questions.

Though this was later edited (and well!) I would like to address this point. The rating of PG13 does allow for tremendous violence and gore - The movie The 13th Warrior is PG13, So is Hellraiser II - but these are movies whose subject matter would NOT be allowed on this forum. This forum is, at best, PG.

The majority rules does not hold sway in a private venue, the owner of the venue does. Again, this is not so much a subject for/of debate, as it is a simply answered question.

 

Actually - getting closer to the heart of the current debate - who defines "offensive" and what then constitutes morally reprehensible and deviant? There are current laws for the protection of minors from pornography - can we extend those to the pornography of violence?

 

Then they'll just have to wait.

If you're not 18, you don't get the perks that goes along with the age. That's life. Most countries have age bans on certain activities - so it's not a far stretch that many of these policies would extend to the internet. And it, once again, falls into the territory of "Should their wants/needs supersede that of the community?"

The community at large would decide how far is too far. Sure, in some cases the group could bow out and allow a pushing of boundaries; but other times it could just as easily shun those that encroach upon their comfort and security. It's as simple as knowing who your audience is.

Using the old fable of the Boy who cried Wolf. Each and every time he used his freedom of speech, the village was forced to drastically alter how it functioned. People had to stop what they were doing in order to hunt the wolf, seek shelter, warn others. His enjoyment curtailed his fellow townsmen the right to carry out their daily tasks in relative peace.

 

The question was answered within the statement of the question:

There are current laws for the protection of minors from pornography - can we extend those to the pornography of violence?

There are regulations in regards to this as well - the ratings system of movies, while not law per se, fill this function. So do the parental advisories placed on cds, dvds, and videos.

Again, what is the point of debate here?*

*point as in the topic, not the overall reason for debate.

 

Personally, I don't want to see it, and I'm quite bothered by it.

I applaud the mods for making the new rule. This isn't my forum; I don't pay for it, nor do I manage it, or run it, or anything. I am here as a guest, and if I'm a guest in somebody's home and they ask me not to put my feet on the coffee table, I don't.

I'm a terrible chicken, which is my own problem - but I really am, quite embarrassingly, a TRULY HUGE CHICKEN. I can't abide horror movies, was traumatized by being forced to watch night of the living dead IN SCHOOL (can you BELIEVE THAT???) at age 13, and I really am afraid. So call me what you want, but I'm thankful this is a safe place for me to play.

This has already been quoted once by Zag but it's SOOO GOOD that I gotta quote it again. And I bolded the part that made me throw confetti in utter glee. WOOT!