Violence and depictions of abuse in the doll world?

QFE both of you. Well said, I was thinking the same thing. It's kind of like going to someone's house and expecting them to let you smoke inside (when they are non-smokers).

 

This is a side note, but as far as I'm aware of anyone's age (which I mercifully am NOT in general) it seems to be the older members who have issues with the rights of the one superceeding the rights of the many, whereas the younger generations, brought up to be as individualistic, unique, and quite frankly selfish as they can get hold some sort of dread fear of the common mob becoming the rule. I, of course, speak from conjecture and general assumption, however this seems to be true.

So, then, is this pervading violence and abuse because of an increasing concentration of younger collectors and the modern youth culture they carry? Is it a sign of the growing divide between the older and younger generations? Not much more than 50 years ago, there was no such thing as "youth culture". You were either a child or an adult, and that was it. But then the 50s came along, and all those kids with their disposable incomes, advertising directed specifically at them, so on and so forth... And so-called "youth culture" was born. Since then, it's become increasingly fractious and pulls further and further away from the "world of adults"...

I say this because most of the violence and abuse I see seems to be glorified in a self-centered, self-serving way. (If that makes any sense?) Not, you know, that the individual is proclaiming that they desire that kind of situation for themselves, but it's like... "I want people to look at ME, and think that I AM SOMETHING NEW, I am EDGY, I have a depth of understanding of the world that they can only envy". (This doesn't apply to everyone, of course, and it certainly doesn't apply to alot of zombie-modders--in as much as I have seen--but I feel that it certainly applies to some.)

On a different note, who DOES decide what's "offensive"? Is it the older community, their older values, the way they feel? Is it the younger, the newer community who feel that they are the Next Big Thing? Are they to "blame" (no one should be blamed), or should the older ones who made them be the ones who should get the brunt of it?

I feel (maybe because I AM younger) that the individual DOES matter more. Bowing my will to someone else's has never been something I've relished, been particularly good at or even really DONE. I don't think this country of mine (America) has any sort of solid cohesion anymore. Community, working together, family, the collective--these are seen as old, useless, unutterably "uncool". So we, the youth of this country (being the only one I'm familiar with) turn to depicting "deviance" in artistic outlets to seperate ourselves from what has come before. I mean, standards change. At least most of our violence is artistic, intangible, removed from reality (even if only by a step or two). To me, it's sort of a "live and let live" situation. You don't want to see that sort of thing? Great! That's lovely! I don't go to horror movies because I don't like them. I'm not offended because they exist--I have to take personal responsibility and not just plug myself into something because it's there if I know ahead of time I'm not going to like it.

 

I'm sorry, Idoru - but I disagree vehemently and on every point you made. Yes, you're saying it might just be conjecture, but it's still totally off-base from my eyeballs. Based upon your own "history lesson" from which you date Fierce Individualism as having begun in the 1950's - there can't possibly be a single member here who wouldn't then fall into your category of "the younger generations, brought up to be as individualistic, unique, and quite frankly selfish as they can get hold some sort of dread fear of the common mob becoming the rule".

So, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say. But I think believing that some photos/artwork/stories are pushed beyond the boundaries of common decency in the dollery doesn't mean that those who think that way are wanting to squelch individualism but rather question boundaries of what should be deemed permissable and what shouldn't, why and how and when.

 

You bring up some interesting points Idoru, but I also think Zagzagael is right. If it began in the 50's most people are included in that then.

I think it's more recently that youth culture has changed. I noticed a difference in attitude between the freshmen in my HS even in the span of 3 years.

Also, In western culture individuality is highly valued, so generally most people feel that the individual needs supersedes society's.

I'm in the middle I suppose. When I got into BJD I was already an "adult"
I agree with the rule, because I don't want DoA to get into any trouble. Yes people can depict violence as self expression, and it's sad when that can't be allowed, but on a board this big there has to be rules that protect people of all ages.
I understand both sides of the arguments, but I personally haven't been aware of this massive influx of violent images everyone is talking about. I guess I've just been avoiding them...

 

To a certain extent, I can understand the glorification of violence. Just as many people very much enjoy gory movies, horror movies, movies with fight scenes - and so many movies do have these! - many people enjoy seeing these things in other media. Why is more complicated. I think it stems from the fundamental parts of the human brain - we have all been hurt, no matter how small it may have been, we all understand pain - and because it's simple. Hurting someone, or hurting someone and taking pleasure from it, automatically makes that character evil. Being hurt, and surviving or overcoming that hurt, automatically demonstrates that this character is strong. Being violent against another person is a simple way of expressing your own power and your control over that other person - and people who feel they lack power and control enjoy feeling that, by proxy, by empathising with the character doing so. If you look at many popular films (The first examples that spring to mind are the Matrix, Lord of the Rings, the Mummy, but there are many others, even comedy films like Kung-Fu Hustle) the main characters demonstrate their strength and prowess by hacking through hordes of 'enemies'. Violence has become synonymous with power and the ability to be a hero.

I don't understand the glorification of sexual abuse or rape, but I agree with what other people have said about it electing sympathy etc. I understand why people would want to use it in their stories - I have, at times, because sometimes you need something that momentously world-destroying for a plot, or you need a character to go through or overcome something that will, in effect, totally destroy them and their world, because it's one of the few most totally awful and destructive things you can hit a character with. I don't think it shouldn't be used in stories - just that when I'm reading these stories, I feel many people don't appreciate the magnitude of what they're doing to their characters. Aside from anything else, when sexual abuse is used in such a trivial way, it cheapens the story and the character.

I think people should be allowed to express whatever they want through their dolls - I'm a firm believer that fiction is a form of therapy and many people on these forums seem to find it easier to emphathise with dolls than written or cartoon characters - but I don't neccessarily think they should do it HERE. I'm happy with this forum having the rating it does, because while I still want people to read my photostories I would feel uncomfortable if the thirteen-year-old I reffered to DOA after they saw me carrying my doll in public read something I had written that involved violence and sexual abuse. I wouldn't show that young person the photostory in person, even if I knew them, because it wouldn't be appropriate - the distancing factor of the internet isn't an exuse, there are still real people on both ends. There are places more appropriate for such content, so I don't feel DOA needs to accept or make adjustments to accomodate a (relative) minority of members.

 

Working together and family and a sense of community are uncool? Yikes. That is TRULY frightening if that's true. Seriously. Oh. My. God.

I don't think of it as bowing to somebody else's will; at least not in such black and white terms as you seem to see it.

It's like the person who says to me, "I'm told I'm extremely straightforward and call it as I say it, some people tell me I'm rude, but that's just me, take me or leave me" and when I choose to not spend time with that person, they are angry and resentful that I'm not "accepting them" as they are or something. I truly don't understand that way of thinking. So... I should WANT to spend time with somebody who is unkind to me, and is mean and hurtful? Ohh...kay.... (I really have met these kinds of people - and have gotten the reaction I described. And I do not understand it.)

Yes, people can label their posts, and I can choose to not look at them. I do certainly understand that. However, there are a lot of topics here (in pic requests, for example) where the broad nature of the topic can lead things to be posted that I find truly horrifying.

I don't know. I'm really honestly depressed to think that "you young people" out there truly don't care about anybody but yourselves, I think I need to get out of this discussion area pronto. I guess I'm an old fart, but I believe that you reap what you sow, and kindness, and understanding, and caring, and trying to look at things from another person's point of view, even if it is not yours, and sometimes accepting things YOU may not like but can perhaps understand, only allows us to learn and grow and become accepting of all kinds of people from all different ages and walks of life.

I guess I am, therefore, uncool.

 

My take on all of this is: if you want to do depict violence and abuse with your dolls that you are more than welcome to go ahead and do so.. I'm not going to judge you as to why you're doing it or think less or more of your doll. But I also think that people should respect others in the fact that - not everyone wants to include their dolls in violence and abuse and not everyone wants to see it depicted. You don't have to think community or any of that is "cool" but a little respect goes a long way. A: someone else pays for this forum, so they have every right to set the rules they wish. B: If you want to see this sort of thing depicted then maybe make your own forum or join another one? - I guess for those who are put fof that DoA doesn't allow this - realise that it's not some sort of public service that DoA provides.. this is "DoA-Land" and the owner is the president.. stop trying to change the rules and make/find a "country" you like instead.
- the bottom line for me is respect. if you're going to depict violence & abuse, realise not everyone will like it or want to see it and warn people accordingly.

 

I haven't been aware of it either. Does it actually exist? Have most of you actully seen a massive amount of violent/abusive postings?
I haven't noticed anything above and beyond what I'd see if I turned on TV in the evening...and I'm not talking HBO here, just the SciFi channel and USA and suchlike. I'm sure there were a certain amount of things that were taken off the board by the mods before most of us could see them, and well, that's just the mods doing their job correctly. This board has always been PG 13, and while that '13' in there does allow for a bit of exploration into darker topics, it does not allow for R level graphic violence.

This debate seems to be focused more on violence/abuse as a general phenomenon and how and why that could be part of the doll world. Not how it is a part of the doll world as it stands right now, in relation to DoA as a PG13 forum.
Most people, I think, do not clearly understand what would make something PG, PG13, or R. Even with movies, the exact cut-off line can be very arbitrary. This can definitely lead to hurt feelings when someone posts something that they clearly thought was PG13, within the realms of acceptable, and was necessary plotwise to their story, only to have it declared too graphic/violent/offensive.
With my own photostory, I plan on keeping it within the lines of what I feel to be PG13 simply because I'm focused on the storytelling, not the 'OMG lookitthat!' shock value that violence and the graphic depictions of its aftermath tends to be designed to engender. Still, I feel that I cannot post everything I want to here, even though it's PG13, because it will just get lumped into the 'massive influx' that people seem to be imagining. Likewise, I don't really want to take it to ConDoll since it's not graphic at all. *sighs*

Anyway, my general point is this:
Is there an influx of violence/abuse as themes in the doll world, or is it just that it has become the 'hot topic' right now, so what little there is here is being noticed more? I personally think we all see more violence per hour spent watching basic cable/sattelite TV than we see here looking at photostories and gallery post on Doa. Occasionally things slip through, since this is a public forum, unlike TV. If they are above what is allowed, then the mods shoule feel free to delete them after pointing out to the person who posted them why their post was considered to be above PG13. I'm not seeing an influx, myself. Where is all this dolly rape people keep mentioning, this dolly abuse? I'm just not seeing it at all. A little gore here and there, yes, and a bit of plot-what-plot...but no massive glorification of violence/rape/abuse...so where is it???

 

I wonder if the age question isn't so much about the difference between a 'then' and a 'now' in terms of an era, but more of a question in the ages of the people who are collecting and portraying the dolls.

I think it would be interesting to do some sort of organised poll to find out the different perspectives and see if they correlate with age groups. Because I have noticed on this forum, and on others, a little bit of a push and pull between the age groups. Primarily those who are considered 'adult' and those seen as children still. Not that it's a bad thing - it's a given.

I wonder if maybe that's where the differences of perception towards violence comes in - not through different perspectives of different times, but simply different perspectives because of the different age groups. Do the younger members see violence and sex in a different light (novelty factor, perhaps) from the older members, who may have had more experience of the realistic implications of violence?

I'm not trying to belittle anyone, or group anyone in any sort of way that would imply blame, and I'm not even sure if I believe the argument myself, but it's definitely been a factor in other fandoms, so why not here?

 

I wasn't coming off very well at all (I'm a little sleepy from not getting my normal 5 hours), but basically, Bloodyrose82 said what I meant, only better and with less silly trivia about the 50s.

 

Perhaps the violence you describe is removed from your personal reality, but for many people, it is a depiction of something very, very real...and that's why they don't want to see it here.

As for the age issue...maybe we "old people" are more concerned about community because we have the life experience to know that society (or doll forums) can't function without a collective agreement to follow a certain set of rules. (Anarchists may disagree with me on this one )

Like Zagzagael, what I find most disturbing on this thread is the idea that propogating community standards or following rules = being a sheep and/or promoting censorship. I believe in self-expression. I also believe that rules are necessary for the greater good of a community. And I don't think the two need be mutually exclusive. Certainly, they may come into conflict...but that is why there are different forums for different forms of expression.

 

Please do not turn this into an issue of an older vs younger generation – there is no reason to make this sort of broad sweeping generalization in terms of age when BJD is such a small portion of the population. If we are going to discuss age in regards to generational values, that should be brought to another topic – I am sure that I am not alone in wanting this particular debate to stay on its original topic. Teenagers throughout history have shown a very centric view of the world, this is nothing new, and has been around in all parts of the world significantly longer than the introduction of rock and roll.

Please note, also, that condemning persons for not accepting ones opinions while simultaneously calling for acceptance of intolerance is confusing, at best, in an argument.

Lord of the Rings is not a very good example of this, really – Frodo, for example, never fights unless he has no other choice, until the end of the books where the Ring has corrupted him. In Kung Fu Hustle, the heroic figures try to avoid fights, even going into hiding – it is not until the end when the hero finds he has no other way to save others than to fight that he enters the fray. And even then, he shows mercy where the bad guys do not. Their strength is NOT in the enemies they defeat, but in their strength of character.

I am afraid I do not understand what is being said here. To say that it should not be used, but then to say that one uses it themselves, but does not like seeing others use it…this is contradictory. Further, it again places a value judgment on the art – it is okay so long as the artist understands the magnitude, etc. This is personal interpretation of a piece, not the value of the piece itself.

Then why should people who choose to expression violence and gore be forced not to regardless of the venue they choose to show it in? That is what we are debating here.

But that is not the topic of the debate. The debate is not “should violence and gore be allowed on DoA”. In fact, it would not even be a topic that could be debated – a forum is a benevolent dictatorship, not a democracy, and only one person ultimately holds the power to decide was does or does not happen within the forum. DoA does not allow violence and gore, and that is that. It is the rules, and there is no debate necessary on that subject. I am unsure why it is continually brought up.

 

Idoru said
"So, then, is this pervading violence and abuse because of an increasing concentration of younger collectors and the modern youth culture they carry? Is it a sign of the growing divide between the older and younger generations? Not much more than 50 years ago, there was no such thing as "youth culture". You were either a child or an adult, and that was it. But then the 50s came along, and all those kids with their disposable incomes, advertising directed specifically at them, so on and so forth... And so-called "youth culture" was born. Since then, it's become increasingly fractious and pulls further and further away from the "world of adults"...

I say this because most of the violence and abuse I see seems to be glorified in a self-centered, self-serving way. (If that makes any sense?) Not, you know, that the individual is proclaiming that they desire that kind of situation for themselves, but it's like... "I want people to look at ME, and think that I AM SOMETHING NEW, I am EDGY, I have a depth of understanding of the world that they can only envy". (This doesn't apply to everyone, of course, and it certainly doesn't apply to alot of zombie-modders--in as much as I have seen--but I feel that it certainly applies to some.)"

Those are both brilliant paragraphs of observation!

Just to remain accurate, the whole idea of "youth culture" really is a product of the 60's. Though, the beginnings of sexual freedom occured in the 50's, with the "beat" generation, those ideas really found a voice in the Hippie movement of the 60's.

And, being a child of that generation, I can honestly say, that the Hippie movement had a dedication to the idea of joy, happiness, and personal freedom. It was a VERY anti violent generation, and I suppose, is part of why I truly don't want to see a focus on violence. It really, as I see it serves no purpose but to create an over indulgence in the sort of self centered martyrism, that changes nothing, it merely wallows in it's own angst, and changes absolutely nothing.

What we creatively bring forth, has impact. Imagery creates feelings, Feelings generate feelings, and, focusing on negativity/darkness/violence etc (IMHO) manifests negativity. Choosing to share joy and beauty, can have the same impact. What we project, comes back. (sorry to wax a bit spiritual as I know that really isn't on topic).



The angsty, "look at me", "I am so edgy", thought among youth, I personally see as a product of the children of the 80's/90's. That's when you see the advent of disposable income, latchkey children, overly violent television and movie themes, and the "woe is me, I am so poetic because of my darkness" stuff.


The Goth movement (which started in the late 70's as a "campy" fashion statement), is now a symbol of the same angst.

I personally am a little tired of imagery that projects all this supposed "cool edginess", which, IMHO, isn't even cool, or new, or anything else besides self -indulgent. And, to pull this back on track, the over indulgence in violence and gore, is yet more of the same.

 

For me i dont mind whether people do or dont use violence within there photos or not im just not going to look at them. For me i enjoy the pure beauty of doll and to see unpleasent images of them does offend me but i wont condem people for doing it. Also i really dont know why people do it maybe fetishs maybe for fun or to be different, but i also havent seen much of the violence talked about around. Only on a few bjd adults sites ive seen it but then you chose to got there or not like adult "fun" sites. Its all choice

 

And there Gayle and Idrisfynn go, saying my point even better. I'm all sorts of ineloquent today, but yes, that's what I was trying to say. (I used the 50s because that's the era that comes up every time I do research on the subject. I find youth culture fascinating, even while i'm in it, so I do do that every so often...) Thank you both for filling in all those thought-jumps I was missing.

And I'm tired of that "edginess", too. (I really do love that episode of Daria.) I'm a good kid, myself. : / Odd but harmless...

Unoa_Im_a_freak, you're misinterpreting I think? I meant a personal responsiblity for your actions, not independence?

 

Your observations rocked Idoru!

 

Thanks--it's good to know I'm not just full of crap. I know I've thought about this alot, and I read, but... ^.^; I'm barely legal, you know.

 

NOT to say that anyone taking "gore" doll photos is necessarily dealing with PTSD, but this post is in answer to 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?

There's a school of therapy called "exposure therapy" which holds that repeated exposure to the memory of an event which leads to post-traumatic stress disorder helps the mind to deal with it. It's being used in some cases in a "visual" sense via virtual reality (see this for one example). It's my understanding that the Dpt. of Defense is looking heavily into these kinds of technologies for helping returning soldiers with PTSD...the study I linked to is one which used this therapy for rehabilitating people who suffered from PTSD post-9/11.

Again, I bring this up, not to say that anyone who enjoys doll gore is dealing with PTSD, but as a specific scientific example that "virtual violence" can and does have an affect on the viewer.

I read a lot of 19th century newspapers and for anyone who thinks that the "media" focus on violence is a new thing, reading them would be an eye-opener. You'll see lurid (and I mean lurid) descriptions of crimes, crime scenes, and violence in antique newspapers that you would NEVER read (in an American paper, at least) today.

What you will not see, however, are photos until very near the 20th century...before that you had prints and drawings, but only the larger papers, for the most part, could afford an artist to produce such images.

I guess for me that's the crux of this specific issue...how, specifically, does a visual depiction of violence differ from the written word, and is there a quantifiable difference in how each affects the viewer/reader?

Going further, what difference lies between the emotional response to fictionalized depiction of actual events versus "pure fiction"? And how does a side-by-side instruction of morality play into it (think of the original versions of fairy tales, which were incredibly violent, yet always involved punishment for the evil-doer)?

I'd suspect that all of these issues are the objects of on-going scientific inquiry.