What's the Fascination

@A Wee Tiefling

I totally agree. You can say it's "the market" or "BJD collector's tastes" until you are blue in the face, but that excuse does not eliminate the possibility (and in fact it makes it more likely) that buyers are prejudiced. It's not an accusation as to the moral character of the individual buyer, it's a fact.

Macro buying practices (and sculpting aesthetics) suggest there is an underlying rule or reason to why there is "no market" for fat or chubby dolls. (Why else would the vast majority of buyers and artists independently come to the conclusion that fat or chubby dolls are uninteresting or unnecessary to buy and create without an existing social stigma?) Prejudice and fatphobia is a pretty safe bet.

 

@americanseamstress
It's true in more aesthetic hobbies, so why not in the BJD hobby? We lament for hours about the chainmail bikinis on our tabletop minis. And it's always a fight for the ONE female mini in full plate, or who's tall, or has short hair...I'm a Steven Universe fan and it's still a revelation that so many varied body types are rendered as artistically as the popular "thin" type. I hope the body positivity movement continues pushing at it. (Also, Kaykedolls! I'm just going to throw money at her until I get a more realistically proportioned doll).

 

I came to BJD from action figures, and I feel you on the chainmail bikinis. It's difficult to stay in a hobby [action figures] when the environment and product is so prejudiced and contrary to reality in aesthetic. (Action figures can be impressively sexist.)

Spoiler: Off-Topic Rant

When I started with action figures, the silicone "seamless" bodies didn't exist yet. I picked one up by accident (lot purchase) right before I stopped purchasing [off topic here] dolls, and it was terrible. Cheap construction, weak joints, ugly joint aesthetics. In the first generation body I acquired, if you bent the joints more than 45 degrees, there was a risk the internal skeleton would pop through the silicone.

But those bodies aren't meant to be posable or strong or powerful in any way...they have more realistic genitalia and body shaping and they're meant to be sexy.

It made me really sad when I checked up on the hobby, and in my absence, seamless bodies since replaced a lot of the stock bodies for female dolls. You're supposed to pose your female doll in a revealing outfit and leave her be, not play with her.

Playing with your action figure is left for the male miniature military dolls. I realize that you aren't really supposed to play with a lot of the collector's edition movie and comic book male dolls as well, but at least you can hybrid the male heads with more posable bodies now without running the risk of an action figure equivalent of a recast. (Many older style female bodies--and male bodies, but there are new male bodies that can pose--have been copied, but more inexpensively, and are now sold on Ebay, which is the primary source for action figure parts. These bodies are more breakable and have looser jointing.)

This doesn't even get into the clothing sets you can buy for female action figures, which are embarrassingly few, poor quality, and impractical.

I'm keeping an eye on BoyPink as well. Not for a chubby or fat doll, but I love the look of her muscular girl body and the accompanying head--it isn't sculpted to look pretty (although it is stunning), but rather strong and fearless.

 

@americanseamstress
I have a few action figures myself from the Todd McFarlane Spawn line and just. Yeah. The one I own is all TnA but at least she looks fierce about her chainmail bikini. Thanks for steering me to Boypink! The muscular female body looks like a real hoonam bean! It's really refreshing. And this isn't because I dislike the ultra slim bodies (although if more people called it Heroin Chic I think it'd lose popularity faster) but just. Having only one aesthetic is boring. It's boring artistically. It's boring commercially. And it's alienating to so many people that it seems, I dunno, exclusive and cliqueish and judgey. I don't think most hobbiests are like that, but I do think there is some protectiveness about the aesthetics that doesn't seem open to change. Industryside maybe?

 

@A Wee Tiefling

A lot of the people I spoke with and interacted with on forums geared toward action figures and scale models were male. I think, as the protected demographic from a specific type of prejudice, it allows you to put blinders on for behavior or aesthetics that are pretty insulting. They could enjoy the depictions of female action figures as purely present for eye candy, whereas it was hard for me, as I was looking for kind of a cheaper poseable BJD/one sixth scale miniature hybrid that could be posed and dressed like a modern woman (with clothing sets to suit this). I'm not really in a position to judge if the situation is quite as bad in the BJD hobby, but I really hope not, because I've felt the feeling, and it sucks.

Perhaps, to a lesser degree, it's part of the reason that chubby, fat, muscular female dolls, and dolls that are not classically beautiful get some push back here. That's kind of what I was trying to articulate earlier. That your [socially-reinforced] perspective shapes how you see reality. If you're not a bit overweight, fatphobia, that sort of prejudice, could be invisible, but it's not cool to allow yourself to stay in the dark like that.

There was a similar pushback with online computer games, I think, in relation to removing more blatantly sexist depictions of women and providing more practical clothing options. I think one company also disclosed that one of their main female characters was a lesbian and had a crush on another character. I've probably got some of the details wrong, as I heard this secondhand from a friend who's a pretty avid gamer in that community, but there was apparently a rather vocal group of men who were furious that the game developers were "caving to political correctness."

I was reading an only tangentially related book recently about power structures (that really reminds me of this situation) that came to the [pretty obvious, in retrospect] conclusion that, in some way, this disproportionate anger serves a purpose. That the privileged demographic is often able to use this anger to grant concessions, and win back some of the privileges, advantages, and benefits they have become accustomed to.

Spoiler: Excerpt

Lundy Bancroft, “Why Does He Do That? Inside the minds of angry and controlling men.” Berkeley Books, 2003, New York.

And the bottom line is the same: Oppressive systems stay in existence because the people in power enjoy the luxury of their position and become unwilling to give up the privileges they win through taking advantage of other people and keeping them down.

It's nice if every woman in your action figure fantasy world is there for your enjoyment, catering only to you. Not so nice if you identify with that woman. It's nice if every BJD body matches your own, and meshes with society's ideal standard of beauty. Until you don't have that ideal body type, and want one that shows that the body types of normal women, or you, of your family members, of people you see on the street, can be beautiful.

 

@americanseamstress
I try to contain myself to safe internet communities for just the reasons you articulate: I am more easily able to identify with Othered bodies than the idealized female or male bodies that get aesthetic preference. So to me it's always been natural to want and prefer varied aesthetics in my dolls (as in artwork). My eye likes variety as much as my brain and conscience. It genuinely upset me when I found communities so insular and protective that they could not tolerate even the smallest deviation. Happily, as a BJD novice, I have noticed a lot more acceptance of the Other in the past few years and especially as people begin to make dolls that embrace a diverse look. There's still the elite classic aesthetic, but people who like it aren't as snobbish or angry as in other communities (Yeah, you know what I mean, comic book fans).

 

I love BJDs with broad hips and tummies, I do wish there were more, the only ones I can think of are basically impossible to get. I also like unusual gangly shapes (like Serenade Doll, Popovy)

I agree that society dislike of "fat" probably plays into it, but maybe the biggest reason is just that it is more difficult/challenging/expensive to sculpt a chubby doll. There are simply more details in a chubby body, and getting the proportion just right is not easy- so the sculpt just takes a lot more tweaking. Skinny dolls all you have to do is start with the skeleton and add some skin and boobs, and a few curves here and there.

 

Quoting you @americanseamstress because you state it succinctly, not because this is aimed at you personally.

My point is that dollmakers want to make dolls that sell. If they aren't sculpting chubby dolls, it's not necessarily because they hate fat people-- we have no way of knowing what the private aesthetic preferences of individual doll artists are, unless they choose to tell us. So we can't say that the doll industry is fatphobic, they're just following the market, and the market has already shown them that chubby dolls don't sell well.

What I'm saying is, you (generic you) are the market. If you feel strongly about this, buy the full-figured dolls that are being made. The rest of the dollmakers will sit up and take notice. A good example is the muscular female bjd, another nonstandard bodytype. People are buying them, so now more and more companies are coming out with them.

 

@Alewife

My point is that intention doesn't matter.

You [the sculptor] can fail to consider fatphobia or prejudice. You [the sculptor] can totally forget it exists. You [the sculptor] can believe it [prejudice an fatphobia] does not exist. You can say [truthfully or otherwise] that you do something "because it sells," and it does not matter.

In fact, intent is irrelevant to the discussion, a red herring if you will. Your actions can be unintentionally or subconsciously fatphobic or prejudiced (and in all likelihood they are because of the society you grew up in). Prejudice (racism, sexism, fatphobia) [the effect] is analyzed as Skinner would: disregarding and irrelevant of internal thought processes. After all, if the effect is that it perpetuates prejudice, why does the intent matter?

The only way you can avoid being fatphobic or prejudiced in a society that already structurally reinforces such prejudices and biases is to deliberately educate yourself an work to deconstruct these unsubstantiated and oppressive belief systems. You have to do the extra work. Merely sitting on the sidelines and stating "it's what the market wants" or "I make skinny dolls because it sells" is to be culpable in such prejudice and bias.

In summary, you don't have to hate fat people to be fatphobic. You don't have to hate women to be sexist. You don't have to hate people of color to be racist. You can be racist, sexist, fatphobic, and prejudiced despite your best intentions. To reiterate an earlier point: intent does not matter.

If you look at my other earlier comments on the thread, I state that focusing this issue down to the individual as you do [the individual sculptor, the individual buyer] misses the point. The issue is structural. The issue is with the macro socialization of people in our society, the social mores we are taught as children, believe unquestioningly, and then fail to question as adults.

I could similarly state that sex and violence sells. That naked women subservient to men sells. That no one wants to see black lead characters in film. That no one wants to see female and person of color leads in film. That no one wants to buy a doll that is a person of color. That no one wants to buy a doll that is female. That curvy Barbie couldn't possibly be attractive to young girls or collectors.

If you believe any of the above sources in the links, surprisingly, common beliefs about what sells and what doesn't sell aren't in fact shaped by reality, but rather socialization. Society tells us that female subservience sells because it reinforces the patriarchy. Society tells us that black (or other minority) protagonists won't sell because of racism and sexism. Society similarly argues that fat won't sell because of fatphobia.

As for your market argument concerning my buying habits, I have a couple points:

1. Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but, an individual can be critical of something, and still participate in that market. I can recognize that fatphobia is a problem in the BJD hobby (like all things, aspects of the hobby are problematic) and still participate in it:

Spoiler: Illustration

2. An individual's individual actions are not enough to combat a structural issue. It is in institution's (the BJD Hobby, government, agribusiness, the pharmaceutical industry, etc) best interest to minimize and individualize a structural problem (it's just @americanseamstress, she's just picky, etc.) because it makes it that individual's problem, not society's. When you argue that the problem is individual, not systemic, you are doing the work of the institution for them.

What if someone said that systemic or institutionalized sexism that someone experienced was "just an individual problem that this person (conveniently leaving out her gender) had with their boss?" What if I argued that segregation in the US was just an individual problem that a couple of students [African Americans] had with their local cafe or local school? What if I argued that the decision to bar women to vote was just an individual problem that some people had with their local polling location?

Agribusiness and factory farms want the individual to think of water waste as taking a shower that's too long, keeping the water on when brushing one's teeth, and not the vast amounts of water which are used to water the plants which feed our livestock, harvest those plants, feed and water the livestock, and then butcher and prepare the meat. (Hint: the water that Agribusiness and factory farms use is orders of magnitude greater than that of the individual--that's not to say "don't be environmentally friendly," and more to say: all of society deserves criticism.)

Big businesses want women to think that they choose the wage gap, they ruin their own chances to be CEOs by having a family, by using vocal fry, by apologizing too frequently. They want them to ignore that they are frequently used or mistaken as a secretary, the sexual assault and abuse, and the lack of female mentors. Society wants them to ignore how women are discouraged from STEM, assumed to undertake all the emotional and unseen labor of the household, and expected to be the sole caregiver of children and upkeeper of the house.

In a similar manner, if I buy one fat or chubby doll, that's one doll, but if I generate a conversation in the BJD hobby and get my friends in on it (from an individual --> social issue), then perhaps that's 10 fat or chubby BJDs. If a company like Iplehouse or the whole BJD community listens to the criticism and gets in on it (individual --> social --> structural issue), then that's perhaps 30+ BJD over a couple years. The impact of looking at the issue on an individual basis (just @americanseamstress) versus structural (Iplehouse or the whole hobby in general) results in a greater and more significant social change.

And don't get me wrong: Why stop at BJDs? Why is fatphobia and similar prejudice framed [incorrectly, as I describe above] as purely an aesthetic choice, when there is a clear social harm to such bias and reinforced oppression?

And we know that fatphobia and prejudice does do harm. Fat individuals, particularly women, are paid less. Obese individuals get a lower standard of care from medical practitioners, some times paying for it with their life.

But what does that have to do with BJD? You might hear a similar question to those skeptical of a need for feminism in places like the USA. Why do we need feminism when people in other countries have it so bad? Why are we worried about showing one's breasts in public, when other women have to worry about the right to vote, the right to drive, the right to abortion, etc.?

Well, you might protest, all these issues are related: showing one's breasts in public relates to viewing breasts as solely a sexual organ, although they are not genitalia, which relates back to men seeing women as solely objects, present for their enjoyment only. Why should "eye candy" reveal one's breast in public for a child? Aren't they then "asking for" rape?

Similarly, seeing women as a mere accessory or secondary status to men also relates to the right to vote, the right to drive: all these problems have the same foundational issue--the patriarchy.

Similarly, as women are "Othered" (see @A Wee Tiefling's response), so are chubby, fat, and obese individuals, particularly women (and women of color), so this is actually an intersectional problem articulated in feminism.

Their needs are not met (as they receive substandard medical care, lower pay, have a harder time finding inexpensive clothing, have a harder time finding representation in society). The lack of representation, or poor representation, of fat and chubby individuals in media is part of that "Othering" and feeds into that same oppression. (Why sympathize with the fat if they are characterized in the media as lazy or greedy? Why feel confident in your own body if you are constantly told by the media that your body type is ugly, undesired, or unseen?--no fat BJDs would be unseen)

BJDs are a form of media. BJDs are an opportunity for positive representation. BJDs are a hobby where all should feel welcome and represented.

 

@americanseamstress
I want to give you fifty thousand more Likes than is possible. This is so succinct and yet encompasses so much! But basically yes! Individual choices matter in individual interactions but to change society at the foundation level, many individuals must strive to make different, BETTER choices. Together.

 

We agree on this, and that's what I'm saying. Effecting social change, or just making more chubby bjds available, will require the actions of individuals. In this case, the individual purchase of the kind of doll you wish to see more of.

 

@Alewife

I'm afraid we are talking past one another, but I do not know what further I can understand to further clarify my opinion. We do not agree.

To suggest purely individual changes and individual action is to underestimate the wide-ranging effect and source of the problem. (As you see in my explanation above.)

I do not have a problem with an individual artist who does not sell chubby or fat BJDs, nor the individual buyer who buys no fat or chubby dolls. (I mean, don't get me wrong, individual prejudice is annoying, but it's not what we're discussing here.) Rather, I find issue with the impossible "coincidence" (actually prejudice and fatphobia) that the majority of buyers and the majority of sculptors all fail support fat or chubby dolls [due to their socialization] in the exact same way (and independently predictable, too, without consideration of their internal thought processes).

Because the behavior is due to prejudice and fatphobia, is is no longer an issue of independent and individualized choice. (As with many decisions in a society, most decisions are neither freely, randomly, nor individually made.)

 

I love and wish there were more bjds that aren't skinny. Unfortunately the ills of society seep into the corners of everything, including dolls.

 

maybe the places of fat could be made out of couch foam because then it could still pose
and we could have clothing sizes we already do that for breast sizes

like im suprised its taking so long cause i see so many modifications to make breast portions alot larger but none for body diversity

 

.

 

I'm not a fan of ultra skinny dolls, probably one of the reasons why I love Iplehouse dolls.

 

Something I was taught day one of anthropology class in college is that everyone is biased. based on their culture and experiences. This isn't necessarily bad or good, but its true. Beauty standards play a role both for artists and collectors.

Some companies make more realistic or varied body types than others. Argonautica Dolls has a couple of (currently sold out) "plus size" 1/4 and 1//3 ladies. I'd quite like Kenei if she becomes available again.

 

One of the problems is finding clothes to suit a body outside of the Volks shape because most clothing is for those bodies. People that can’t sew will be frustrated. For example, while I adored the big beautiful hips of my Lilycat, I struggled to find clothes to fit her lower half! It sort of spoiled my joy for the doll.

If more body types are to exist then clothing designers need to follow(kind of like human bodies, hello boob-hating designers!)

But I think we need more variety. I personally want to see even skinnier but with lean muscle in the legs like ballet dancers, they exist out there but not enough and no dancer’s feet! But would that sell? Would companies make clothing for it? At the end of the day, people want to get paid.

 

This is a really big topic. Personally, I think more variation for doll bodies would be very welcome. You can find a wonderful fat woman in resin, but not a chubby SD guy. Mission impossible. I know that Asian tastes are different from European or American tastes. I feel it a lot when it comes to noses. I wish there were Soom Chrom nose for girls. And more elder BJDs. Unfortunately, the market or fear of not accepting a different sculpt rules everything. But I can't expect artists with different cultural background to match my aesthetic and moral values.
I don't think there's any contempt there. Not consciously. We're just more or less shaped by society to like certain things. It depends on how strong we are, if we can handle different tastes from the mainstream.
(Sorry for my bad English.)

 

Wow, this conversation is rad!

I'm gonna address this to americanseamsress, because you have a lot of super interesting stuff to say (that I mostly agree with) and I want to hear more.

When you say...

It seems to me that this interacts in an interesting way with our spontaneous experience of aesthetic (and especially sexualized) desire as something that is both deeply personal and outside of our control.

To be clear, I'm trying to make a distinction here between what one finds oneself attracted to on the one hand, and the various judgments (about value, morality, "health," etc.) that one is tempted to ascribe to things on the basis of their being "attractive" or "unattractive" on the other. It seems to me important to locate what 'fat-phobic' means in this context.

So, to be a little more concrete, if I find that my personal tastes conform to deeply sexist, objectifying, fat-phobic, racist, homophobic standards, am I responsible only for noting that this is the case and then trying my best to behave justly to people IRL regardless of my admittedly prejudiced aesthetic biases?

...Or am I responsible for trying to change my preferences? ...which is a much more daunting (maybe impossible?) project to take on.

Also, I feel like it's worth asking (in a naive way... I really don't have clear answers for myself here) what's the end game? Is there a beauty ideal different from the prevailing one that would be preferable? Would we want a plethora of competing beauty ideals? Would we want no prevailing beauty ideal at all? Should the idea of beauty itself (which necessarily prefers one thing to another) be gotten rid of?

And finally... What if I want an ugly doll? Like, not just a doll that's beautiful in its own way, but a doll that actively produces discomfort in me? Is this a subversive gesture, or just another way to confirm dominant prejudices?

Much love to all,
Errantry