Why do you think BJDs are anatomically correct?

A better, although off-topic, question would be: Why aren't all dolls anatomically correct? I've always liked boy dolls, because it's unatural to have a doll-family composed entirely of girls but the usual Ken doll crotch is rather disturbing actually.

 

When I was little, I always wondered why Ken didn't have any boy parts- Barbie had big girly boobies. It just didn't seem fair for Ken not to be able to pee.

 

I think it's a question of why wouldn't they be? The dolls are a scaled representation of the human figure. While there are models that exist with the 'ken underwear' lack of genetalia, most owners (that I've found) prefer their dolls, boy and girl, to be fully atomically correct. As a fashion doll that sits on a shelf, it doesn't truly matter- but for people who play with their dolls and personify them, it feels a little odd to have a guy without any parts.

Technically, none of it is necessary, but as a matter of preference I'll always own dolls with 'bits' boy or girl (no matter how out of scale those bits are, I'd rather not have to tuck anything down a pant leg XD).

 

I agree with what everyone else said so far - why not? All humans have some part or another, and everyone knows that everyone else has them so it's not as though genitalia is any kind of secret. Frankly, I'd be creeped out if I received a male BJD that had the Ken-style "got his crotch smoothed over by a steamroller" look.

 

i go "oh dear.." at that last part there XD

I don't really mind much either way, as long as the rest of their built is apparent enough XD (chest-wise mostly :P I'd rather not have a David Hasslehoff-bodied guy >w> )

"underwear" guys are fine with me, but I guess it gives more realism in wearing tight pants, what with the apparentness of "teh bulk" then

 

To not give dolls genitalia would blow the whole issue out of proportion - it's as if the doll company would be saying "Oh my, how perverted for us to give this boy doll a penis! What if some owner touched it? Oh dear!" XD;

By avoiding anatomically correct sculpts, the companies would just be causing a bigger taboo.

(In a similar way to when some people said "WHY?" to Full Operation Ryoma's 'good feel papilla' and rotating bits, people would go "WHY?" to asexual dolls..)

 

I may be getting overly socio-political here, but I think it's because A. These aren't kids dolls so people aren't going "ZOMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!", they're assuming that as adults we already have a pretty good idea of what the human body looks like and B. Because culturally Japan and Korea don't seem to be as 'prudish' about nudity and sexuality as we are in the west, so I don't think it neccessarily ever occured to the people making the dolls that making them anatomically correct might be in any way 'weird'. Although western baby dolls sometimes have 'bits' so maybe Mattel and co seem to think that once we're old enough to know what they're for, we're not allowed to see them! XD

 

Heh... My response was going to be something like "why do *people* have bits?" Because we come that way by design.

I've always thought it was a little presumptuous of us big people to declare that kids don't know or shouldn't know the difference. They may not have the words or the full context going on, but they are very observent little critters. As others have mentioned, the first time I - and my two girls - saw boy fashion dolls it was a case of "eh? where's his... how does he..."

(Of course the first time I saw a Hound it was "holy SMOKES!" Feast or famine, I tell ya)

 

Well, I think the reason Unoa boys have such genitalia is for a different reason than some other dolls..

 

I think for the level of detail in the body sculpts the dolls would look rather odd without all parts. That's also the reason why fashion dolls get away without all parts, their level of detail in the body sculpts are much more streamlined since they are meant to be clothed. Plus they can't really wear undergarments under their clothing to better obscure their parts through the light weight fabrics (which are to scale, and remember, fashion dolls such as Barbie don't have nipples either).

Sera~

 

I don't think it's as "important" as it is just the way it is done. And it's not like you can't have a body without the bits, they have angel bodies too! ^__^ And if they didn't have bits, how would you be able to tell them apart?

But OT, why did barbie have bits and ken didn't? That is odd....hmm... I guess because girls played with barbies so they already knew about their own bits....I wonder if G.I. Joe (the big ones) had boy bits?

 

If you look at iconic or totemic representations of people through the ages, especially those that come from Asia, Australia, Africa, and South America, they are usually gendered. The people indigenous to a continent (not the Europeans who later migrated there and brought Puritan-like beliefs) would look at us strangely, wondering why we would ask such a weird question as why reproductions of people would have genitalia!

No, G.I. Joe never had bits -- but since he was ball-jointed and more masculine, and poor Ken had been neutered <tee hee>, Barbie preferred the short, buff boy.

 

I wouldn't say it's important as such, because some bodies are sexless.
I would say however it seems to make them more real, but as ever a body type does help determine a sex, Barbie has a waist and breasts, Action man has a rippling muscular chest.

Oh! And I had a life like baby doll in the '80s who had a little penis, and the girls also had accurate lower parts, that too was just for realism.

 

When I was little and handling a male fashion doll for the first time, I thought it was very strange that he didn't have any bits; just a lump. o_O "He's a boy, he's supposed to have a winky!" was my thought. I still kind of find it awkward when male dolls don't have the bits. I'm seriously considering adding them to my 1/6 guys.

Besides, Asians don't have quite as many hangups about nudity as we do. In Japan, they even have public bath houses, and not all of them are segregated by gender. There's a culturally recognized difference between artistic/natural nudity and sexualized nudity. Heck, one of my Japanese teachers even said that photos of nudity crop up in the newspapers sometimes.
And actually, in Japan there's a shrine somewhere that's dedicated to male genitalia. I've seen pictures. It was very different.
I'm not so sure on Korean and Chinese attitudes towards nudity, though.

 

I agree with many views in the thread, cultural differences, more realistic bodies, and adult collectors contribute to the correct doll style.

As for American companies, LOL...maybe they fear children will play inappropriately with their dolls if they have bits...."if they have no bits, then they can only have innocent tea parties" maybe?

hehe, the lack of bits didn't stop my Barbie and Ken from trying kids know~

 

I think it has to do with blurring the line between human and doll, just based upon the importance of dolls in Japanese culture.

 

My guess on why Volks gave their dolls genitalia is to distinguish them from childrens' play dolls.

That being said... my question is why a stylized "anime" head with a super-realistic body? Now THAT kind of weirds me out ^_~

Raven

 

Actually the Japanese have a traditioned of "sexed" dolls & it has nothing to do with age. Back in the 1800s children's play dolls often had anatomically correct parts, or rather the boy dolls did. Why change something that was already a part of your culture?