Why do you think BJDs are anatomically correct?

So we can prove to our friends that they're NOT FEMALE.

Really, though, I think they're like that mainly for the purpose of making them seem more real, unlike barbies and kens, or Bratz and what not.

But, probably, the best response would be "Why not?" XD;

 

I guess how I see it is from the view of a realism artist. Essentially, they are creating a realistic humanlike body and so I suppose they find it natural for it to be realistic all over. I appreciate it because of artistic referencing (they make decent art mannequins) as well as how certain fashions fit them.

But I guess when it comes to the question of "why are all dolls not like this?" Perhaps parents who's children play dolls would disapprove of that sort of thing due to them not wanting to expose their child to such a thing that often? Who knows, different reasons I guess. I have seen other baby dolls who are anatomically correct though. Maybe the idea of a fully realistic nude Barbie laying in the toy box is just too upsetting for many people. I guess I can understand in a way.

 

I think a more anatomically correct doll makes everything more realistic. Both it as your doll and your hobby. It doesn't serve as a sexual purpose but more as a humanly purpose.

 

I always felt sorry for Ken.

I was weirded out by him and would be weirded out by any male doll without all his parts. It just would feel like he was incomplete . . .

 

Ummm that was my response in reading the subject heading. Followed by "So what?"

 

I don't understand the need for anatomical correctness in dolls that I just throw clothes on.

I don't pose my dolls sexually, so it doesn't really matter.And the peen on the the boy bjds are all too small(or short) to look 'real', lol!

 

Hmm, I thought the answer would be simple! I was going to be like

"Because, it's for realism!". But the dolls are lacking or have additional features that are considered 'realistic'.

"Because, it's art!". But if it is art, it should above all be free to include (or not include) whatever and still be art.

I guess the answers are really complicated. I don't think a lot of people go around posing their dolls sexually, and I doubt the parts are directly necessary parts of their personality- but in a way, they can be needed. I don't want my girl without breasts (even if they are small!), it's unnatural. So why would I want her without her 'down there', and the same thing for her best friend who is a boy!

I guess everyone has a different opinion, a different reason, and a different look.

 

I always thought Ken was slightly disturbing too.... Maybe the maker of Barbie was some kind of perv, I mean, if Barbie can have parts, then why can't Ken? Maybe he just liked Barbie better...>.>
I like my boy having parts...it just makes him all the more...different than normal dolls. For the price they are, they should have a couple "extra parts" >.< teh heh

 

But they are parts that are just covered up anyway.

So what's the big deal?

 

No matter how, um, small the peen is, pants just wouldn't sit right on boy dolls if they were blank. That very male "square" pelvis look isn't possible without the "bits", therefore even though my guys remain clothed all the time, I like that particular detail there.

For me, it aesthetics. I think dolls with that much realism (like sculpted nipples, faint rib definition, etc) would just look weird with a flat pelvic piece (or even worse, a bump like Ken).

And yeah. Why not?

 

I've always been disturbed by emasculated Ken, too. There should be nothing wrong with parts of the body (it's only people's gutter-minds that sexualize everything!). I always wondered what little boys thought when looking at any neutered doll? Does it say that part of their anatomy is better left off??? That's pretty sick, I think!

Anyway, parts of the body are parts of the body. If dolls have all their fingers and toes, why not all the other parts????

 

I think what really killed it for me with the KEn dolls was the base form they replaced his man parts with. I was out of the doll stage when they started giving Barbie those built on panties, and when Ken had the same thing, but I had little cousins who still loved them, and it was really weird.

A girl wouldn't be a girl without her boobs, and a man isn't a man without his boy-bits. I agree with a lot of the other coments about dressing and of course, "Why not"

 

The doll is supposed to be a character to me, and I'm going to work hard to make him that character, it would just be annoying to know his bits weren't there . . . my character isn't a eunuch . . . Sure the clothes cover it, but I would still know.

And I, like April wonder what the message to young boys was. It always kind of annoyed me that barbies are so anatomically over-exaggerated and then the ken's have no male parts. Just seemed like a double standard. Even tho i know even barbies weren't completely detailed

 

I don't see how it's emasculating anybody if a doll(who everyone knows is NOT real) doesn't have detailed bits anywhere. It's unfair to compare a penis to breasts, since you can't see a penis through pants. It certainly doesn't affect how someones pants hang or fit, not unless it's freakishly large or the pants are too tight.

Barbie's not any more detailed than ken in any area. Most adult women don't have tiny waists and huge breasts. Just as most adult men aren't nearly as fit and trim as ken.

Most people's lips and eyes aren't nearly as large as we see on most bjds, either. Since we're going with realism why do so many bjds have purple or red eyes? Is that realistic? No. Dolls aren't real, so to me it seems silly to add them. I am far from prudish, but I still think it's hilarious to see detailed anatomy on a doll.

Just as funny as trying to blame a doll for a mental problem.

 

my feeling is why not? Personally, I prefer it. One reason is it freaks people out, lol, and 2ndly, I can prove to my fiance that the boys out there are boys.

 

Why wouldn't they just take your word for it?

I mean, it's your doll so why should it bother you whether they believe you or not?

 

Well...not everyone covers their dolls up, Wolfmammy
I've done quite a few artistic nude photoshoots with my boys and they really do need their bits and pieces for them to seem like viable representations of the human body.

 

Yes, it does, without being "freakishly large", although if you wear pants that have enough fabric to fit a small condo then no, there probably is no difference.

It creates the flat square look in the front because the pants hang straighter (unless you're, pardon me, significantly smaller than average) as opposed to the "sloping in" on female torsos. I've done some cross-dressing to fit male characters and nothing can disguise the look of the female torso from the front like a sock - and thats with wearing loose pants.

I mean, they've got nipples. Them not having at least something 'down there' would be disturbing and wrong. Maybe the word 'realism' isn't the right one, but it's like "a little bit of everything" - their peen is as stylized (if not more) as their big eyes and whatever else you'd point out as lacking realism. And to put it blunt, I like penis, find nothing wrong with it and I want penis on my dolls because they are mini representations of my characters and you can sure as hell bet they've all got their bits in place. Even though I draw them clothed.

 

I couldn't find a thread like this so I decided to create my own. If this is a repeat thread feel free to delete it.

A while ago, I was looking at BJDs and was surprised to find that some of them are anatomically correct. From an artistic perspective I find nude bodies to be a beautiful thing. However, when I was looking at the dolls I was a little disturbed, especially when I figured out certain sculpts have male BJDs 'at attention' at all times. I was curious as to what everyone thought?

Are you more likely to buy a doll because it is anatomically correct?

If you own anatomically correct dolls do your parents/friends feel uncomfortable around them?

Do you display your dolls with or without clothes on?

Is there a point of having an anatomically correct doll?

Do you think that the anatomical correctness could create a skewed perception of sexuality?
----------------------------------------------------
My answer:
I am actually less likely to buy a doll because it is anatomically correct. Although dolls are meant to be miniature people I would not feel comfortable if anyone removed the clothing and noticed the anatomical correctness. Not to mention the fact that I display my dolls with clothes on, so it would be a waste of paint. One of the things that appeals to be about dolls is that their anatomy is exaggerated. I like the out of proportioned heads and the smaller bodies.

I feel like if I did own anatomically correct dolls (especially male) should the clothes ever come off my friends and family would not enjoy it. My boyfriend would probably think I lost my mind. My parents wouldn't enjoy it but I do not think they would care.

I display my dolls with clothes on.

I feel like, for me, there is no point of owning an anatomically correct doll because I display them with clothes on. I am also worried whether or not some of the anatomically correct dolls are tasteful when displayed in the nude.

I think the anatomical correctness could cause a skewed perception of sexuality. In certain sculpts the men tend to be above average in certain departments. They go into great detail to render the male genitalia perfectly. However, when it comes to female dolls they tend to ignore that region. They will simply put a line on it and think it is finished. I have never seen a female doll have the same detail (in the groin) as a male doll.

 

All of my dolls are anatomically correct, and all bar one are male. It doesn't bother me, I've never even thought about it when purchasing a doll body TBH.

Admittedly it is 'pointless' for my dolls, they are displayed clothed, but I would find it weird to have a detailed doll that was suddenly smoothed over and featureless one certain area. To me its like saying you don't need sculpted toes if your doll always wear shoes, I would be seriously disappointed if I got a a doll with no toes even though I never take pictures of bare feet and the toes are 'pointless' to me

I have seen some male dolls with optional 'erect' parts or even ball jointed parts but none with the doll 'permanently at attention' as you've put it, I don't see why this would be a major issue because they are optional, if you don't like it you can always sand them off if they are permanent, sell them on if not or even throw them away

Also I doubt any of my friends or family would be bothered by a dolls 'bits'. Actual dolly pr0n yes but just a naked doll no. I know for a fact neither my mother (who helps me draft patterns for my dolls) and my boyfriend (who has his own miniatures and helps me with mods and stringing etc) are not bothered in the slightest and have never questioned me and have probably never even thought about it. If a friend or family member were to undress a doll of mine then get offended or upset I would spend more time questioning their need to undress my doll in the first place than I would worrying about my dolls anatomy.

I'm not really going to say much on the subject of skewed sexuality, there is already a thread discussing whether girls should be more detailed in the sculpting of the groin. Personally I feel like its comparing apples and oranges, girls just don't have that much to sculpt and most males are not that detailed or realistic anyway, I never noticed a massive difference