Why do you think BJDs are anatomically correct?

I've always disliked the genderless freak sort of thing Barbie and other dolls have had going on. I think if you're going along with realistic detail (nipples, toes, nails, etc) then genitalia is only a natural step. After all, its there. Its not grossly large and is actually too small in all honesty... But its enough so that the realistic feel isn't disrupted.

 

Seconded!

And I remember my first Ken doll too It was a matter of "uhhhh...mom? Why doesn't Ken have a...you know...a thingie?" I was 5, I knew WHAT the name was but I didn't want to say it LOL talk about goofy and naturally embarrassed back then

I get a kick out of the natural body sculpt, its important I think too to the overall naturalistic look. That being said, I think its a good option to have 'angel' bodies too for people who may not be wanting that same kind of detail. Its so nice for companies to have so many different options for us to choose from.

 

Well, there's an awful lot of anime and manga porn that goes that way...

As for why fashion dolls don't tend to have genitalia, Mattel kind of infamously consulted a team of psychiatrists to see whether little boys would be more traumatised by their sisters; dolls having "bumps" or not. It apparently wasn't a matter of interest if little girls had dolls that reflected their genitalia or not.

I seem to be the only one who really wishes bjds didn't have sculpted genitalia. I am far more comfortable with baby dolls having genitalia depicted because 1) many good quality baby dolls actually *do* tend to be hyper-realistic, from baby rolls of fat to cute little bottoms and sculpted genitalia. Bjds, with their visible jointing and usually huge eyes, look anything *but* realistic to me, and it weirds me out to see little penises on them. 2) Babies are naturally lacking in pubic hair, so baby dolls don't look as if they shave their pubic regions (ew ew ew) or are somehow big-breasted prepubescent girls (even more ew).

I believe in dollie underwear, to reduce my trauma. Or "angel" dolls.

 

Because they're people shaped, and people are anatomically correct?

 

I dont think they are....may be a little, but not that fully realistic.
Head is still a lil big in comparison to the body, And of course- Eyes.
Also, no one is perfet, and dolls are

 

Volks started out and still very much an anime garage kit company. Anime garage kits almost always have your traditional anime/manga look to them with anime proportioned but still highly detailed and usually realistic depictions of genitalia and/or underweae. Every single gashapon figure I have of a girl who is wearing a skirt of some kind has super detailed little fetishy panties on. And it ain't for modesty.

So it makes sense to me that a lot of these dolls have less realistic heads and more realistic bodies.

I was always bothered by Ken's lack of genitalia which is why my two gay Kens had bright orange Playdoh penises attached to them. I'm weirded out by the angel crotch dolls myself, a doll I am currently buying has one and I will be working towards getting him one with genitalia.

 

Not one of mine do - I just checked. They either have solid skirt bottoms, or smooth white panties without modelled labia. Maybe I was just really lucky, or picked the right series (Sailormoon and Azumanga).

I am kind of horrified at the idea of someone being turned on by a tiny plastic figurine. But then, the Nobility boys make me want to scrub my brain with disinfectant. (Although I'm curious, now. Obviously the "functional" penis is so you can make it look erect, but I can't figure out what the nipples are - are they soft, or do they press in and out?)

 

I believe press in and out. There's a review of the body somewhere on the board (I think in the SD-size subforum)...

I never wondered why BJD had sculpted genitalia...from my artist viewpoint it makes perfect sense. Why have a semi-realistic sculpt and then cover up the crotch with "underwear"?

 

I always assumed it was a cultural thing.
A few years ago, my company did a giant cartoon cat-thing for a Japanese client. The builders made its hind end non-realistic under the tail, per usual for [Western] cartoons. The client was sent photos of the carving (or came to the shop to look, I don't remember) and pointed to the drawings they were building off of--"No, look! He has testicles! See?" And so, they had to add/carve cat bits.

 

Functional winkies? Wow. I'm going to have to take a look at the Nobility doll, LOL. But seriously...I like the anatomically correct dolls. Seeing nothing where the genitalia should be is kind of disturbing (not to mention prudish IMO, like when Metatron was showing his lack of parts to prove he was an angel in "Dogma".

 

I don't see a problem with them having parts. I mean, it seems odd to me that it would be something that would bother anyone. But to each their own.

If you don't like penis, just sand it off. Just *SNIP* and *SAND* and hhhhhyyyyyyyaaaaaaa! Androgynus, politically correct doll in just a few seconds.

Edit: Though, having functional thingies is kind of odd to me. x3

"Dangit! Settle down!!! I can't get these stupid pants up"

 

Functioning boys, eh? Wow. Does that mean that there's girl bodies that are open enough so that they can "function" with? o_O Or are they themselves loose enough so that you can have boy X Boy action? Er, I mean....

I think it might depend on what the story they're from's target audience is. Most of my gasha-girls don't have detailed panties since most of my girls in skirts aren't from shows aimed at men. I honestly haven't checked to see if all of them don't; not into girl bits. Though my To Heart 2 girl might....

 

Stupid me, but I always thought it was because BJDs were good for art, and for some people drawing breasticles (I know that's not a word ) is really hard; and also maybe because if they were anatomically correct, they could fill out their clothing better.

It seems silly now that I think about it, though...

I think the real reason might be because the Japanese seem to have no problem in dealing with nudity, even with their younger generations. I mean, look at all the gorey shows that are aimed AT kids! And from what I understand, dolls typically have always had those parts, just because it's something you'd see on a normal person. I guess it's kind of like handing someone a doll without a face. If it's part of the person, why get rid of it in the first place?

 

hahhahaaaa!!!!!!! I thought I was the only one who used that word!!!!!!!

 

I always thought it was a cultural thing. I remember watching a robot program on Discovery during their Japan week.. In that, they discussed why the robots they're making will eventually be humanized.. And that dolls are important and have souls.. So, they were also cared for and had funerals like people. (Once they broke or were too worn)

They also had a robotic secretary made that had a complete body. She sort of looked like one of those life-sized "party" dolls, and I can only assume that she's anatomically correct.. Since everything else about her was very detailed. They treated her like a real person.

 

But some of these sort of come without parts of their faces. I mean, blank heads lack eyes, paint, eyelashes, etc.......
So all this time, Mattel never told us that we were supposed to add Ken's thing? :P

 

I am laughing....I cannot understand how the human shape is always identified with sexual behavior? non gendered dolls are freaks in my opinion. If a doll represents a human then all parts are equal. If we thought of hands as being sexual, should we them make them stumps so we don't think of them as functional? Too weird.

 

When my friend saw my doll, the first thing she said after learning that most of these dolls were anatomicially correct was "Does she have a hole, then, so they can...?"

Frankly, I agree with most other people. When I first learned that these dolls were correct, my reaction was "well, duhhh." If you're going to make such a detailed and intricate item, there's no real reason to suddenly decide to simplify some areas. As for the neutral gender dolls--it isn't a big deal to me. The fact that these dolls have bits is neat and funny and makes these resin beauties more real to me, but if I fell in love with a sculpt that had nothing "below the belt," I'd buy him/her anyway. (Heck, one of the great things about these dolls is that you can swich the bodies around, anyway.)

 

I think most of it comes from the fact that it's a completely different culture than American culture.

There are laws in America expressly related to the level in which a doll can be manufactured as far as being anatomically correct. There are some things that are allowed, such as breasts but not nipples (on girl dolls), a bulge (as on recent Ken dolls) but not a sculpted 'set' (on boy dolls).

Those dolls are not seen as educational, and are therefore not expected to have parts representing adults.

Baby dolls, as have been mentioned, have parts because those are seen as educational for the most part. (Teaching children to be parents at an early age, also helping them understand maybe their baby brother or sister) Its all decided by the company and different laws of understanding.

Its like artistic art v. porn. Two different things for two different purposes.

Korean/Japanese/Asian cultures don't hold the same exact standards as other countries, therefore the "bits" i suppose we're calling them are accepted more widely over there.

Its like someone else said earlier in a way. If you went to Japan and asked why they were anatomically correct, they would probably be confused as to why you were confused.

Another thing is that (again as someone has stated) These dolls are not especially intended for the younger children, as by their price range and fragility.

So there are alot of factors why ABJDs have parts and most American dolls do not.