Why do you think BJDs are anatomically correct?

The asian BJD are works of art meant for a more adult audience rather than toys for children.

You might as well ask "Why does Michelangelo's David have a penis?" and "Why does the Venus de Milo have nipples?"

It is a celebration and expression of the human form.

 

I like the anatomically correct sculpt. I always thought Ken was so wierd looking, he didn't look real. A lot of the doll bits aren't super realistic to me, but I like the fact they are there.

 

I always think it's kind of sad to hear just how much some types of people are totally and completely obsessed with seeing perfectly normal, multi-functioning body parts only in a sexualised manner. (Not pointing fingers here -- more thinking about things I see in the media.) Like the way women are not allowed to breast feed their babies in public (one of the most natural things that a mother can do for her child) because OMG someone might see a BOOB.

Why does it all have to be about sex? Penises (penii?) and vaginas are not just about sex. They are a natural part of the body just like anything else. So why would it be wrong for our dollies to have them?

(You know if they didn't, they wouldn't be able to pee, either! I am kidding, btw.)

And to think that our children are not aware of and interested in their penises and vaginas (and the differences between them) is pretty ignorant on our part, and kind of sad for them. I wish more of them could grow up thinking of them as natural body parts and not being ashamed of them.

...

To go down the totally pervy path, my Unoa boy always has his "genkina po" (that's the BIG peenie) in, because I just think that the little one is... insignificant. He's got a big peen, he should be allowed to have it all the time, damnit. I have found however that this means that when wearing tight pants he has to shove it down one pants leg. More than anything, I find this hysterically funny. (Because I have the sense of humour of a 12 year old boy. ) But I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and I have no intention of changing back to the little one any time in the near (or distant) future. When all is said and done, it's just a body part like the rest of him. I just feel kind of honoured that Araki-san was nice enough to let us choose what size we wanted it to be for ourselves.

 

When I first introduced BJDs to a friend, she felt disturbed over the anatomically correctness of boy dolls. I guess it's mainly because our country literally grew up with American sensibilities (being a colony and all). But thinking about it, if BJDs are meant to be photographed as scaled human models because of the skin-like properties of (most) resin and how their eyes can catch light, etc., then they should be able to do most things that humans can.

I mean-- let's say for example, your character is a man has a vanity over his body or a man who hates the fact that he is one, wouldn't his anatomically correct body play a part in this?

So, other than the fact that these dolls were made in countries where the culture is more open to anatomically corrective-ness, these dolls are pretty much a creative vent for most of us And, the fact that they have very human bodies helps.

And, I think Ken's steamrollered crotch and for some models, moulded underwear, is a hindrance Then again, he's meant to be clothed.

 

I think the case of baby dolls is very interesting. The anatomically correct baby doll started in hospitals where they were used as teaching aids, then slowly became available to the general public.

At first it was shocking! I can remember mothers being divided over effect this would have on their young daughters! Was it really educational, or would it warp their poor innocent minds forever?

Then it was finally accepted. Then it became 'cute' for a baby doll to have a 'darling' little penis. How adorable!

However, it's still not acceptable for an 'adult' male doll to have a penis. At least this is the opinion of Western doll manufactures. What happens when a baby boy grows up - does his penis fall off?

Of course good old Joe dosen't have one. Instead of little boys saying, "my toy truck's bigger than yours!" they would being saying - well you know! And then OMG, what if some innocent little boy accidentally TOUCHED it! He'd be traumatized for life! It's enough to make a parent faint!!

I mean it's bad enough that Barbie has BOOBS, but well after all, that's a 'mother' thing. Educational you know. But anatomical bits - well that's just too educational.

I say do away with the entire concept! And while we're at it, let's get rid of butt cracks too! What's educational about a butt crack? After all a butt can be sexual too, depending on your tastes.

So, no cracks, no buldges, no indentations and lets be careful about the size of Joes' feet. You KNOW what they say about men with big feet!

 

Elfmoon, i don't care your age, gender, religion, or if you're already married. lol marry me. that was priceless.

I totally agree though. So much is blocked out because it serves no purpose but I guess because EVERYONE has a butt, its ok for that to be shown off or something... ?

I don't get it.

 

Sorry, TrevviesBaby, but Joe and I got married last week. I'm now filing for divorce because the honeymoon's already over. On our wedding night, he just didn't have the balls for it!

Elfmoon

 

Most dolls meant for adults and collectors are anatomically correct. Example: Fashion Royalty dolls are very detailed for their size (all of them have nipples, etc.).

I think it's much more of a sake for realism type of deal. Afterall, these dolls are made in the human image, it would only make logical sense for them to have all of their body parts in place. I would also expect for the creator to make these dolls as lifelike as possible for the amount of money they cost.

I'm pretty sure our larger fashion dolls were meant to be clothed...?

And my smaller dolls can wear underwear just fine.

 

I guess Super Dollfie and BJD are not meant as children's toys, but is intended for adults, so there is no need to play the whole genitalia thing down as 'dirty' and something that people don't need to know about before a certain age. It is just something natural, so why shouldn't dolls who are sculpted to represent humans have them?

What I would like to know is, while dolls are anatomically correct enough to have been given genitalia, why do so few of them have an ****? I suppose gentalia helps to determine the gender of the doll, but if they are going to be correct, and have so many othe details (nipples, navels) why not let them have an **** as well.

 

LOL ,I love this subject
I am regularly having jokes made for my quest for tiny boys with a "peeny"
as my Tiny Lover friends know

for me . If they are not anatomically correct ....they arnt boys
I class them as girls

I HATE the plastic pants syndrome ...genderless reminds me of Barbie Ken too

I consider these dolls works or art ...and as I trained in life drawing and sculpting
I could no more draw a human without their parts as sculpt it

If they have taken so long to sculpt a beautiful piece , ...why leave a blank blob for the gender ?

The banji boy is tiny sculpted perfection ...
and as is the PocketFairy , Bobobie , Wishel ...the Yo

If a doll is a boy ...make it one ...no plastic Ken pants ...please (Elf Hana springs to mind and Oh how I dream for a tiny Elf boy )

I would Kill for a Lati Green boy OR a Bambi Crony boy

 

Barbie had (nippleless) breasts, but a featureless weird-looking smoothed-over crotch, and/or molded-on underwear.

Here is Artemis (Unoa Light) with a Barbie, for comparison:



Unfortunately, I'd photographed the Barbie wearing her hosiery, so you can't quite see the strange asexualized shape of her crotch (it really does look as if someone sanded her bits off!)

When you compare the two, I don't see how a doll with slightly raised nipples and indented labia are somehow extremely more "sexualized" -- Artemis just looks natural! *shrugs*

I'd love to know more about this -- I've never heard of such a law, but I wouldn't put it past us to have one (darned prudish Americans *grin*) Can you give me a citation or some more information? Is it a state law, or an FTC regulation, or what? *curious*

-- A

 

I think it boils down to cultural differences between Asia and the West. The college I went to had a large gallery of orginal children's book art, and had been given an illustration from a Japanese version of the story "The Emperor's New Clothes" (for anyone unfamiliar with that story, the Emperor ends up strutting off down the street naked in the end). Unlike Western versions of the book, the illustration that they had been given showed *everything*. Unfortunatly, they couldn't display it for fear of complaints from the many school groups that toured the gallery.

To me it's weird that the US has this strange fear of nudity--have you ever seen the barbies with the sculpted on panties?! To me *that's* really strange, lol. All people have those parts of their anatomy, so why wouldn't a doll? When I was little I once asked my mom why my baby doll didn't have anything down there. I think the US retained to many of it's Puritain roots.

 

Well, everyone has nipples, but those don't seem to be fine.... For some reason nipples seem to be sexualized far more than butts, which is kind of strange to me. They're meant for feeding babies. o_O

 

But I've yet to see a face without a nose or lips. That's kind of what I'm getting at when I see that

 

I think, personally, that it is rather good that male ABJD have bits simply because some people ( LIke my family members, cannot tell if the doll is male or female..) and its easy to just pull a skirt up or take pants off ^^;

However, as for poor Ken. I had forgot that they didn't have bits until we got my nephew (who is going through this stage of playing with dolls aka barbie + ken, he's 3 btw), well I was looking at the Ken doll and umm he's lacking a few vital parts. As for Barbie she's also lacking a few key parts. I'm almost twenty and when I saw it I even asked my mother why Ken didn't have certain parts.

Yet at the same time I think it comes down to if you'd rather your child (male or female) to have a doll that is correct. I personally would rather my kids to play with dolls that ARE correct, it just seems more natural. Which is part of the reason, I let my nephew play with my mini doll (He's very well behaved with it and carries it around like a baby).

Does that make sense?

 

To be perfectly honest, I cannot give any citation or exactly what type of law it is, because it was shown to me some months ago by the mother of one of my friends. She was curious to know where i got the doll from, and after I explained that to her, she sorta smiled and was like "well in America" and from there she went on a website binge - I'm not sure the exact source though, I'm sorry!!

 

Maybe they're that way just to make my very American parents flip out?
It seems to work though, because they really are marketed towards an older audience, unlike most commercial American dolls. Here, you're really not supposed to acknowledge that the other gender has different bits until about fourth grade, when the teacher essentially goes " Boys have this, girls have this. Put them together and you will make a baby. But you shouldn't do that or you'll get AIDS!!" (ahh, abstinence only education...) Now that we're older, it's ok for us to know the doll's gender, I guess?

 

Well ^_^ Not to be rude but sadly not every doll person lives in america, and the dolls are not produced in america, and well... even a few of us may sometimes forget we live in america, if even for a second.

Sadly -- I think most people, ones that I"ve met at least who are not in the doll community (and older generations have this issue too) seem to not like what they do not understand. A lot of people I believe tend to fear things that are different, and act rude towards them and hateful ^-^; If that makes sense.

 

I think the difference is mainly in our culture.
North American culture is fairly prudish when it comes nudity. It's automatically sexualized, even though the naked body is perfectly natural.
Most other cultures do no share our prudish view, and that'd probably why our fashion dolls are anatomically incorrect, and japanese or korean dolls are correct.

It's not that we "need" our dolls to be male or female. Barbie and Ken are not genderless, despite being anatomically incorrect.

I also don't think you can count Barbie's breasts as "bits," because it's obvious to even the youngest children, that older woman do have lumps on their chest. It's the details on those lumps, and on their crotches that isn't as obvious.

 

Because of how de-sexualized Barbie and many older dolls are I was never interested in the doll "scene" and it wasn't until I saw the realistic-looking (at least to me) BJDs that I started having an interest in dolls in general. Not only could you customize them but they really did look like little people and I liked that! Not because I found it sexual but because I found it normal and natural as mentioned earlier by many people. If BJDs had bodies like Barbie I would not be in this hobby at all!