Why do you think BJDs are anatomically correct?

hhhhhmmmm for me, its easier to identify my dolls as HE or SHE when their gender parts are actually there.
This is kinda a funny story. When i finally got my DOC kirill i couldnt help but notice that my Luts ani's boy parts are MUCH bigger the my kirills. XDXDXD. What pop in my mind was "but my kirill is supose to be the total man leader" XDXD i didnt know size mattered in the doll world I'm sure to most people it dos not, but i'm a dorkXDXD

 

Well, if it makes your Kirill feel any better, flaccid size is not necessarily indicative of erect size.... Some men triple in length! @_@ So maybe he's actually bigger, you just can't tell.

 

I just found this very funny. ^-^

If any one has seen the movie "Tonari no Totoro" (My Friend Totoro) they then have seen the Neko-bus. The Neko-bus is anatomically correct - you can definitely tell it's a boy! I've even seen licensed plushes for that movie and the Neko-bus has all his parts.

And LENNIE, maybe your boy is a 'grow-er' and not a 'show-er'!

 

Group marriage FTW!

 

For American companies-- I think it has something to do with the fact that the country was founded by the Puritans. Asian and European art esthetics have always gone for more realism.

However, play line dolls like "Jenny" do not have all the bits. I think the BJD is geared more for adults who will notice the details.

 

I don't think children particularly need dolls with genitalia when they don't even know what to do with them.

As for why BJDs are anatomically correct, I think it's just become part of the doll psyche now. It's standard and expected and if a doll doesn't have genitals some people have trouble even thinking of it as having a gender. And I guess it all originated as a higher level of realism, another thing to distinguish them from mainstream market dolls.

 

I kind of thought it was cultural, actually. Now, I'm just an anime fan, but to me it seems that in countries where there is not as much shame with nudity as the US, the human body is considered beautiful in sculpt, and gender definition is always important as part of this aesthetic. Also, as simply a practical way of, well, telling what gender the doll is ^^ Asian countries seem to have more of that kind of view, as opposed to some western countries where it's "OMG shameful boy/girl bits, cover them, ew" :p

I was surprised they are gendered at first! But now, I think I would feel weird if I got a boy without a boy part. Unless I wanted an asexual being on purpose, those are just lovely, too *thinks of Clamp's 'Wish'*

 

I think it's a cultural thing. But it also has to do with the realism of the dolls. I'd be disapointed if they weren't anatomically correct.

Besides, boy dolls get the best reactions. ("I wanna see a dollie winkie!")

 

It's mostly a question of why western dolls don't. I actually really hate that so many dolls are not anatomically correct. Yes, for your average kid's doll, they don't NEED to have bits. However, I feel like the lack of anatomical correctness is part of the whole (feminine especially) ideal - here is a thing like you, except thinner, curvier, perter, more symmetrical, and minus all those dirty bits that no one likes. It disgusts me to see little girls being surrounded by this model (and they are often surrounded by it) of the sexless beauty; Aphrodite at her worst.

Part of it might be the sensational value. Not just any dolls, they're dolls with naughty bits! But a lot, I think, is just that it would seem non-sensical to have dolls with articulate limbs, faces that are sometimes mistaken for human, and detailed enough bodies that ribs and arm muscles are visible, and not give them genitalia.

I guess it comes down to the intent of the doll. Your average baby doll is meant to be played with, Barbies and the like are fashion dolls, and while BJDs are for both those things, they are capital-d Dolls in a way that the others just aren't. They are more real as people to us, and so need to be more real; they aren't just shapely hangers or a physical manifestation of a game, and I think companies have that in mind in the design of BJDs.

Well, that was me blathering.

 

the first doll i ever saw that was anatomically correct was the "Billy" doll. The gay doll, (as a gay male version of barbie) and his bits were so huge, that it was scary. LMAO So it never bothered me to see that ABJD were anatomically correct. In fact, now it bothers me to see dolls that are NOT anatomically correct.

 

You know I never really thought about why bjds were anatomically correct. It seemed natural to me (what weirds me out is that people all seem to be so facinated by this fact and the first thing non bjd owners ask me is "can I see his bits?" o.0 but anyway) with a doll as detailed as these are.

I never really saw the point in Ken's 'bulge' (as a matter of fact it weirded me out as a kid), I mean by the age kids play with Barbie dolls they already have seen their mum and dad naked and have asked the typical questions kids ask. Once my younger cousin was in her room playing with her dolls and I walked in, she had Ken on top of Barbie and was moving them against each other (well she obviously understands the concept of sex to some degree lol) when I asked her what she was doing she told me that Barbie and Ken were having sex. Then all of a sudden she threw Ken across the room, I was astounded by this sudden change in her behaviour until she explained to me that Barbie didn't want Ken anymore because he didn't have any 'boy bits'.
Kids aren't as naive and fragile as people think they are.

 

Poor Ken! Forever cursed to be dejected and rejected for not having the proper sized bits or any at all for that matter! ::: Has a moment of silence for Ken :::

 

XD! that sounds like something iused to do! Well, i was an odd one. My friend and i played with our barbies well into 6th grade, as we had nothing better to do and our little minds were making some amazing and horrible dollie plots for them. There were a few occasions where we had barbie and ken getting it on, but we'd just laugh at the fact ken had no bits lol shortly after weh'd have barbie's shirt stuffed with...erm, clothing...then she'd have a baby. it really was sort of hilarious. (i dont think mattel knows what sort of ammo they give kids to play with, what sorts of things kids can come up with given certain objects XD) Although i must admit the barbie world is seriously messed up. Barbies got a billion 'sisters', a boyfriend, a billion friends, any job she could ever desire, but she's 18 and has no parents to speak of. i mean, sure, they HAVE to bet here, since she's got sisters and all, but seriously. Thats not realistic at all!

back on topic here, I giggled when i found out BJDs had bits, but it makes sense. Theres no reason for them to not be there, if they are intended to be representations of humans and all.

 

I don't know why but people sure seem to mention it a lot when describing what a Dollfie or BJD is. And if it isn't mentioned they ask.

First line of one of Ebay's own descriptions of what Dollfies are:
"Dollfie is an anatomically correct doll introduced by a Japanese company in 1998."

Urban Dictionary:
"ABJD is a very slimly built doll, anatomically correct, who range in realism."

Line from a Blog:
"I don't know if they're anatomically correct. I don't WANT to know"

Just search Google for: dollfie anatomically correct

Carolyn

 

There's a very simple answer to why BJDs are anatomically correct. Like my father said to me: For the same reason a doll has eyes and a nose. It's a basic part of the human body so it needs to be there, period. And I have to agree with that.

 

I agree with you! Why leaving out a perfectly normal part of the body?

 

Zomg, I used to do that too when I was little. But as twisted as I was I used to make my dolls their "bits"...I always did think that a guy with plastered on undies was weird..

Back to topic: I love the idea of anatomically correct dolls because you get to fully understand the human body (?) Wow...bad choice of words..Why do most people freak out about doll bits? Is it because they make them feel insecure or something? =.=

 

If you want to be technical, there was a doll line back a few years ago, called "Girl F.O.R.C.E." Made by Jakks Pacific. They didn't take well because the dolls were UBER realistic, with realistic breasts, and even the softness of the body. They caused a boycott of Jakks Pacific products, which ultimately spelled the end of the doll line. The "Josie and the Pussycats" movie dolls and the Charlie's Angels movie dolls were made with the same exact body mold.

I guess as a society, we just aren't ready for anatomically correct dolls, and due to that, we hear FIRST and FOREMOST that ABJD's are anatomically correct. It weirds non-doll people out me thinks.

 

I'm with you on that. I don't look at my dolls sexually and I'm a little squeamish about looking at a sexualized child-like body with a more adult style head. I could do very nicely without nipples or peni. In fact, one of the reasons I'm fond of Hypermaniac bodies is their 'less defined' bits. I'm not actually offended by dolly bits, but I admit I've commented more than once that I really didn't need to know my boys weren't circumcised. Plus, I'm a little weirded out by the fact that it's so... small. I mean, obviously you couldn't have a giant resin meat-rod getting in the way of things but it sort of contributes to the weird adult-child-adult balance of the dolls.

Of course, when I was in figure drawing, I'd always draw from an angle that didn't include male frontal nudity. When my professor confronted me about it I walked him around the class and pointed out that in EVERY SINGLE CASE of people who were drawing from the front, it was the center of attention. This was either because it was darker and more defined or absent entirely complete with a sort of blur of not-drawing around it. I pointed out that I liked drawing butts and did them well and I'd rather do a good drawing that didn't address the issue than a bad one that did.

Mind you, my photography was another matter entirely and I'd often have frontal male nudity in that (strangely, I was the only one... apparently it's OK to have naked women on the walls but not naked men. My disagreement with my professor (female) about my use of male nudity (she said no one wanted to look at that ) led to my leaving the department.

So, it seems like it always becomes the center of attention/discussion, whether by its presence or its absence. Personally I don't need my dolls to be quite that reallistic (I'm far more interested in faces), but I don't have any problem with them being so.

Like the poster above, I just put some underwear on them to give them some privacy and get on with playing with them. lol~

H