Why do you think BJDs are anatomically correct?

Well, I would say that it's because the target audience is adults, rather than children. BJDs are intended to be more realistic than fashion dolls or action figures. But I think it could also be a cultural thing, considering that Ken and GI Joe are American and many BJDs are from Asia.

 

S'what I had done to Baron. But I had Lithe-Fider "neuter" him because I can't find a decent reason as to why a *cat statue* should have human bits. Also, in the movie, no bulge whatsoever!

For a human doll, though...eh, I'd probably leave it.

 

I don't mind anatomical correctness, in fact I prefer it. Unless the doll is meant to be genderless (like Volks' angels), I like to be able to see what gender the doll is. As long as it is tasteful and not overly detailed or exaggerated, I think it's fine.

I like Super Dollfie bodies for that reason. You can instantly tell which gender the doll is, but their "parts" aren't detailed enough to be considered offensive or obscene.

If anatomical correctness makes you uncomfortable, you could modify your doll's body to make it less noticable, or just make sure they are always dressed.

 

I really don't think it's a big issue.

Everyone here has mentioned good points. Asia has fewer inhibitions about showing the body than the USA does, the dolls are meant for adults anyway... lots of reasons.

However, for me, I've felt it would be nice either way. (Depending on when I'm thinking about it.)

Sometimes I wish they didn't have bits, as that makes the dolls even more "wierd" or "creepy" to some, and makes them seem like they are meant for an "adult" audience, in a misconstrued deffinition thereof. Besides, I hardly care if they are bit-ed or not. I usually keep them dressed.
Other times, I'm very glad they are anatomically correct. They are more realistic, there's no reason for them not to have accurate bodies, and to top it off, when someone thinks a guy doll looks girly, there's proof that your doll really is a guy, underneath all that beautiful flowing hair, big sparkling eyes, and perfect makeup. :P

 

Agreed. Perfect analogy!

 

Carolyn.S > your point about descriptions or definitions of bjds always featuring "anatomically correct" made me think that culture really has a lot to say in how we perceive these matters.
I'm european and before reading this I would never have understood the description "anatomically correct" as "it has a penis [or whatever it has ]", but rather I would just have understood it as the doll having human proportions in regards to fx hip-shoulder ratio, leg length, etc. I think that's because genitalia itself on a doll wouldn't be that big a deal here and thus people wouldn't specifically focus on that detail.

I agree to a great extent with the points about japan having a more relaxed attitude towards nudity as the reason why bjds have genitalia, but it is an interesting fact that before 1998 (I'm not 100% certain about the exact year) genitalia in anime was highly censored. It was that not allowed to draw pubic hair on female genitalia (non-pubic haired ones were ok) and it was not allowed to depict male genitalia at all (which is sometimes given as the reason for the frequent use of tentacles in japanese anime porn/ hentai).

So it seems the japanese attitude towards nudity has also at some point/ in some contexts been more limited.

(if somebody has more knowledge on this than me - please correct me if I'm wrong )

 

I agree with many posts here in that they are a doll more geared for older people, and it helps make the mold more realisitc. If I put super tight pants on a real guy he will have a buldge, the same should be for male dolls.
I never wondered about Ken not having his bits as much as why he had his underwear as part of his skin but still had a butt crack...
I do think some of the male bits are a bit odd looking since they don't have much detail or realisim, especially compared to the rest of the sculpt.
The US has all kinds of odd puritan belifs and laws still, it is really sad.
As for some of the "adult" content I have seen come out of Japan... I don't know what the current rules are, but some of the random censored stuff before didn't make that much sense to me.

 

This is probably an old topic, but here goes:

When I first came across these dolls I was a little surprised at them being anatomically correct. I kind of wrote it off as a non-American thing. (we're so repressed) But now I wonder.

I don't have kids, and I know BJDs are adult toys, but I can see myself being the type of parent who wouldn't have a problem giving an anatomically correct doll to my kids. My hope would be that it would de-mystify all the "bits" somewhat.

I think it would have for me.

I was always a little upset that Ken couldn't pee.

What do you-all think?
When you were younger did you wonder what Ken was really supposed to look like?
Would you give your kids anatomically correct BJDs?

 

For as long as I can remember I've never really giggled or had a problem with nudity. I was pretty oblivious to things for longer than I should have been. My friends always said stuff to me, but it was always over my head. ^^:;;

I personally have no qualms with dolls that have bits. I honestly think that if we exposed our children to these things earlier than sex and porn wouldn't be as big of an issue with them. So, yeah, I'd give an anatomically correct BJD to a child and if they had questions, would answer them honestly. It's nothing to be ashamed of and it's nothing that should be hidden from them if they ask.

Of course I'm also an artist and life drawing is by far one of my favorite subjects. XD;; So I'm reaaaaally okay with nudity.

 

when I brought Himiko back home,I felt a bt bad because she was naked lol Now I'm making clothes for her. All my sisters said were " Wow,she's got big boobs!" But since we are all women in the house,questions about the female anatomy and such were answered to my sisters when they were young. (they are now 8 n 11).

I have no problem with an anatomically correct doll,I really don't mind it I'd find it a bit awkward though,if I buy a boy doll and my boyfriend starts commenting on the doll's "Wii".

 

::shrug:: They're detailed beyond belief on every other part of their bodies, from butt dimples to fingernails, so why not complete it? I think they'd look particularly strange with nothing down below!

 

Despite the fact that I grew up in the prudish culture of North America, I think I've always been fairly 'meh' about the whole 'bits' issue. I remember the first time I took the pants off of my Little Mermaid Prince Eric doll, and wondering why he was so flat. I figured that there should be a bulge of SOME sort down there. How was he supposed to pee? (This seems to be a major concern for most kids 8D )

I know my friends are all: 'Ewww, they've got peenies, it's so wroooong!'
It makes me roll my eyes to be honest. Why? Why not? Bodies are bodies and they have bits. It's the reason I gave my angel-bodied Little Leroi his appropriate bits. It seemed weird and almost cruel for him NOT to have them.

Personally, I think kids having dolls that don't have the proper bits causes MORE problems then it 'solves'. Boys look at their boy dolls, and get upset because they're different from them 'down there'.

Being an artist with a ton of anatomy books pretty well squelched any squeamishness about the human body

 

Wow... hehe, reading this thread has made me realize just how unbelievably prudish we are in America. I mean, I never even wondered why Barbie was so.... cartoonish, although I did think that the plastered-on undies were a bit odd. I just always assumed that it was 'dirty', so it was hidden. (Of course I knew that wasn't what really should have been there...) Even so, the fact that BJDs are anatomically correct didn't even make me blink, because it seemed to me like they wouldn't be any other way. *shrugs* It's just how they are. They're a fairly accurate representation of a person. Why not?

 

I always found with the BJDs I've seen that the genitalia isn't detailed enough for me. At least with the boys. I mean come on, those things are tiny! They're not realistic and while I appreciate that they're there I'd like bigger ones! They don't have to be huge just like... in proportion to the rest of the doll!

 

I really don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when it comes to genitalia in dolls or simulated versions of ourselves. It is a part of us so why should it not be represented.

Some people are so obsessed with sex that they make anything having to do with it a taboo.

 

I was someone who was annoyed at barbie having no nipples, and yes the ken underpants thing >_>

I don't mind that the genitals are small on boys because whenever I pick them up I already feel that resin lump in his pants :P (i pick mine up by the waist) and even tho I love that its anatomicly correct, it gets pretty akward to have my thumb against his buldge ahaha.

 

If they weren't anatomically correct, I'd just laugh at them.

Has anyone seen Dogma? Remember that bit where Alan Rickman drops his angelic trousers and declares "I'm as anatomically impaired as a Ken Doll"?

Yeah.

 

I totally agree with this, and I couldn't have said it better~~!

 

in the x2 doll box is written that is not suitable for children under 13 years
so this kind of doll is really meant for adults

when i was a child i have a ken doll but i always think there was something wrong in his anatomy XD even if at that time i don't know yet what exactly was

i came across bjd cause i was tired that the little world of male dolls
there are a lot of female dolls but the males...
i wanted to create a character but ken has too many muscles, there's not enough variety in the common toy world

this remind me of when my father first saw my obitsu 27 doll
he said 'oh but she has the...' (i don't know how to name it)
she has nothing down there, but in the common knowledge she might seem like those kens

i think it is cause they don't want children to play incestuos plot
she has only sisters and no brothers
the worse she could do is fell for her sister's boyfriend XD (or for one of her sisters/friends)

 

Those Japanese censorship and obscenity laws were created by the US during the occupation and reworking of Japan after WWII.

As far as I know, traditional Japanese art dealing with sex did not pull any punches. I know that there is an extremely large amount of very explicit, very detailed erotic ukiyo-e in existence, for example, that were often sold on the streets to whoever could afford them and wanted them.