Why do you think BJDs are anatomically correct?

No matter whom I talk to BJD's about, No one can actually maturely grasp the fact that they're anatomically correct and are included with male and femlale genital parts
with boys it's usually "ooh is that what you'll practice on?" etc.
or the "omg eeww" from those immature girls.
I mean, people need to grow up, They're too used to Ken dolls
What's so alarming about all this?

Anyone have stories? Or am I the only one surrounded by these immature excuses for human beings

 

My girl friend has used her male dollies special parts to prove that he is a he, more then once...normally it's a flushed "oh" or a surprised laugh, I first started getting into BJD's when I was alot younger. When I saw my first dollies nasty bits I was shocked.

 

Uhg... I know what you mean. I hate the stupid comments from uneducated people. When I still had my boy, I would come home from work or school and find his hand strategically placed down his pants by my sister. It used to piss me off SO bad, that I started hiding him when I was away.

 

I've done that to prove my boy is...well a boy before
Everyone always seems to think my boy is a girl or "girly" and when I tell them he is a boy I usually get the whole "No way no it's not" So then, it's time to flash out the parts!

Poor Auhbrey gets embarrassed

 

yeah I know what you mean. those poor babies getting their naughty bits flashed about.

 

Heh. My parents a couple of my friends who know about my doll hobby also know that the dolls are anatomically correct. Usually they chuckle about it, but it's not really a malicious kind of laughter. They're just amused by it (my parents are used to the idea of me having anatomically correct dolls, though, since I had two of those realistic-looking baby dolls when I was growing up).

 

Nevermind, lol.

 

I think the worst jokes in the family come from me actually ^^; I've posed my little sister's boy and girl together in a making out/touchy-feely poses on the dining room table, been like "OMG Yako look!" and pantsed her boy... ^^; I can be mature when I need to, but her reactions are usually always so priceless that I just *have* to do stuff lol

 

My boyfriend was surprised when I first got a boy doll and he was "complete." He wasn't weirded out by it, or immature about it. He's an artist, so he sees/draws/makes genitals a lot more than the average student, so that might have something to do with it.

I actually just remembered this while writing, but I have this fuzzy memory of my parents talking about doll "parts" when I was pretty little. My mom was helping me put a pair of pants on a Ken doll and my dad asked where his "you-know-what" was.

 

I didn't think I played with Barbies much until I was over- I always figured it was to make the dresses go on quicker. And we didn't get Kens. ._.;;
At first I was pretty squeamish with the idea of ZOMG, a boy doll, with ZOMG, boy parts, but... now that I know how small even the 60cm dolls are from head to toe... I'm slightly less intimidated. Yeah, I'm a teenage girl. Yeah, I haven't been living in a box my whole life. It's just more of an incentive to keep the pants on. Or of course, take the extra step and get out the sandpaper. Which makes all my male friends wince sympathetically. It doesn't bug me so much at the thought of a female doll, though- when I showed my sister some of the female doll bodies I liked, she did note that hey- she has a rib cage! Unlike Barbie. And it's your choice whether you want ginormousness in the bust area or not. Not so much variety in the males, I don't think- or perhaps they don't show pictures?
I'm going to bring mine in to show our art teacher when I've got it, I've promised. Really to look at the ball joints for doing a pose for one of her paintings, but I'm sure it'll eventually end in a pantsing.

 

To keep the image I guess? It would be slightly odd if it wasn't. I always disliked how Ken barbie dolls had un-removable plastic underwear on, and barbie just had huge boobs. I'm glad BJD's are anatomically correct, it just seems right. And its not like they are grossly/ offensively 'correct'. Its not like the guy dolls are flaunting their parts, and for the girls, most bodies come with small chest sizes ((but of coarse theres ways to make it bigger >_> ))

 

I realize only now that A.O.D. boys seem to be, er, slightly blessed in the trousers region. Or is that an optical illusion?
:: honestly, not a pervert ::
Just you wait, someone's going to set up a database to compare and contrast. :: coughcoughcough, die ::

 

I am glad that male bjds is anatomically correct why shouldn't they be they are representing male.

 

I just love that my boy looks "real". I think it's part of the bjd's charm.
I love they are anatomically correct.

I really like Barbie and Ken too, but it bothers me that my Ken Legolas doesn't have his thingie.

 

I've read through this thread and several others today and it's been interesting and something my friends and I have discussed a bit, I was even thinking of doing a panel at a local convention dealing with something similar to this.

I think you have to look not just at BJD's in asking this question.
Many cultures have dolls that are used in various religious practices like the kachina dolls, voodoo dolls (long subject on this one alone), and others.
In some ancient religions a type of doll in one form or another was buried in the tomb/burial chamber/ burned with the body so that the dead would have company in the after life.
In some cultures dolls are used to house the spirits of ancestors of the family and in this instance you would want the body housing the spirit to be intact and as lifelike as possible.

With the religious aspect like this in a lot of ways the bjd can be seen as NOT a child's toy and more an art object.
If I remember correctly there was a show that dealt with the bjd in Japan/Asia that said that they were used to house spirits but I can't for the life of me find it again.

Also with the religious aspect it's no wonder the dolls wind up being looked at as creepy either ya know, it's a straight jump from housing spirits to haunted/horror shrug.

With the dolls being anatomically correct we can also live vicariously through our dolls, they become an extension of you looking and dressing the way we would want to if we could.

Some of us like the dolls having anatomically correct bits for many reasons all of which are valid.

Hmmm I may have rambled but I hope I made sense.

 

I agree with what's been said many times above, that 1) with dolls as realistic as BJDs it'd be odd if they *weren't* anatomically correct, and that 2) Ken's lump is far more traumatizing than any resin boy bits.

I think that the prudishness of American culture explains why so many people are surprised by realistic BJD bodies. And I'm allowed to say this because I'm not only American, but from Puritan New England. :P I even found myself mildly shocked when I first noticed anatomically correct body sculpts, although I got over it pretty quickly.

When I was a kid my mother bought us "Happy To Be Me" dolls that were sort of anti-Barbies, with realistic body proportions and nipples and all that. Has anyone else seen those? My sisters and I liked them because their heads were easy to pull off

 

I had a Ken when I was a child, and I was adamant to get a rooted hair one, not one of those with molded plastic hair because it was too fake. When I first undressed him soon after I recieved him the formless bump he had really confused me. I really hated that he seemed to have molded on underwear, with what looked like what was supposed to be elastic at his hips, especially since it was in the same colour as the rest of him. If it was a different colour to the rest of his body it might have been acceptable, but he really looked like a strange formless alien, and not what should be a man.

I would hate to have the same happen to BJDs where they have crappy molded underwear where their bits are meant to be. I'm all for androgynous dolls for those who want them (sans molded underwear :P), but if I want a male doll, I want him to be complete, just as I would want a female doll to be complete. This is one of the things that attracts me to BJDs - not just that they have a subtle semblence of genitalia, but that they are anatomically correct and are complete with fingernails and the little seashell curves in their ears, ribs, muscles, nipples.

 

Hmmm...because they have everything...right? Yea it sounds weird but I guess BJDs are made that way. Besides, there isn't a doll around here that has the private parts shown and such. They just have like a PG version. But it's cool cuz now I can use my doll as a model for my drawings in the nude.

 

I completely agree with you, and couldn'tve said it better!!

 

It seems that everyone is really desperate to talk about this topic

My general opinion is that YES they should anatomically correct, I wouldn't not buy a doll because he didn't have a nob and I don't buy them because I do. I just think it would be really weird and insulting to our intelligence if they were without willies and fannies; as though we are some kind of neurotic obssesional who can't deal with a little resin bulge in our dollies pants.

Plus if someone wants to put pubic hair on their dolls then I'm also happy with that; I have done it on a couple, but I certainly didn't do it because the ones who do have hair down there are filthy heathens...(sorry way too much referencing to a certain thread yesterday), I just did it because I felt like it

Anyway, I'm outty before this sort of thread gets highjacked again with victims of doll nudity *sigh* and I end up wanting to poke their eye out