Why worry about his junk?

Mar 30, 2017

    1. I totally don't understand why there is so much concern that a BJD male's penis lets his pants lie flat in front. Real guys' pants don't unless they're too tight . There's stuff there. Granted real junk can be squished but it's uncomfortable and not very attractive. I'm a guy so I know this :D I get that some people care nothing about a BJDs genitals but for those that do , what gives?
       
      • x 12
    2. I'm in the "I don't want it to lie perfectly flat!" camp. ^///^ I like more realism, and that includes the male bits too, in all their occasionally awkward splendor. (Okay, I'm one of these people who gets mad when male BJD genitals are less realistic, just a little tube and there you go.)

      I think it may be one of those situations where some people are maybe a little bit uncomfortable of having such a reminder of sexuality so obvious on a doll. But I don't think this is the primary case.

      I think the stronger possibility is that it comes purely from an aesthetics standpoint, of having a "clean" silhouette for the outfit, the same way that some people do not want female dolls with prominent nipples. It does not necessarily display an outfit to its best advantage to have too many bits and bobs interrupting the line of the garment, particularly if it is a very tight or fitted piece.

      I do have one guy in my doll family who has the worst time keeping his pants closed because of his junk. It bugs me because I keep having to do up his jeans, but I wouldn't want him to be flat like a fashion doll!
       
      • x 6
    3. Yeah, I agree. I think it's kind of prudish and immature when people get their panties in a bunch over a doll. It's not a real person, it's not a real penis, it doesn't even look real most of the time.
       
      • x 2
    4. And then loongsoul comes with their Elegant line and BOOM! 5 interchangeable penises for your boy!! You don't have to worry anymore about people asking if it's a girl, now you can even choose the angle of his erection and say powerfully "LOOK AT IT, IT'S A BOY!!" LOL I just couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it on their site!:aeyepop: :sweat
      I've never had a male doll, and I think one of the best things of these dolls is the realism on their sculpts, of course there's no need to have 5 junks hahahah, but as @Osaka said, I wouldn't want a male bjd to be flat like a fashion doll either.
       
      • x 18
    5. I think that part of it may have to do with people that have a hard time separating the word "doll" from its connotation as only a child's plaything. People don't want realistic or semi-realistic genitalia on something little kids play with; it's not considered to be very appropriate. However, BJDs aren't children's playthings.
      Though I will admit, it still can be a little jarring seeing a BJD with realistic/semi-realistic genitalia (I'm looking at you, Doll Chateau A-body-08, with your jointed junk), but I still don't understand people who get all up in a tizzy about it.
       
      • x 1
    6. @Naisha That is the greatest comment I've read all week XDD I have a Loongsoul doll on order and I admit I chose it over a doll I liked more specifically because I wanted those male bits. That body is darn proud of its bits, that's for certain.

      That being said, I get the perspective of people who do want that flat crotchal region. I think if your doll is often going to be clothed having that smooth silhouette might be nice? I personally prefer a bulge under the clothes, it gives them more grit and reality that takes it away from just being a doll..I don't know if that makes sense. But it's just two different aesthetics I guess. No need for anyone on either preference to get into a battle :B I hope we see more companies come out with male bodies with more realistic if not movable genitals.
       
      • x 2
    7. The only time I've wished my male doll had a bit less in that area is when my AoD boy literally could not wear some pants because his penis did not fit in them! Thankfully, AoD has fixed that with the newer bodies, but it was frustrating because I couldn't bring myself to sand it off, but it limited his clothing. The rest of the time...I prefer to see the bulge. I don't want my boys to wear a pair of jeans exactly like my girls do. It's not a sexual thing for me so much as I like my dolls to have realistic bodies, so why skip that one part? I don't want legs that look like straight stalks, I don't want hands without fingernails or knuckles, I don't want a torso with no navel, I don't want ears with no curves or grooves. Why would I want a beautifully sculpted doll whose genital area is equivalent to a cheap child's toy?
       
      • x 7
    8. Well for my little anthro dolls, I prefer my males not to have junk at all. I don't know exactly why... I guess because to me they're cute little animals and I wouldn't want them sexualized? (Is that even a word?) I think I would have the same problem if the girl's had accurate little bits too. I guess I think of them as asexual. For my littlefees it's not even a concern. They are like children, the girl bits aren't accurate and the boys bits are... boy bits? They're so small I don't have any concerns like that. I will say that I've noticed it one way or another on other people's dolls except if seeing them nude. I guess an owner might notice their dolls junk more then I would.
       
      • x 2
    9. Mostly for clothes, I think. Some might be shy with that sort of thing I guess? I personally don't care too much as long as it fits in the pants! I kinda wish girl dolls had defined parts instead of a flat pelvis or a random slit. Makes it more realistic!
       
      • x 4
    10. I prefer that the entire doll matches the aesthetic of the face. If the head is realistic, everything else (including the genitalia) better be as realistic as it can be without compromising posing or looking like it's in a perpetually excited state.

      For me personally, I like the realism because I appreciate the artist's attention to detail--I like veins on the limbs, sculpted cheekbones, eyelid and temple sculpting, and a "finished" look for the guy or gal genitalia kind of goes along with that.

      Perhaps it's a bit egotistical, but I think the human form is beautiful and graceful, and there's a whole host of artists, present day and in the past, who think the same--after all, that's why sketching and sculpting nudes is a thing.

      And I think in some ways, this is one way different BJDs can be distinguished from the rest as works of art. When an artist can make something which is both aesthetically pleasing and graceful and natural to pose. It's a difficult challenge, and some artists find one facet of this balancing act easier than the other, and are better at achieving both realism and poseability on one part of the body or another.

      Perhaps it also has something to do with the "uncanny valley," the idea that the mismatch of a hyperrealistic quality and a robotic or abnormal quality (like an extremely human robot with a clearly synthesized voice, or an extremely well and realistically-sculpted doll with lump junk) is disturbing or disconcerting to humans. The animation in the Polar Express movie is often used as an example.

      Some have argued that this "uncanny valley" is an alternative application of a human's natural revulsion to death (which might have had an evolutionary benefit--a person who looks like a zombie is likely sick). I don't know about the validity of this theory, but the phenomenon is real.

      So I covered the personal reason, but I also think realism is important for other cultural or social reasons. The idea that viewing, sculpting, or displaying genitals and breasts is taboo isn't the nature of humankind--society dictates this.

      And honestly, I think it's bullshit, and I think that melodrama over doll nudity is bullshit. Making certain body parts taboo has social ramifications. It's the reason breastfeeding in public is such a "touchy" issue. It's the reason female nudity in advertising works, and why it's immediately seen as sexual.

      It's the reason the normalization of human body types is so difficult--people are so used to seeing objectified women in advertising, and hyper-masculine, steroid-infused men, (not that the current BJD body types necessarily help this) that it can fuel eating disorders and exacerbate or trigger symptoms of mental illness.

      It underlies some bigger issues to, as sometimes seeing more of "taboo" parts of people's bodies is viewed incorrectly as a type of consent, consent to flirting, consent to sex, etc. That's extremely problematic!

      Perhaps this is a small or inconsequential place to make a statement or take sides concerning such an issue, and this doesn't eliminate the need to critique and challenge other manifestations of this taboo, but I'm personally of the mind that if everyone makes a concerted effort to think about why they hold certain views, and to change their perspective across the board, in both important and trivial issues, then suddenly a particular mode of thinking is no longer normalized.

      So perhaps that's a bit of a lofty goal for the doll hobby, and I probably wouldn't be so willing to embrace it if I didn't like the aesthetic myself, but it is the reason I put some thought into each time I'm tempted to put a "nsfw" on a photo of plastic.
       
      #10 americanseamstress, Mar 31, 2017
      Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
      • x 13
    11. I don't mind it. It can be a little frustrating clothing wide though. We can't tuck it like a real guy (which is very uncomfortable to do) can
       
      • x 1
    12. I don't require body parts to be flattened because in real life it they aren't. But then, I prefer realism.

      Confession Time: I have actually done some additive sculpting to fix some of my poor dolls who arrived with gorgeous muscles and veins and delicate ears and all the details and then this weird little... dot of resin instead of actual parts. My dolls will never be full frontal nude in pictures, but knowing they're done wrong just bothers me as a classically trained art student. Realism all over the rest of the body and then an oval blob for genitals just looks so wrong. It's definitely hitting Uncanny territory.

      As for how clothes fit on them, I don't actually have any dolls who wear super tight pants. I'm not a fan of those myself, and most of my dolls are in medieval clothing, so they have fitted hosen or trousers and tunics. Their anatomy being too visible kind of doesn't come up.
       
      • x 9
    13. I used to think the jointed ones were silly, and I was lowkey embarrassed when I got my DC body and realized his wiener could spin around 360 degrees. I don't take sexy photos of my dolls, and the character is meant to be a literal dead person, so I was just like "I'm never going to need him to have this up... this is pointless."

      But you know what? I actually really appreciate that I can kind of tuck it to the side a little when he wears tighter pants. It's a lot more convenient than the fully sculpted ones that don't move at all. More jointed dongs, I say. I'm all for realism, but real ones are moveable. Despite what they might insist, very few real men have the problem that they can't wear pants because their junk is too big.

      Although, to be fair to the dolls, real-person pants are made longer in the crotch to accommodate. Not all doll clothing makers do this.
       
      • x 5
    14. As long as the pants FIT, I don't think I'd care how much they bulge. I mean, it's definitely not been an issue for me with having smaller boys, but I can't see getting worked up and wanting everything to lay flat.

      I mean, I don't see my dolls' genitals as sexual in nature, so it's also just not a big deal to me. I mean, one of my boys is sitting around pantsless because I'd been sewing for him/testing out a prototype based on a freshly-put-together pattern, so his tic-tac is just hanging out and that's life.
       
      • x 2
    15. I have a Ringdoll with jointed junk, & I sure do appreciate the versatility. It's also a lot better than the 3 or 5 or whatever different ones that tend to fall OFF at awkward moments LOL
       
      • x 2
    16. I agree with Bubble Gum Goth, I don't like my anthro tinies to have bits, I'm glad they all have genderless bodies. I don't really care about doll bits in the grand scheme, I'm not shy at all about that sort of thing and I appreciate the beautiful sculpting some dolls have, it adds a nice touch of realism that separates these dolls from fashion dolls. I think most people just find it frustrating because it can be hard to find pants that fit over giant bulges. My boys aren't very well endowed so I've never had that problem as yet, lol.
       
      • x 1
    17. I'm an artist who "specializes" in illustrating humans, especially naked humans. So I also prefer it when male dolls have more of a somewhat realistic appearance to their genitals, the slight bulge in a male doll's pants just looks natural to me. That comes with it's own problems though, it can't be too realistic and defined since that can create a very obvious dick print trough clothes. It might also look lewd from time to time since resin can't be squished down even slightly like real tissue, and that's not everyone's cup of tea. But then again, everyone is entitled to like whatever they like, I understand that in some other person's opinion, it might create a more appealing silhouette if the crotch lays flat.
       
      • x 2
    18. I didn't realize there was widespread concern about flat front pants. I must not hang out in the right threads. ;)

      The only issue I can see is it being slightly more complicated to fit the pattern.
       
      • x 3
    19. Is it bad that I'm now thinking of a loongsoul body just to hybrid it maybe (newbie so let me know if it's not practical). One of my characters is very...virile. But loongsoul face sculpts don't quite work for me.
       
      • x 1
    20. Interesting topic and responses!
      I have a doll who has never had his boxers off in my presence. Friends checked him out of course, two of my doll pals absolutely delight in the differences and discussions of male doll sexual anatomy...but since he is going to wear kimono and hakama, pants that won't close due to size aren't an issue so I don't care at all. My two mature(ish) slim mini boys have flat fronts when they stand and the fabric of their trousers makes somewhat of a bunch when seated and I don't remember anything remarkable south of the border on them but they look fine dressed. I'm glad there is more of a variety than there used to be though so in some cases people can have a more detailed body if they want it and unstring if they don't. I suppose you could stuff the crotch if substance was lacking? I have padded the bust and hips for the illusion of a smaller cinched waist on a corseted doll since as was mentioned, doll flesh can't squish.

      As far as tagging and rating photos go, with Flickr it can be a nuisance because their 'safe' rating is ambiguous with regards to doll or artwork nudity, ditto for FB. I've had female doll and cartoon nudity on the header of a group page for going on 3 years now with no trouble at all but a friend has gotten her art page flagged for a sketch with a nipple in her photo. I assume nude doll comparison photos on Flickr would be ok left with a 'safe' rating since I've seen quite a few and it's always in a non-sexual context but I've always avoided posting male doll nudity.
      Has anyone has their male doll nudes flagged?