Would you purchase a handicapped doll?

Yes, I'd buy a doll with a handicap, deformity, or fantasy parts of some sort if it fit a character I wanted to embody as a doll.

I have two dolls with non-magnetic tails and a doll with a clawed hand - all three require a little extra consideration with clothing. The tailed dolls need openings in the back of their pants and the clawed doll can't have small sleeve openings on his shirts if I want to dress him with ease. But I love my weird little crew and deal with the clothing issues as best I can

 

hmmm... if I can find something interesting to do with the doll, sure! ^_^
however I don't have any "handicaped" characters so for now I would most likely only get the head and put it on a normal body if I really loved the mold

 

Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Someday, I hope to mod one of my dolls (current or future, I'm not sure) to be missing a leg and/or an arm. Heck, I own a doll wheelchair, a pair of crutches, a pair of forearm crutches and a walker. All perfectly MSD-sized. Both my MSDs have spent time using those supplies and will continue to do so, depending on the shoots I want. I would love to buy a doll 'pre-disabled'. It'd probably up my chances of buying them, actually, if I liked the face at all.

... So, yes. DC is doing something interesting with their new doll, although I'm just going to save up for a nice boy MSD body from them.

 

^This. I've no problem looking at handicapped dolls, but I would definitely keep in mind how it would be to find clothes for them. I'd want to treat that doll just like all my other dolls, and that includes buying clothes/accessories for them.

In terms of fantasy parts (hooves, paws, claws, other non-human feet), I'd prefer having them be interchangeable with a human set. I like how a lot of the centaurs dolls give you the chance to buy human parts for them. I don't think dressing my dolls would be as fun if it couldn't wear a complete outfit.

 

If I really liked the overall look of the doll, then yes, I would purchase a handicapped doll.

 

I have mixed feelings about dolls like this. I LOVE the Siamese twin doll that DC released, but I wouldn't buy an amputee doll. Part of it is because Siamese twins are very rare, and they don't feel like something that's "real" to me, so it's easy to romanticize them (especially with the way that particular doll is built, in a kind of permanent embrace) whereas like, amputee dolls just make me feel a little sad because it's a such a real and common thing and to be honest, something I'm terrified of (not amputees, being one ._.) so I guess it depends on the level of fantasy that the particular medical abnormality presents. I love the IDEA in general, and I really like looking at dolls with handicaps and medical stuff, but I couldn't own one. Even with a siamese twin doll, I WANT one, but I'm not sure if I could actually own one.

 

I agree with what I have quoted below. I have mixed feelings about dolls with medical conditions/disabilities/handicaps. While I do agree that is it a good thing that there are dolls being created and/or modded in this manner, I also have some concerns that this type of thing lends itself to possible exploitation.

That being said, I would definitely purchase a doll with handicaps or disabilities if the sculpt appealed to me. I just think we all need to be careful that if we own dolls like this because it is a very sensitive issue for lots of people in the real world who have disabilities or handicaps or know someone who does.

 

Handicaps and disabilities are part of the human condition. And as someone who is handicapped, however I have invisible disabilities that cannot be represented with by doll other than carrying some pill bottles, I supposed handicapped dolls. I personally have one doll that in my mind is partially deaf, like I am, mainly in one ear... like I am. The doll was deaf before I became so, and his condition is more severe. I'd like to represent his condition by someday finding someone to sculpt a hearing aid for his ear.

Btw, Conjoined twins is a handicap.

And it isn't disrespectful to show handicaps, that is like saying it is disrespectful to have an African-American doll. They are outside of the norm, and showing them is representing the human condition. This is what dolls are supposed to do, represent part of humanity. Handicaps need to be shown, they need to be represented. As I stated, I have a disability, but I can say that a lot of people misunderstand what it is means to be disabled. I have a service dog, and people are really ignorant about the American Laws concerning that. I'd love to represent a dolly with a service dog someday!

 

I must respectfully disagree. Let me preface my reply by saying that I do not intend for this to sound argumentative, I am just putting forth the thought process that occurred to lead me to the conclusion that I do not like this doll.

I am not saying it is disrespectful to show disabilities and handicaps. I am saying the execution and reasoning behind making this doll are what I felt was disrespectful. The doll line has a circus theme. The mere fact that the twins are conjoined will automatically associate the twins as a "freak show" in many people's minds because of historical precedence of circus sideshows.

Take into consideration that the girls do not have any clothing to cover their hips. This in itself shows the girls are intended to be a sort of spectacle. Yes, I know these are promotional photos so the body will be displayed. But the poor girls are not afforded a shred of modesty by their full-set outfit. What if this was a girl in a wheelchair instead? Depending on her disability, her legs may be different than those of others. Does that mean her legs should be put on display constantly to say "Look! They're different!" That goes beyond showing the human condition. That is exploitation. I sadly feel it is a thinly veiled pretext for the exploitation of conjoined twins that occurred in the past and still occurs today in some areas. It may not be, but that is the feeling I took away from this when I considered the line as a whole.

Let's think of another scenario. Now, in this situation the doll is not disabled. Let's pretend this line was "Southern Plantation" themed. All but one of the dolls has a light skin tone and these "Caucasian" dolls are all beautifully dressed and styled. There is only one doll with dark skin and that doll is poorly dressed, but nothing in particular is said about that doll's social status. Many people would automatically classify that doll as a "slave" because of the historical connotations of the Plantation Era. People would be offended, and rightly so, I believe. Is it inherently wrong to make a doll representing a slave? No. Slavery is sadly a part of history and we cannot deny it happened. However, if the slave doll was made because there was a fascination in the BJD community with slavery and the sculptor just wanted to make a profit off the suffering of others, I do believe that would be wrong.

I know this is a slippery slope, but let's take into consideration all facets of the disability of being a conjoined twin and its history in the context of this particular doll line.

Of course, I don't know the sculptor and I can't pretend to know Doll Chateau's reasons for making this doll. However, I feel it was, as I said earlier, not an altruistic attempt to "show the human condition." Also, I hardly think dark skin counts as being outside the "norm" and making darker skinned dolls is not an attempt to show the human condition, in my opinion. It's just a matter of offering the buyer options. I love tanned dolls and I think buying the same skin tones again and again is boring.

Of course, those are just my personal feelings. You are free to disagree. That is the wonderful thing about opinions. I simply did not want to be misunderstood.

 

Helter Skelter I know EXACTLY what you're saying.

I'm sure most if not all of you have heard of the circus contortionists and circus perfomers with really stretchy skin. What most people don't know is those things are often caused by Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, a genetic collagen disorder that also causes extensive joint damage from dislocations, poor wound healing, and death by blood vessel and organ rupture amongst other things.

I have EDS and have been told by my doctor that I should join the circus...one of my best friends just died due to EDS issues. While I love the idea of a conjoined twin doll as it IS different...I HATE that it's part of a circus theme...just because I know what it's like to be classified as a freak.

I am considred "severely disabled" from my EDS. I have to wear braces on several joints (including my neck), walk with crutches, and have help for my poor vision because the EDS affected my eyes. I HAVE HAD SEVERAL DISABLED DOLLS. I have had dolls with wheelchairs and a doll that was almost blind represented by a scarred sleeping face (it was a Puki Basilah Amir if you're curious...based on my friend who lost her eye due to EDS complications).

I would buy a doll if it had a disability especially if I already had a character in mind for it. I do think, however, that an able bodied option part be available in the basic version (provided the disabled doll is part of a fullset or limited just because of the extra artistic effort of a fullset or a limited). I think it is important that dolls of many walks of life, races, abilities etc are represented and I'm glad to see an increase in this.

I do NOT consider dolls with fantasy parts to be handicapped though...it's FANTASY...unless that specific challenge is part of the character and that struggle is highlighted in the character's story (think Tree Man).

I shall get off my soap box now lol

 

Wow. I know this is off-topic, but I have to say I am stunned the doctor said that. I suppose if the doctor knew you well and was joking that would be one thing, but that just seems extremely unprofessional.

Back to the topic at hand, though. I do think a disabled doll/ doll with a medical condition could be considered an attempt to show the human condition if it was just offered without comment and no previous context, or an appropriate context. For example, there's a woman who makes beautiful off-topic porcelain dolls. One sculpt is a tribute to breast cancer survivors and has had a mastectomy. Her scars are prominently displayed, but she is still beautiful. The doll is presented in the woman's blog with a dedication to survivors of the disease. That is the appropriate context I was mentioning earlier. Another sculpt of hers is a hermaphrodite. There is nothing to suggest the woman has sculpted the hermaphroditic doll to be anything other than a beautiful artistic representation of a person with this condition.

So, again, yes, I would buy a different/disabled doll if I liked the sculpt. However, context and sculptor intent would be an important factor in my decision.

 

The main reason I think that the conjoined twin dolls were pictured nude, was so we could see what the doll actually looks like. It's all nice you're selling a mermaid, but if you can't see the fishtail, how do we know there's actually a mermaid underneath that dress?

(I don't know how to explain my point without going a bit off-topic, but I hope that it's okay this time)

Personally I think you're reading too much into it. Is a writer being exploitative when he sells a novel about the Plantation Era, because he's making profit of the suffering of other people? In that case we should ban all stories, because most of them are based on some kind of pain and I'm sure someone, somewhere is going through the exact same thing as used in a movie, book, tv-show.

In the HBO show Carnivale, the setting is a carnival in the 1930's, where - yes - the majority of the employees had disabilities or deformities, because they couldn't find a job anywhere else. Is that exploitative? The actors were proud they could be a part of the show, so I doubt they shared your opinion.

What I mean to say is; even if the setting is based on a painful (historical) moment, it doesn't have to be offensive. It's all about how we, as creators, deal with the topic.
Personally I'm glad with Terry in the TV-show True Blood, because even though he's seen as a bit of a freak by the people around him and he's a comic relief character, he's also the one person I can relate to. I don't think the creators of the show were exploiting PTSD even though they exaggerated some aspects of the condition. He's one of the most caring and selfless characters and he actually proves that even with a severe psychological condition you can still be someone of worth. Someone you should take seriously.

This conjoined doll has the potential to do the same. If we weren't allowed to use disabilities/handicaps/disorders in stories and art, we would never be able to break with all the existing prejudice concerning them.

 

I can't find the website now, but a while ago I stumbled upon a website that had the biographies of a lot of people who worked at the circus in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They were all displayed as "freaks" for having deformities either due to being born that way, accidents or illnesses, but each person had their own interesting story and they were not all poor helpless creatures being exploited.
I strongly remember one story of a woman who lost her arms due to child abuse and although she supported herself by showing off her tricks at the circus where people gaped at her while she wrote letters with her feet and showed how she dressed and undressed herself, one of her passions was to go to veteran hospitals and inspire soldiers who had lost one or more limbs during the war. To give them hope by showing them they are not as disabled as they may think.
One person's pitiable freak is another person's source of inspiration. Some people with disabilities were exploited in freak shows, but not all of them were. Some became people to admire. If we can't have dolls that remind us of exploitation under certain circumstances, then we also can't have dolls that resemble people who inspire us under the same circumstances.

 

Personally, I would treat a doll with an obvious physical deformity like I would a fantasy mod with features outside the the standard human 'norm'. Do I like the doll? Do I already have a character for that doll? How easy is it to cloth the doll? Even if it's extremely difficult to get/make clothes that'll fit, do I like the doll enough to ignore that difficulty?

 

Thank you so much for bringing this up. I think I once watched a documentary on circuses. I'm not sure if it was about Ringling brothers specifically, but anyway, yes not all "circus freaks" were treated as such by their employers. And as Silk brought out often times these were the only jobs many of them could get. And some of them were often able to make more money then the people coming to gawk at them. Of course this wasn't the case for everyone, but they weren't all living horrible lives, and many were inspirations for others.

This so much. It'll be nice when we can finally get to a point where someone depicting certain conditions doesn't automatically lead one to think said condition is being exploited or poked fun of.

 

As I mentioned in my post, this is a slippery slope. I'm not writing about all disabilities/differences or representing them in all mediums. I'm writing about this particular doll in this particular context. Of course, we disagree, and that's fine, but I think you're also reading too much into my post.

But I will address what you've written. First, I already addressed the twins being pictured nude for these promotional pictures. My issue was not with the photos, but with the outfit itself. The doll was intended to remain uncovered. Also, I never said they should not sell the doll. If you look back to my first post in this topic, you will see that I said although I do not like the doll and would not buy it, I do not mind Doll Chateau selling it.

In regard to what you said about writers, again, I must stress the importance of context. Now, people are free to write and say whatever they want (within certain limits) because in much of the world, and particularly in the US, we have the freedom of speech. But context makes a lot of difference when it comes to which Plantation Era novel I would buy and which one I would not.

Huckleberry Finn is considered to be very offensive by some, but Twain uses racism as a device to illustrate how wrong racism is. Jim, a slave, is the best person in the book. He is uneducated and has been wronged by White people, yet he is the only adult who does what is right for Huck, a white child who is racist because of the way he has been raised. Eventually Huck learns that his perception of Jim was wrong. Huck becomes a better person. I personally am very fond of this book because it teaches a valuable lesson.

Can someone write an Plantation Era story that is offensive? Yes. I won't say that they shouldn't but I don't have to like it or buy a copy of their book just because they are free to spew whatever racist (or otherwise exploitative or offensive) garbage they want. The Clansman is technically a Reconstruction era novel, but it is a pro-segregation, pro-KKK novel that inspired the movie The Birth of A Nation in which Blacks are depicted as wreaking havoc, thieving, and raping "innocent" White women. Now, I'm sure there are people out there who would love to have a copy of The Clansman and wholeheartedly believe the book contains a good message. However, I think the majority of us agree the book is racist and offensive.

I love True Blood and I would agree that Terry is an awesome character. Speaking as someone coming from a military family, I would not say Terry's PTSD is badly exaggerated, even if it does seem extreme or silly at times. However, the way Terry's character is depicted (as a good person who cares about others and struggles with his disorder yet manages to be successful) is what keeps him from becoming a mockery of people with this disorder. He is not a mere caricature.

I have also watched Carnivale. Once again, the context is everything here. Even if the "freaks" were all shown as being evil, mean, hateful people, or very stupid and helpless, so long as there was a reason for it in the story, other than to simply villainize or marginalize these people, then I would not find it offensive. I would draw the line, though, if the show had been attempting to generalize them all as being somehow sub-human or if it attempted to justify the poorer treatment they often (but not always) received.

The same concept applies to Doll Chateau's conjoined twins. Although it is true that not all circuses treated their sideshow performers poorly, many did. Granted, all we have are a few words on a web page and some pictures, so Doll Chateau's intent is very open to interpretation. What I took away from these pictures was different than what you took away from them. I don't like the doll. That's all there is to it, really.

 

This is how I felt about it. While it wouldn't have taken away from the doll if the doll wore a pair of underwear, I do get why they did what they did. If the doll's torso was completely covered in every photo, I'd be very curious to know how they've built the doll. If there was no photo showing the torso, we'd all have to wait for someone to own the doll to see how the doll is constructed.

I think Doll Chateau did a very interesting thing when they created this doll - they got us talking. They got us talking about how conditions were in traveling circuses. They got us talking about how the doll was portrayed. It got us talking about people who had this condition, and how they were viewed by society.

I remember that pair of brothers who were joined by the liver (I'm not sure where exactly they were joined, but they couldn't be separated because they could die) that they usually talk about on TV when they mention conjoined twins. These brothers became incredibly famous; they each got married and had children and lived in a large house. They are a success story.

While the a lot of conjoined twins didn't have that luck, it's easy to portray these dolls in a good light or a bad light. We really have no way of knowing why DC portrayed the dolls the way they did. They could've wanted to portray them as exotic 'freaks', or they could've wanted to portray them as unique individuals who are just as beautiful as non-conjoined twins. We see non-conjoined dolls portrayed in the same fashion, also. I think part of DC's portrayal is to not have us only focus on their condition, but to see that these dolls can be just as unique and beautiful as the non-conjoined dolls.

 

I'm in agreement with this statement. Unless the physical limitation fit my needs exactly, I would definitely prefer to do it myself. =]