Your opinions about hypersexualized dolls or items in DP or other Doll Exhibitions

Why don't they just put a sign at the entrance that there is 'mature' content. This way you are prepared when you enter the convention and you make the decision as to whether you will bring your kids.

 

Fetish clothing and bondage aren't necessarily 18+ depending on how they are done. The way you are phrasing your arguments sounds like you have a problem with dolls in lingerie in general.

It's one thing to have tasteful, artistic nudity. It's another thing to have vendors who sell custom modded doll parts for people who want highly detailed breasts and vaginas for the sake of pornographic scenes. The latter is what I am thinking of when I think of things that should be put in an 18+ area.

 

i disagree with this statement. i know for a FACT there are quite a few underage children whom partake in the hobby. thus a 18+ section is fine. and in a museum? children are with parents who decide what their children see, so many avoid nude statues and painting. and also the older the art work the more...'acceptable' it is for most people.

I'm of the strong option we need to embrace our sexuality as people more but to be respectful of people who don't want to see that kind of thing. Also you don't want children seeing it.

 

I think that the OP is over reacting a bit. These are Dolls, which are customized to express the owner's fantasy, if that's a little risque then that's the doll owner's choice to put it out there for everyone to see.

Having a 18+ section or even mentioning it seems to be rather silly!

Ok, perhaps for the more obviously sexual items. (Like selfmade 'optional male parts' or miniature 'toys'.) But things like lingerie and bondage shouldn't be forced to move to some other area just because an adult is uncomfortable with seeing dolls dressed in sexy clothing. If they where mature enough, they just would not comment nor look at the doll.

If it's against your moral views, that's fine go right ahead and say "I don't like this". but to enforce your moral views on others is not ok.
Everyone has the right to express their individuality.

I find the comment's about moving lingerie-dressed dolls to a separate section as being extremely disrespectful to the artist who customized the doll and probably had handmade the outfit the doll is wearing.

 

This I am not sure on, as it seems that it is DDs dressed in sexy stuff that is getting her goat, not the DD-styled onaholes that there are out there. I would be surprised if you could find those in a mainstream doll show, just as you wouldn't find Real Dolls or other items the primary purpose of which is for use as a sex toy. It's a doll show, with a variety of dolls for a variety of tastes. Big busts, small busts, whatever. DDs have a large straight male following, because they are fantasy representations of women, made to be sexualised. That is very different from them being a sex toy. So, yes, I am unclear as to whether there really were sex toys, as opposed to sexualised toys there. I am assuming the latter, but would appreciate clarification, as it changes things somewhat.

 

That's why they should put something like a *nudity* or *bdsm/fetish* or a "warning" for lack of a better word in the title of the thread where it's NSFW and if someone doesn't want to see it they don't have to.

 

Out of curiosity, how does one do that at a doll convention?

Apparently my idea of really, really risque and shouldn't be seen by a general audience is very different from hers then, because that's what I immediately thought of.

 

The OP is talking about a In-person doll display at a Dolpa or doll-exhibit (vendors stalls I believe.) Where you can't exactly put up a 'warning' like on a forum.

 

Well, if it would be a panel, then you could put the same idea to it. But I mean, there are other dolls and cosplays and sales going on. The best thing to do is just be polite and not get up and fussy about it at a doll convention. Just like any other convention. [I've never been to a doll con, but I want to. Please forgive me if I sound like an idiot on any of this then]

 

Well, according to Oxford Dictionary, stereotyping: "A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing", it's not really about the numbers, it's just how you are personally perceiving them as a particular type/idea.

And I think you could now also see the same stirring effect on DoA because of your word choices... It's always best to think twice before you use strong words...

 

My bad *sweats nervously*
I mean as I said in another quote if it's a panel obviously you can, and like I also stated in the other post[I just saw this one so that's why], if you see it and you don't like it, don't look. Or if the vendor wanted to, they could do a sign that goes vaguely like "If you are interested in seeing "18+/NSFW/BDSM/Fetish things for your doll please ask me" kind-of thing if they entail to other kinds of dressings for a doll. But I guess if it just entails that particular kind of dressings, then if you don't want to see it, just ignore it. [Which when I say it in my head it sounds rude but it's just one of those things where you're not being forced to look at it, just kind of bee-buzz around that/those particular booth]

 

I think, as someone who had a very strong view that something was objectively wrong and chose words accordingly, you are doing a great job of listening to the views of others and re-evaluating, if not your reaction to the dolls, at least the way you talk about that feeling. This is much more likely to get you what you want than your previous, rather combative approach. The organisers might continue to feel that censorship is unnecessary, or even undesirable, but at least you are more likely to get them to listen to your opinion by changing your approach. It has been an interesting discussion.

ETA: Having seen your post.

Yes, sex toys with DD heads, arms and legs do exist, but they are sex toys designed to look like dolls, not dolls, so you wouldn't see them at a doll show.

 

Oh dear. Do you know what an incubus is? I'd tell you to look it up, but you know, mature content and all.

If it's purely a clothing issue as indicated by two of your three examples up there, "doll being visible is public" doesn't mean you have to look at it. Cover your eyes if it bothers you, and go around it.

I can't imagine that it would be worth a vendor's time to bring Dollfie Dream squishy parts to a convention since it's a niche market, but that shouldn't be a big deal either. There's a few resin dolls who have had questionable optional parts as designed by the company, but no one gets worked up over the detachable male bits, do they? I can't imagine such parts would be visible across the room, so just avoid that booth if that's the issue.

"Children participating" doesn't make this a "hobby for children". It's like the "no children at meets" rules that many places have. We shouldn't have to tone it down to accommodate someone outside the designated age group who happens to show up.

 

I didn't know the word "perverted" meant that there is something 'wrong' with that person. I had to look it up incase I was missing something ^^;

I guess 'abnormal' is kind of the same thing? Is that what you meant?

+ @ Fradders McFiggins I completely agree with the fact that every person draws his/her own line when it comes to what they think is over-sexualization or not, which is why again, what I had said before only applies to me, it is solely my opinion and I do not expect others to feel the same way. I was only reassuring lavandula that her/his thinking of finding it "perverted" (I honestly don't know what word to describe it as lol..) is mutual, and it's not something very shocking that others had to bully him/her for it.

Yes, it is not okay, but that only concerns me. I am responsible for averting my eyes or refraining from such things, but it would be a lot more respectable and easier to keep it classy and make a section for it for those who dislike it, no?

Minerva, even your last sentence sounded a bit harsh to me. They did not mean that. I'm sure lavandula meant this from the start and the same on the Hong Kong forum. Over-sexualization is not the same as wearing shorts and lingerie for example. And by talking about DDs in general they meant that a lot of people enjoy portraying them in a very sexual manner, and although not all of them do that, it ruins the image for the others who dislike these things, just like the anime fandom example I explained previously.

I know that my wording may have hurt people in this thread and I apologise, English is not my first language but I had thought that I was pretty good at it lol.

Some of this is really contradicting honestly. Some say do not force your views on others and yet others want to force their naked dolls on our faces .-. Minerva, I know what an incubus is, but it depends on how you portray him that may or may not make others comfortable. If he's completely naked (details included) then yes, that's not nice because just like you don't like our opinions to be forced on you, then we don't like to see nekkid dolls in our faces accidentally. And again I will say this: Naked as in almost considered porn or something, not just lingerie or 'tastefully naked' as some put it.

 

Yes, it is the abnormal which implies not normal so you are saying that their behaviour is not normal and therefore something wrong with them. This is why people are uncomfortable with the comparison and the use of the word. English can be a tricky language and it is because a few people was point this out to you, and you at first didn't acknowledge that which was causing the objection.

I am happy we have cleared that up though.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]I think words like: "Mature content" "Explicit" "Sexual Themes/Content" would be more appropriate and less offensive. [/FONT]

 

Just want to say, sometime when people do portray them in a very sexual manner, it could still be very artistic
It's just how we appreciate (or not) the work of others

 

Oh yes, I fully agree with this. Which is why I have been arguing the case of some people very much viewing it as art. But it is hard to judge what is art because that person could have tried to be artistic but they didn't quite achieve that in their results because that is a skill on its own.