Should children's dolls be anatomically correct?

[mari]

Some of my Barbies had underwear imprinted on, the seams and a flower pattern. The Kens usually had imprinted briefs. All fleshtone.

I'd be fine with anatomically correct dolls. If I'd had a proper boy doll, maybe I wouldn't have been so surprised when I started babysitting little boys... 2D drawings in sex ed books are nothing like the real thing, lol.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Here is a photo of a 1960s nude Ken doll.

It's kind of ironic how they've put Ken in what is essentially baggy underwear now, while beefing him up like a WWE contender. The musculature of the modern Ken screams virility and sexual stamina, but by God, there better not be even the tiniest little bulge between his legs.

American Puritanicalism is really mind-boggling sometimes.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Yeah, the 60's Ken looks like a little boy compared to the "manly" modern Ken.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I just read this on Wikipedia

Like Barbie, Ken is named after one of Ruth Handler's children. In January 2009, the media reported on the publication of a book entitled Toy Monster: The Big, Bad World of Mattel by Jerry Oppenheimer. In the book, Oppenheimer claims that Ken Handler "grew up embarrassed and humiliated by having an anatomically incorrect boy doll named after him with no hint of genitalia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_(Barbie)#cite_note-7

 

[Yeoman Randi]

Is it just me, or does the person who altered the dolls have waaaay too much time on their hands?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Is it just me, or does the person who altered the dolls have waaaay too much time on their hands?

He made a handsome profit of over $200. It's not "too much time on [your] hands" if you're making money with it.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

^ This is true. Hadn't thought of it that way. Which is odd, because i am a Ferengi at heart. *runs off to mutilate some dolls*

 

[Shaytan]

Ah !

It's not very exiting.

 

[trekkiedane]

Of course they should!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

No.

I mean, come on. These are toys we're talking about here. It's not a sex ed class. Unless there's some reason I'm not getting, which would make it necessary for a toy doll to have junk, then why bother?

 

[Marc]

Dunno - if we're talking about Barbie dolls being anatomically correction, shouldn't we start with a figure that a woman could have without haivng some ribbs removed before we start on the other bits?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

No.

I mean, come on. These are toys we're talking about here. It's not a sex ed class. Unless there's some reason I'm not getting, which would make it necessary for a toy doll to have junk, then why bother?

Maybe we should just remove kids' genitals until they're ready for a sex ed class, then.

After all, life isn't a sex ed class, so we can't have kids walking around with junk in their underwear! Who knows what they'll do with it without the proper training!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Like I said, these are TOYS we're talking about here. Is there a reason why a toy should be anatomically correct?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Like I said, these are TOYS we're talking about here. Is there a reason why a toy should be anatomically correct?

Is there any good reason they shouldn't be?

We let kids play with GI Joes, which have guns and missiles and all sorts of implements of death and destruction. Nobody seems to bat an eye at that.

But, my God, a doll with a protruding piece of plastic, or a slit in the "wrong" place? That's just not right!

 

[Kestra]

Like I said, these are TOYS we're talking about here. Is there a reason why a toy should be anatomically correct?

Because ... that's the way people actually look? I mean Barbie already has boobs, so it's not like you have some totally physically immature looking dolls that kids are playing with here. And if parents don't like it, there are plenty of other options out there.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Like I said, these are TOYS we're talking about here. Is there a reason why a toy should be anatomically correct?

But, generally speaking, they are anatomically correct in every other way so what is sensible about only leaving the genitalia off the doll, why not the nose, or ears, or belly button etc?

 

[scotpens]

Dunno - if we're talking about Barbie dolls being anatomically correction, shouldn't we start with a figure that a woman could have without haivng some ribbs removed before we start on the other bits?

Barbie has long legs, big boobs and an impossibly tiny waist because she's a fashion doll. Real clothing can be scaled down to doll size, but you can't scale down the thickness of fabric. If Barbie were proportioned like a real woman, she'd look shapeless when dressed.

Why is Barbie's physique even an issue? I mean, is Bugs Bunny built like a real rabbit?

 

[Udat]

Yaaaah a Miss Chicken thread!

Yes dolls should appear atomically correct! Seems weird they don`t.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Here is a photo of a 1960s nude Ken doll.

It's kind of ironic how they've put Ken in what is essentially baggy underwear now, while beefing him up like a WWE contender. The musculature of the modern Ken screams virility and sexual stamina, but by God, there better not be even the tiniest little bulge between his legs.

Steroids.