Bratz, ages 3 and up?

[Toucan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZJgIZal59M
Sorry to put you through two minutes of this, but it is the subject I would like to discuss.

An ongoing debate I have had with my wife for some time has been about the suitability of Bratz dolls and videos for our children.
With 2 daughters and a wife that all seem to love the show and its characters it’s a debate I may as well have with the refrigerator.

But my problem with this show is that, to me, the characters in the video and even the dolls themselves are to adult in style for children. Especially as the packaging there dolls come in professes for ages 3 and up.
Some of the styles of clothes they dress the dolls and characters in are styles of clothes that I would never let my daughters wear, ever. Once they are adults it is there choice but for as long as they are my children I have no intentions of letting them dress like little tramps, witch is how half these dolls and characters are dressed.

Now, my wife says that since I became a father I have become over sensitive and over judgmental of what is suitable for children.
But I can remember quite clearly thinking Bratz was not suitable for children the very first time I saw them and that was some time before I became a father.

I would be interested to hear other people’s perspective on this.

[Moser]

I could almost see up their skirts. (Not that I was looking.)

Its a parents job to be "over sensitive" and judgmental of what their children watch on TV and the kinds of toys they play with. You let little girls watch shows like this and they're going to think its fine to wear mini skirts that show off their Barbi Doll panties and soon enough you'll have little Britney Spears running around you're house. It seems to me that parents these days let their children do what they want and give in to their kids wants, what is going on? I remember when I was growing up I was always outside playing with toys and my siblings and the only time I even watched TV was on Saturday mornings when I would jump out of bed to watch cartoons. :)

Toucan, I think you are right to think this show is inappropriate for you're children. I've never seen the show but I did just watch that video, and i thought it was mildly inappropriate for children by their clothing alone. And I'm only 20. :/

[femoimal]

i do not know toucan. I agree and disagree. Little ones want to look like grown-ups, i think its in their wiring. They might adapt the looks a little, but its basically a scaled-down version of the adult clothing.
Now, when you have 30 years-old with pig-tails, very tight kid T-shirt (and nipples popping out) and 40 years old with blond long hair, short skirt, SM boots and high heels, what do you expect ? You can even see 50 years old with pony tails and platform shoes ?

I just think that Bratz reflects the actual trends in female fashion: slutty. If there are male bratz, well, they will all look like they are gay (nono don't jump at my throat, most of my friends are gay, and they are the first to complain its getting hard to get male clothing that do not scream 'gay' all over).

Its about the kids being victim of stupid marketing and loosing their youth indentity, i think. How can you build an identity when your mother dresses up like you and even has a piercing ? Or maybe i am too old already !

PS: is it me or 4 years old want to talk and "hang around" like dope dealers ?

[Anoiktos]

The 'Bratz' line of figures/accessories/movies, to me, is little more than populist propaganda touting unhealthily frail and skinny girls with ridiculous-sized heads; clothing aside, makeup aside, the dolls reinforce imagery and ideas supporting women so afflicted by anorexia and/or bulimia that they should, by all rights, be dead. If my children started emulating corpses, I'd be worried.

The Barbie franchise, however, has been doing this for some time. 'Bratz' are modernized, animé-influenced versions of the same, adapted to a society that has influenced its females to become increasingly sexually aware and active at younger ages while condemning 'pedophelia' among 'children' old enough to go to war with their parent's consent. See the ratings system in the U.S. - where MTV culture appears to have originated - and it becomes fairly obvious that something strange is going on.

Living in Australia, you may or may not see (or be subject to) any of these trends, so imagine this: the 'Bratz' you are watching are real women, dressed similarly, with similar proportions, making the same actions, singing the same songs. What rating would these movies get, nowadays? Would you want those women as your children's role models?

More to the point, imagine your children acting like these people.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratz) has more to say on this subject: It quotes from a report done by the American Psychological Association:

APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls

Fresh concerns over the body image and lifestyle the Bratz dolls allegedly promote were raised by the American Psychological Association when they established their "Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls" in February, 2007. In the report that was published in accompaniment to the Task Force's founding they cited concern over sexuality the Bratz dolls allegedly portray.[14]

Bratz dolls come dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas. Although these dolls may present no more sexualization of girls or women than is seen in MTV videos, it is worrisome when dolls designed specifically for 4- to 8-year-olds are associated with an objectified adult sexuality

– APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls[14]

Bratz were not the only dolls to be criticized in this report,[14] which highlighted not only toys but also other products and the wider media; including the Bratz animated series.[14] In the United Kingdom a spokesman for Bratz defended the toyline by saying that Bratz are purchased by over-eights and are directed to the preteen and teen market,[15] and that the focus on the dolls while on looks was not on sexualization and that friendship was also a key focus of Bratz dolls.[15]

The Bratz brand, which has remained number one in the UK market for 23 consecutive months focuses core values on friendship, hair play and a 'passion for fashion'.

– Bratz spokesman, The Daily Telegraph[15]

The spokesman quoted Dr Bryan Young of Exeter University as saying "parents may feel awkward but I don't think children see the dolls as sexy. They just think they're pretty".[15] Isaac Larian, in comments given to the BBC, voiced the opinion that the report was a "bunch of garbage" and that the people who wrote it were acting irresponsibly.[16]

So here we have two opinions; the corporate line, and the psychologist's line. Both are plausible, I suppose, though I'm biased (as perhaps you can tell) towards the first conclusion. I would also like to question the idea that 'They think they're pretty'; as above: are these toys the image of 'pretty' that you want your children to aspire to?

I suppose the same can be said for other action figures - is 'batman' a healthy role-model for young boys? How about G.I. Joe? I suppose I'm being unfairly critical, but the moment I set eye on the 'Bratz' collections, I wanted to douse them in gasoline.

[Gunmonk]

I'm dead serious about this, my parents never let my sisters have bratz dolls. Some of my cousins who parents were conservative Mennonite, weren't even allowed to have Barbies. All this to say, I'd go buy yourself a shotgun, store it for I dunno eight or ten years, and when your daughter is ready to have her first date, clean the shotgun and have him talk to you while you're doing it. Let him know if he even lets her do anything to him its his head that will be coming off. Worked for my sisters boyfriend... I havent seen him since.

[Thedutchjelle]

I'm dead serious about this, my parents never let my sisters have bratz dolls. Some of my cousins who parents were conservative Mennonite, weren't even allowed to have Barbies. All this to say, I'd go buy yourself a shotgun, store it for I dunno eight or ten years, and when your daughter is ready to have her first date, clean the shotgun and have him talk to you while you're doing it. Let him know if he even lets her do anything to him its his head that will be coming off. Worked for my sisters boyfriend... I havent seen him since.

WTF is that for bullshit? Your sister is not allowed to have a BF?

If you take a gf home, will she have to have that talk as well?

[GenocideAlive]

Your wife is way off base and is probably living vicariously through your daughters. Bratz dolls have a series of exaggerated characteristics that make them prime sex candidates: skinny arms/legs, ridiculously huge lips, big hair, caked makeup, and clothes primed for attracting sex partners. Where do you see people dressed with plunging necklines, giant lips, fluffy huge hair, and skirts well above the knee? Momentarily in pornos, or in R rated movies where people are all about explosions and constant sex.

I find stylized tween dolls dressed like Bratz to be somewhat disturbing. Why would you want to train your girls to dress like whores, overapply makeup, and tease their hair to stand up 6" above their head? Nobody would want to dress like that unless they wanted to attract attention, and you'd have to be a fool or in denial to not know what kind of attention they seek. Your daughters don't know exactly what that attention is yet, and they're naturally curious. Your wife is intentionally ignoring the obvious.

My recommendation would be for you to go through the house, clean out all the tapes and dolls, and replace them with something else. Tapes, dolls, etc. If you don't want to do anything that drastic, take the alternative to your wife and show it to her and explain why something that doesn't look like a sex bomb is better for underaged girls who are going to begin to mimic their heroes. Dressing like that at a younger age will surround them with people that will take advantage of that. Is that what your wife wants?

[Oblongato]

While I am not saying Bratz dolls are healthy role models, you won't be able to prevent your kids from being exposed anyway. Unless you strictly control their TV watching and home school them and don't let them have any friends who are exposed to such things. (Then you will have to wonder if they are able to handle the real world...)

I don't think you can influence what your kids are interested in. You may be able to influence their attitudes to an extent, but that could also backfire. Is it possible to achieve some sort of balance? Let them have what they want but spend some time interacting and making it clear what kind of attitude you and other people have toward that kind of dress and behavior in real life? Sometimes people become obsessed with things that are forbidden.

That said, you don't say how old your daughters are. I'd say at 3 they would be no where near the point where they would be able to have any sort of critical understanding at all.

[U-238]

I suppose the same can be said for other action figures - is 'batman' a healthy role-model for young boys? How about G.I. Joe? I suppose I'm being unfairly critical, but the moment I set eye on the 'Bratz' collections, I wanted to douse them in gasoline.

The difference between Batman/G.I. Joe and Bratz is that they're not portraying sexuality. G.I. Joe's about the army. Set up your tanks and have a war. Batman's a super hero. He finds the bad guys and puts them away. (usually in jail)

Bratz on the other hand and pretty much all about sex. They look like sluts. Talk like sluts. Act like sluts. You'd be amazed at how much toys and TV can influence the mind of a child in the wrong way. (coming from a family of 8 I've been around plenty of instances of this.) I've seen what can happen when this sort of thing starts to infest a household. First they just have one. Then they get a small collection. Then they need the accessories. And for a while it remains somewhat dormant in their toy chest. That is until they start finding out that "hey! these clothes look like sasha's! mommy I want these!" The child herself doesn't yet realize what they're dressing like. They just think they're dressing like their doll. And unlike playing war with G.I. Joe or knocking out the Joker with Batman they conveniently don't grow out of it, but instead, it keeps growing and festering and getting harder and harder to remove. Especially when they hit their teen years.

While I am not saying Bratz dolls are healthy role models, you won't be able to prevent your kids from being exposed anyway. Unless you strictly control their TV watching and home school them and don't let them have any friends who are exposed to such things. (Then you will have to wonder if they are able to handle the real world...)

I don't think you can influence what your kids are interested in. You may be able to influence their attitudes to an extent, but that could also backfire. Is it possible to achieve some sort of balance? Let them have what they want but spend some time interacting and making it clear what kind of attitude you and other people have toward that kind of dress and behavior in real life? Sometimes people become obsessed with things that are forbidden.

That said, you don't say how old your daughters are. I'd say at 3 they would be no where near the point where they would be able to have any sort of critical understanding at all.

You can't keep children totally sheltered from outside influences. However you can do your part and make as much of an attempt as you feel comfortable with. The rest is up to you as a parent to explain why we don't do these things or own these toys and what we do expect in attitudes and behavior and why we believe the things we do. It's also important to hammer this into them and an early age so that they don't forget it. If they're going to a government/"public" education system then it'll be much harder to keep them in line.

Toucan: As GA said you and your wife aren't on the same page. It's up to you to get on the same page as quickly as possible. You're the head of the house your say is what finally goes and while she may not totally agree with your points she should at least understand them and know where you're coming from. And, being your wife, she should be submissive and not cause trouble over it.

So get on the level quickly before the issue goes cold and takes root.

[Oblongato]

You're the head of the house your say is what finally goes and while she may not totally agree with your points she should at least understand them and know where you're coming from. And, being your wife, she should be submissive and not cause trouble over it.

So get on the level quickly before the issue goes cold and takes root.

And if she won't comply you'll...what? Hit her with your caveman stick? What (intelligent) woman would put up with that? It's not that difficult to come to an agreement without having to come across all old testament, at least not in my experience.

(I sense massive flaming on the horizon for being so unfashionably "new man" - bring it on. ;))

[femoimal]

oblongato, i line with your view of things: the most likely thing is that toucan's wife is going to take the plane and single-handedly spank you all, one by one, then hack the site, cut toucan's computer in half with a axe, and tell him that his genitals will float in a nice bottle of formaldehyde if he does not buy more bratz clothes NOW.

Obviously, U-238's mum does not possess an axe.

In here, girls compete at who is going to give better oral sex at 13. Girls of 14 of age go and flirt with lads over 30. Is Bratz the symptom or the cause ? Early sexualization in our culture is a fact. I just wonder about the causes: is it just a ploy to sell more ?

[Thedutchjelle]

Toucan: As GA said you and your wife aren't on the same page. It's up to you to get on the same page as quickly as possible. You're the head of the house your say is what finally goes and while she may not totally agree with your points she should at least understand them and know where you're coming from. And, being your wife, she should be submissive and not cause trouble over it.

W..what? AFAIK, Toucan never said anything about being the head of the house.

I hope you meant it otherwise but that sounded rather sexistic.

[kongurous]

And if she won't comply you'll...what? Hit her with your caveman stick? What (intelligent) woman would put up with that? It's not that difficult to come to an agreement without having to come across all old testament, at least not in my experience.

(I sense massive flaming on the horizon for being so unfashionably "new man" - bring it on. ;))

W..what? AFAIK, Toucan never said anything about being the head of the house.

I hope you meant it otherwise but that sounded rather sexistic.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the topic at hand is not potentially sexist comments that have been made (which is deserving of its own discussion anyway) but whether or not a line of toys is suitable for the gender and age group it's shooting for. As such, I would expect you to realize this and stay on topic rather than try to dismantle someone else's argument because they made a stupid comment when the rest of what they said was sound.

[femoimal]

just as a small slightly off-topic note for U-238:
the Gi joe and other military toys are very convenient tools for brainwashing your male child about patriotism, sacrifice for the country and other testosterone shit. It is really not innocent. No toy is today. I certainly am not going to buy guns or tanks to my young male child. I'll Get some firefighter truck instead, or dunno, lego.

....was it Franky Goes to Hollywood that said something about our gods being "Sex and Horror?".

gunmonk, i suppose you have sisters and brothers: is it too personal to ask what kind of toys your parents used to get for ya ?

[MrsToucan]

Wow what an interesting thread my husband decided to start. Be aware that hubby has already had a colourful dressing down from me.

But being a fiery Greek lady I could not hold back from a good debate.

Let me open with this and I know it’s bold to say but the males that have commented on this thread have left themselves wide open to a host of female barrages. How is it that a group of fairly intelligent males (as I am told) can come to the conclusion that a simple child’s toy is in some way of a sexual nature. Hmmm… No no it can’t be, these are our young men leading us into a society of propriety and decorum?? I THINK NOT!!! Could it be that this group of intelligent men can’t think with nothing more then their nether regions?

So bare with me as I have a comment for you all let’s start with Moser

I could almost see up their skirts. (Not that I was looking.)
Can I ask exactly why you would even remotely admit even in a sarcastic form that you were looking up a cartoon doll’s skirt? Smells of a degraded sense of thinking there….hmmm

It’s a parent’s job to be "over sensitive" and judgmental of what their children watch on TV and the kinds of toys they play with.

A gleam of conscience here… I’m impressed

You let little girls watch shows like this and they're going to think its fine to wear mini skirts that show off their Barbie Doll panties and soon enough you'll have little Britney Spears running around you're house.

Unfortunately that male ego of total arrogance kicks in here. Seriously a child of 6 or 7 doesn’t really have a clue about proper etiquette yet. They rely on their parents for that lesson. If they run around showing of their knickers it is done out of pure innocence on their part not some warped delusion that they want to be sexy. And by some chance a young boy notices a pair of knickers most of the time they think its some biological disaster that should be burned and destroyed immediately or in simpler terms (for the said Neanderthals!) “Ooooo she’s got coodies!!!"

It seems to me that parents these days let their children do what they want and give in to their kids wants, what is going on? I remember when I was growing up I was always outside playing with toys and my siblings and the only time I even watched TV was on Saturday mornings when I would jump out of bed to watch cartoons.

You would be surprised at how persistent and stubborn children can be and when you have some of your own you’ll find out. I don’t believe hubby and I are free-wheeling with what the children watch and we monitor everything they watch. To date there is nothing that my children have watched that I would find inappropriate

Toucan, I think you are right to think this show is inappropriate for you're children. I've never seen the show but I did just watch that video, and i thought it was mildly inappropriate for children by their clothing alone. And I'm only 20. :/

This was just a music video with a message behind it which you all have seemed to have missed “Living it up” talking about having fun and friendship, two important lessons for young girls to learn.

Now to Femoimal

“I just think that Bratz reflects the actual trends in female fashion: slutty.”

I tend to agree with much of what you have said. Although I don’t think that Bratz is slutty, its very feminie and because you are a heterosexual adult male you find very feminine “Sexy”
Even if they did reflect actual trends of female fashion why is that a bad thing. This is not the dark ages, we live in a modern society and with the fundamental right to choose how we portray our individuality. That does not mean we will all transcend those choices on our children. Children have the right to choose too why would we revoke that right because certain persons think that something that is innocent and pure can be perceived as something sexual by a group of adult males.

Ode to Genocide

I’m going to be awhile with you. You will have to accept my familiarity with you as I have heard much about you. If you are tempted to think that I would not have taken some of what you have said as a personal attack you are very wrong! Unfortunately you left me with no choice but to react in such a way.

“Your wife is way off base and is probably living vicariously through your daughters.”

That is quite statement considering you don’t even know me. Why would I want to go back and relive my youth. I’ve already had the pleasure once and enjoyed it while it lasted. I don’t feel I need to live through them but to enjoy the journey as a passenger and guide.

“Bratz dolls have a series of exaggerated characteristics that make them prime sex candidates: skinny arms/legs, ridiculously huge lips, big hair, caked makeup, and clothes primed for attracting sex partners. Where do you see people dressed with plunging necklines, giant lips, fluffy huge hair, and skirts well above the knee? Momentarily in pornos, or in R rated movies where people are all about explosions and constant sex.”

So the dolls have exaggerated characteristics, tell me which plastic figurine doesn’t? Would Superman still be super if he was skinny and gangly? Where would GI Joe be without all his rippling pectorals? Just because you perceive them as a prime sex candidate doesn’t mean that everyone does, all it proves is that you find a plastic doll attractive, sexy even. As for plunging necklines and big hair, wasn’t it Liz Hurley swaying down the red carpet wearing a dress held together with safety pins?.. I don’t recall ever seeing a doll wearing something like that let alone a Bratz doll. Perhaps you should reconsider associating children’s’ dolls with pornography or you just might get minds wondering what exactly you are thinking to have the mind set to come to such conclusions.

I find stylized tween dolls dressed like Bratz to be somewhat disturbing. Why would you want to train your girls to dress like whores, overapply makeup, and tease their hair to stand up 6" above their head? Nobody would want to dress like that unless they wanted to attract attention, and you'd have to be a fool or in denial to not know what kind of attention they seek. Your daughters don't know exactly what that attention is yet, and they're naturally curious.
Are you suggesting that a Bratz doll is nothing more than a representation of a whore?

In your opinion is Superman gay because he wears tights?

I tend to believe that not a lot of women intentionally dress their daughters exactly like a Bratz doll let alone whores!! I see your respect for women has degraded somewhat with this particular statement. Again your allowing your personal perception of what you define as sexy to rule your opinion of a child’s doll which has turned out this rather offensive account of male egotistical palaba. My retort to you is much of what I have said before it is about the right of choice. Let’s use the mini skirt for example, it perceives much sexual connotation (according to most heterosexual men) but that doesn’t mean because a girl is wearing a mini skirt she is looking for sex! You are suggesting that if a young girl of 6 or 7 is wearing a short skirt she is immediately initiating a degree of sexual prowess. That in itself is rather an arrogant mind-set considering this day and age. You GA have taken an innocent toy and turned it into something that is sexually inclined which I furiously disagree with not only is your male arrogance an affront to women but young girls too. A doll in whatever form is just a doll and nothing more. It is your own foolish perception that has turned it in your head into something sexual. I don’t believe that Bratz dolls or their movies are in any way shape or form sexual. They represent the ability to express ones individuality and teaches some great lessons along the way.
Your wife is intentionally ignoring the obvious.
I’m addressing this statement as a personal attack so you will accept the harshness of my tone. I don’t believe in any sense of the word that I ignore the well being and mental stimulation of my girls, they are both well rounded in their understanding of the world they live in. I think that is highly arrogant to make an assumption about someone you’ve not met before just because I agree with something you don’t. By your comments it proves that you’ve never actually had anything to do with growing up as a girl or owning a doll or being a mother. Once you’ve been all those things then maybe you would have the right to comment. Sitting there like an insufferable know it all does not make you right You’ve made it obvious you think this particular doll is sexy which begs one to ask do have some sort distorted mind, if you find a child’s toy sexy? Perhaps you need to step back a bit before making outlandish accusations about someone you don’t know. Be careful of the repercussions of your statements. This is a debate about a doll which a group of adult males have all suggested in their opinion is too sexy. Would it be so far off the mark that I suggest this group of adult males needs to stop thinking with their mind between their legs?

“My recommendation would be for you to go through the house, clean out all the tapes and dolls, and replace them with something else. Tapes, dolls, etc. If you don't want to do anything that drastic, take the alternative to your wife and show it to her and explain why something that doesn't look like a sex bomb is better for underaged girls who are going to begin to mimic their heroes. Dressing like that at a younger age will surround them with people that will take advantage of that. Is that what your wife wants?”

At this point it is safe to say that any recommendation that you have would be null and void in the “Toucan” household. Your entire statement in this thread has been nothing more that a mere attempt to personally attack me and all women including their young girls, because a certain doll doesn’t meet your over chaste opinion. Yes maybe the doll is a little risqué’ but that doesn’t mean every young girl out there is dressed as such. The lessons that these dolls teach young minds is sometimes invaluable. Take some time to actually watch a movie or two and you’ll soon see that nothing about the Bratz dolls is sexual, they are more a breed of well-natured young girls who like enjoy life and friendship. That above all is the only reason I let my girls watch the show. At their age right now fashion is a little beyond them, they don’t really have any concept of it. You have taken something so innocence and made it sordid and lewd and shame on you for doing so.

Oh to be young! With the mind of a peanut – U-238 (and you got this coming!)
The difference between Batman/G.I. Joe and Bratz is that they're not portraying sexuality. G.I. Joe's about the army. Set up your tanks and have a war. Batman's a super hero. He finds the bad guys and puts them away. (usually in jail)
Oh to be young and stupid and attempt to make a decent argument. You my friend need to return to the playground and let the mum’s and dad’s handle this one. It is fairly bold to say that Batman and GI Joe are not portraying sexuality, are you saying that because they are simply male dolls? Just because a female doll has a female form suddenly it’s sexual?

Batman, Robin, Spiderman, Superman and I’m sure there’s more all wear rather figure hugging costumes, could not they not all be considered in some form sexual when every detail of the male form is outlined?
But put a doll in a mini skirt and suddenly and to quote GA it’s “a whore”?

Bratz on the other hand and pretty much all about sex. They look like sluts. Talk like sluts. Act like sluts. You'd be amazed at how much toys and TV can influence the mind of a child in the wrong way. (coming from a family of 8 I've been around plenty of instances of this.) I've seen what can happen when this sort of thing starts to infest a household. First they just have one. Then they get a small collection. Then they need the accessories. And for a while it remains somewhat dormant in their toy chest. That is until they start finding out that "hey! these clothes look like sasha's! mommy I want these!" The child herself doesn't yet realize what they're dressing like. They just think they're dressing like their doll.

This comment is very drastic, and very offence in its connotations’. You are suggesting that all girls that play with Bratz dolls will turn out to be nothing but sluts. That is a pretty harsh thing to say. I don’t think I’ve ever come across an encounter that my girls have asked to dress like their dolls even though they idolise them. They have never showed any degree of hero worship to the extreme measure you are suggesting. I myself played with dolls I don’t ever recall wanting to dress like them or wanting to emulate them in anyway. By your own admission you are suggesting something very horrible about the females in your family and that is a very low thing to do.
And unlike playing war with G.I. Joe or knocking out the Joker with Batman they conveniently don't grow out of it, but instead, it keeps growing and festering and getting harder and harder to remove. Especially when they hit their teen years
Of course girls grow out of playing with dolls and suggesting that what is innately female i.e. to dress nice feel good about herself, and choose express her individuality through her choice of dress has very little to with what dolls they used to play with.

How is it that you know that men grow out of there fascinations with their toys/dolls?

Why a young man’s doll play may influence him to be a policeman (hero) or join the army etc or even and I dare to follow in your drastic path they may also turn into homicidal murderers all because they played with dolls.
Toucan: As GA said you and your wife aren't on the same page. It's up to you to get on the same page as quickly as possible. You're the head of the house your say is what finally goes and while she may not totally agree with your points she should at least understand them and know where you're coming from. And, being your wife, she should be submissive and not cause trouble over it.
That is one totally male chauvinistic statement and very daring to suggest that I should be submissive! If your intention in life is to eventually find a wife you best be changing that attitude for there is not a woman alive that would submit to such depravity. It is a changing world out there young man and with influences siding with a more the feminine tone. You would be best to take heed of it. No woman would bow down to some pig-headed egotist. Who excepts her to shut up and be a good little wife damn what age where you born in!! Times have changed, the bra has been burnt and liberation has grown with every passing year. You young man need to remember your place in the great chain of life and hold your tongue before making such outlandish comments. I can see that your upbringing has taken root in the garden of stupid men with ostentatious ideas thinking they can rule over women. Best do some weeding before you find yourself quite alone with no one to wash the dishes but yourself and your depraved narcissistic mind-set.



In closing I would like to say that it is a sad turn of events when a group of men sit around discussing dolls and their sexual connotations. Which in this instance just don't seem justified. Bratz dolls are ostentatious and over done but that does not mean we are going to see a tribe of little girls dressed like them. If doll worship were as true as suggested in this thread why don't we see young boys trying to scale walls or running around in tights and cape? Let us all be a little realistic here Bratz are simply just a doll and nothing more with no real influence.

[femoimal]

Madame toucan, welcome aboard, it is a pleasure and an honor.

"epese gero keskisi, alla pygan firi-firi", could i add in greek. It's nice to have your perspective, clearly an all-male discussion misses a lot about this topic (and many others).

Just a few things:

you accuse men of thinking this case with their genitalia and distorting an innocent behavior. If we take in consideration that child's play is rehearsal and detailing of social interactions to come, the innocence turns out to be the foundation of adulthood, or non-innocence. A child's play today is tomorrow's values in the making, would you agree ? So innocence is not such an absolute notion...
[ Of course interactions are complex (household influence, immediate friends, school, TV and so) ]

Fact is that men always think with their genitalia, so our male reasoning goes, because the public of sexiness is male (the public, not the target, for we know that the target is other women). So, as the public, we may talk about it without feeling embarrassed. As sexually active males (or not so much), we are past the "eeeeewwww girls are stupid" phase, and are the PRIME TARGET for sexiness.

Girls of 7 of age with a short skirt, of course, are not screaming for sex. Nobody said that. But without talking Freudian crap, do you really think very-sexy mirrored behavior does not influence at all young ones ? Young ones, from what i saw with friends' kids, want to belong to the group and mimic, especially girls.

Well, i prefer seeing independent women with sexy clothes than women in afghan robes, that is for sure. Not for me, because i get embarrassed when they see me looking (ahem no i am focusing on that tree behind you), but for them. But how free are they when they dress up with 10 square meters of fabric? They are free to look like the others ? Free to be on non-stop diets ? Free to tug on that mini-skirt all the time because we can see the brazilian job ?

I do not care about sexiness of clothes, anyway at puberty anything goes:) Its a question of age to me. Female magazines are real stinkers in that they promote really harsh self-image standards. That starts at about what, 8, 9 ? Do we really want the young ones being subject to the same pressure from 3 years onwards ? (it takes real effort to be sexy, and you have to pay for it!!).

BTW you did a very good job picking your husband, so it already gives you immense credit, please keep posting !

[IrishDutchman]

The difference between Batman/G.I. Joe and Bratz is that they're not portraying sexuality. G.I. Joe's about the army. Set up your tanks and have a war. Batman's a super hero. He finds the bad guys and puts them away. (usually in jail)


Yes, because sex is definitely a more terrible thing than war.

As you can also see in movie rating systems, a lot of people think this way. Any nudity will pretty much always make a movie 15+, though killing people doesn't seem to be an issue.

I think you'd all agree that an orgasm is quite preferable to getting killed, so why are sexy toys worse than violent ones?

[Oblongato]

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the topic at hand is not potentially sexist comments that have been made (which is deserving of its own discussion anyway) but whether or not a line of toys is suitable for the gender and age group it's shooting for. As such, I would expect you to realize this and stay on topic rather than try to dismantle someone else's argument because they made a stupid comment when the rest of what they said was sound.

The sexist comments (potentially? what was potential about them?) were directly related to the decision making process about the appropriateness of the dolls; they were the basis of U-238's argument regarding who should make the decision as to suitability. Since we are already talking about a husband / wife difference of opinion, I don't see where it was off topic to discuss a position directly related to the question itself.

***************

And regarding the "thinking-with-genitalia" comments, no one, male or female, who is "thinking" with their genitalia is actually thinking. What they are doing is something else. Similarly, there is no such thing as male or female logic. There is simply logic, and to the extent that it is either male or female it is probably not logic.

The issue for me is partly how society treats people based on the way they appear. We are all well aware that for some people sexy = brainless. Obviously, this is not accurate, although there are certainly those people, male and female, who manage to get through life without developing brains or personality by using their physical appearance. The fact is that sexuality has nothing to do with brains, or anything other than sexuality, really. (Notwithstanding society's ability to force people into particular roles on this basis.)

What is the difference between handsome/beautiful and sexy? I see a strange schism in western concepts that separates the two, although the two can in fact be intricately interwoven. It is not mere coincidence that most (nearly all) porn in the west is of the cheap-and-nasty variety. Sex in the west is still seen as something beastly, ungodly perhaps. For me this is just prudery. There is not necessarily a difference between wanting to be seen as sexy and wanting to be seen as beautiful. In fact, being sexy is a particular variety of being beautiful. Western concepts of sexuality, however, would like to mix in something cheap and base when something is sexy; and beautiful should be cleansed of all traces of eroticism. In a perfect world, everyone should be able to be as sexy/handsome/beautiful as they want to be without negative social consequences. In a world that seems to be on a fast track back to the middle ages, however, one does have to watch out for what others think.

Children do actually have sexuality. Babies masturbate, young children play doctor. I had erotic dreams long before I hit puberty, and I doubt if others are any different. I believe that when children play dress-up, try to look like adults, they are already internalizing society's concepts of beauty and sexuality and are trying to achieve that delicate balance that will in the future gain them approval, love, success, and everything else appearance can influence. It is indeed a vulnerable phase during which the parents walk a delicate line between encouraging self-fulfillment, and warning against following a path that could lead to being ostracized for crimes against prudishness.

The trick is to prevent children from being damaged or victimized at any point during their development. Here in the west, the method employed to accomplish this has been to pretend that sexuality is turned on like a switch at puberty, and if puberty comes too early, then at age 18. Perhaps on the whole children are protected this way, but there is an awful lot of denial out there concerning sexuality.

******************

Anyway, I think it is a mistake to see MrsToucan's comments as simply a female perspective, or, worse, female logic at work. I'm curious to see how many of those whose perspectives are at odds with hers will be able to shoot down any of her arguments.

******************

Yep, U-238 had better steer his mom clear of the chopping implements department...

[Anoiktos]

Irish:
I think you'd all agree that an orgasm is quite preferable to getting killed, so why are sexy toys worse than violent ones?
And that statement exemplifies the qualms I have with American society: we demonize sex and see violence as heroic, yet our judicial system is strangely two-sided in this particular, slamming 'sex offenders' like consensual 17-year-olds with permanent debilitating status and letting murderers get off with a few years in the slammer.

Now to you, Mrs. Toucan:
Just because a female doll has a female form suddenly it’s sexual?

Batman, Robin, Spiderman, Superman and I’m sure there’s more all wear rather figure hugging costumes, could not they not all be considered in some form sexual when every detail of the male form is outlined?
Exactly the problem, you see? Society has dual standards - and always has had dual standards, as you probably know. Just as promiscuous men are sometimes referred, in American slang, as 'players', promiscuous women are at best referred to as nymphomaniacs and at worst as whores. This is neither right nor acceptable, in my mind, but it is true, at least of American society. Again, I can't speak for those of you who live on the top of the world.

So the dolls have exaggerated characteristics, tell me which plastic figurine doesn’t? Would Superman still be super if he was skinny and gangly? Where would GI Joe be without all his rippling pectorals? Just because you perceive them as a prime sex candidate doesn’t mean that everyone does, all it proves is that you find a plastic doll attractive, sexy even.
And herein lies the difference. The male idea of 'Attractive' involves, as you say, rippling pectorals and shining muscles, a fit frame and a sturdy body. Unfortunately, sometimes people go overboard and end up like my lovely governator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger). (while he was still doing his movies)

It is at this point that 'fit' no longer becomes attractive and reaches the point of being 'disturbing'. In the same way, seeing women with skinny enough arms or waists makes them look unattractive. So it is, to me, that 'Bratz' are not attractive, but instead repulsive, as I have said in my previous post, mainly because psychological diseases like anorexia nervosa have devastating effects on teenagers, male and female alike.

As I noted in the comment that led to the comment that led to the comment of yours I'm here commenting about (say that ten times fast), I personally do have a bit of an issue with boys' fascination with rippling musclebound men in spandex. I am the eldest of five male siblings, and find that two of my siblings have taken this to extremes, fretting over their external appearance for hours to the point of being late for school.

Superman would indeed not appear as super if he were not musclebound, but at least he looks healthy, and not about to drop dead from malnutrition or insufficient spinal support.

That is one totally male chauvinistic statement and very daring to suggest that I should be submissive!
This comment would have sufficed. His was inappropriate and, indeed, chauvinistic, and as such there is little need for you to have simply given him flame fodder. I would equally, however, like to note that some of your comments have been overtly sexist, like this one:
Unfortunately that male ego of total arrogance kicks in here.

I disagree completely with the following comment:
You are suggesting that if a young girl of 6 or 7 is wearing a short skirt she is immediately initiating a degree of sexual prowess.

He does not have to suggest that this is the case, it's blatantly untrue. What he is suggesting is that society as a whole is not as benign as perhaps you believe, and that his confidence in the innocence of mankind is less than yours. Young girls likely simply think that their role-models are dressing appropriately, just as young men likely think that theirs are dressing appropriately. That's why my third brother has taken to wearing his underwear outside of his pants and putting his baseball cap on backwards while listening to something I would hesitatingly call 'music' only after I'd been hit on the head with a frying pan.

In closing I would like to say that it is a sad turn of events when a group of men sit around discussing dolls and their sexual connotations. Which in this instance just don't seem justified. Bratz dolls are ostentatious and over done but that does not mean we are going to see a tribe of little girls dressed like them.
Oh really?
So Dear, Why DO You Want to Dress Like A Skank? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danielle-crittenden/so-dear-why-do-you-want-_b_49225.html)
"These new "edgier" costumes are simply reflections of pop culture" (http://www.newsweek.com/id/62474)
And here's the UrbanDictionary title for 'Bratz'. Judge for yourself the popularity of definitions for these things on the internet. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bratz) The only 'benign' definition there is also the least popular. Coincidence, perhaps?

If doll worship were as true as suggested in this thread why don't we see young boys trying to scale walls or running around in tights and cape?
You're saying they don't? Guess I'd better go tell my little brothers they haven't actually done that, then.

Again, I do not suggest that restricting young children's access to different opinions is a good thing, I merely suggest that you be very careful about introducing dolls that depict starving fashion models to young children. I remember imitating ninja turtles when I was little because hey, they seemed really cool to a five-year-old. Even after I'd hit myself in the head with makeshift nunchucks for the tenth time. I also remember - and still see - teenage girls starving themselves to look 'thin' and putting on enough makeup that their faces look like a chemical factory superimposed on an an albino grouper, just as I've seen young boys dress like rappers to the point where they waddle instead of walking because, and I quote, "lo-ridin' pants are da shit, man!"

[GenocideAlive]

Well, Mrs. Toucan, I bid thee welcome to the IR of Warboards. It may not be the grand flagship it once was, but its hallows hold some power over me yet. I'd like to apologize for the smartassed remark regarding you living vicariously through your daughters. Your defense of having already lived your youth is rather shoddy, but your point regarding my not knowing the details of your life is sound. I should not have made such a remark, regardless.

Otherwise, I do not believe the exaggeration of sexual characteristics in female dolls can be rightly compared to the physical prowess of male "dolls". Undoubtably, there is a duplicity of nature in any muscular male's physical appearance--that he is capable and powerful, and that he is an ideal mating partner. However, do you see GI Joe wearing any superfluous equipment that is solely geared towards attracting the attentions of the opposite sex? Superman? Not quite. Big muscles in people that are geared towards fighting aren't a sexual characteristic, they're a display of prowess. Any man that fights that doesn't have physical power is going to be at a disadvantage. Professional female fashion models do not have CC breasts, collagen implant lips, and 34" butts at age 11. "Bratz" gain no advantage from these things, short of suitability for sex or attracting sexual interest.

If you want to interpret any superhero as gay because he wears tights, rather than wearing tights to prevent ordinary clothing from binding during exaggerated movement, it's your deal. It certainly has been suggested more than once, and some people are rather adamant in that belief. Superman's creators, writers, and artists, have all said that he is not gay though they could see the implication, and that is enough for me. If you choose to argue otherwise, you have a rather uphill battle, because the creators disagree. I will revisit this idea later.

As for people seeing pornography in a children's doll, I'm afraid you're making several hyperboles to spare yourself an opposing viewpoint. No one sees pornography in a child's doll, nor has anyone suggested such. I'd like to remind you that such an overt display would be illegal. However, the implication is all over the place.

These young tweens have representations of breasts. Did you notice that none of them are flat-chested? They all have rather noticable posteriors. None of them lack a bubble-butt to fill out their clothes. Their lips are grossly distorted, comprising almost a fourth of their face in some depictions. They are all wearing makeup, and in no small amount. Yes, yes, having a big ass isn't a crime. Big lips alone doesn't mean you're a whore. Breasts at age 12 doesn't mean you're breaking the law. Makeup alone doesn't make an 11 year old a slut. But seriously, big butts, breasts, huge lips, makeup, and uh, not shy, clothing? The writing is on the wall, here. Where do you see such ridiculous depictions of women? You are not going to scare me into ceasing my argument by labeling me some sort of pervert.

Flashing upskirt shots of supposed tweens doesn't mean that the people that notice are sex obsessed, it means they're showing 12 year old girls' covered vaginas in videos about "friendship". Plunging necklines that show cleavage doesn't mean that guys can't stop thinking with their dicks, it means that a children's show about "fashion" is glorifying aggressive sexual behavior in underaged females. As for Elizabeth Hurley, she can walk down the runway and get gangbanged by six guys if she wants to, she's 30+ years old. On the other hand, there's a good reason many people are disturbed and upset Jaime Lynn Spears is pregnant.

Now that I've fleshed that out (no pun intended), I want to go back to the point regarding the creators' input. You claim that Bratz is a "child's doll" constantly, using it as some sort of ramming shield to drive home claims of this being my opinion. The makers of the doll will, at all costs, uphold the idea that they are "just children's toys". However, this is completely irrelevant and a misleading defense. If I sold a bunch of squishy balls that had nipples and were breast-colored, I could easily claim that they're a child's toy. There are many squishy toys, but at the point they became imitations of breasts, they ceased to be simply toys. They gained a second connotation, that of sexual inneuendo.

The mini-skirt example you brought up is an excellent example, indeed. Ask yourself, does a girl of that age understand sex? Does she possess sexual drive? Now, who designed the miniskirt for sale? A 6 or 7 year old? Who designed the shorts for 6 or 7 year olds that reads "HOTTIE" on the ass? Is it completely innocent to put a word describing the suitability for mating on a sex object of a child? Certainly, if you're the free-minded new-age Mrs. Toucan! It's the dirty men like Genocide that makes it seem as though painting sexual verbage on clothes of children is some sort of sexual inneuendo! Sarcasm aside, these sexual themes superimposed on children is a disturbing image for me, and your husband. Perhaps you should ask yourself if your husband's discomfort is really that offensive to you. Please remember, these dirty minded male pigs you are so afraid of are everywhere, and your daughters are viewed by them every day. Do you want them looking like Bratz to these adult males?

Your claim that I'm a sexist pig because I find sexual content unsuitable for children is as ridiculous as it is unfounded. These videos show these girls' underwear from under their skirts, features grossly distorted SEXUAL physical characteristics for their age, makeup akin to strippers, sexual clothing and dress displaying their sex organs, and has little-to-no redeeming qualities, short of some inane "friendship" or "fashion" theme. Ask yourself, is this the only or best videos available for depicting friendship amongst adolescent females?

Perhaps you should see what some of your peers think. I say "peers" and I mean "women", since obviously from your viewpoint no man could ever have any opinion on sexuality that you will respect. This is obviously a crass hypocrisy on your part, since you accuse all men around you of sexism for being concerned about the impressionability of children based on sublimating toys. I don't have any problems accepting your personal attacks, Mrs. Toucan, because I have seen willful ignorance before, and I care for your husband enough to simply permit you your tantrum.

I think you have made a rather grevious error in assuming that I am either intellectually equivalent to some of the children or fundamentalists that post here, or that I would be cowed by your emotional outburst. I can and will take you to task on this topic and any other in which you choose to attempt to employ the faulty tactics you have chosen. I only ask that you spare Toucan any more of your "dressing down", as he is a good man and he is merely communicating his concern as any good father and husband should. I don't think he should be punished for an inquiry to his peers over his emotional conflict. A man will talk to his mates about his troubles, and deserves no illwill for it.

http://articles.familylobby.com/328-bratz-v.-barbie3a-are-our-little-girls-growin.htm
Written by a mother, named "Sara".
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/life/abox/article_1918240.php
A news article, endorsed by a Ph.D. woman named Vera Chan, and Sharon Lamb.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=411266&in_page_id=1879
Another woman writer, expert on womanese.
http://www.commercialexploitation.org/news/bratzthong.htm
A woman writes about her doll for her 4 year old wearing a thong. Oh, and a little note in there about how MGA says that anybody that sees sex in their dolls has a dirty mind. Gee, I wonder why that little line is so popular.
http://www.parentdish.com/2005/08/11/mom-declares-war-on-baby-bratz-dolls/
A website for parents features a mom (that means a woman) getting pissed about a baby she bought for her 4 year old wearing a thong. Of course, she just has a dirty mind and is thinking with her penis.

Of course, I know you wouldn't want to hear about the American Psychological Association's take on Bratz dolls oversexualization of young girls, but here it is anyway. I hear there are women in the American Psychological Association, so maybe that matters to you.
http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html

[kongurous]

The sexist comments (potentially? what was potential about them?) were directly related to the decision making process about the appropriateness of the dolls; they were the basis of U-238's argument regarding who should make the decision as to suitability. Since we are already talking about a husband / wife difference of opinion, I don't see where it was off topic to discuss a position directly related to the question itself.

I am not saying that the comment in question wasn't sexist (and I said potentially because the post was intended to be a caution to all), but I am saying that basing your entire argument around it in an attempt to discredit him because he made the comment when the rest of his argument that these toys are not appropriate for children is incredibly stupid.

Yes, U-238's comment was sexist, but this topic isn't about sexism or persecution thereof, it's about a line of toys that are supposedly aimed at toddlers and older yet they have clothing that are not aimed at toddlers and exaggerated features that tend to be emphasized upon as attractive.

[U-238]

Oh to be young and stupid and attempt to make a decent argument. You my friend need to return to the playground and let the mum’s and dad’s handle this one. It is fairly bold to say that Batman and GI Joe are not portraying sexuality, are you saying that because they are simply male dolls? Just because a female doll has a female form suddenly it’s sexual?

Batman, Robin, Spiderman, Superman and I’m sure there’s more all wear rather figure hugging costumes, could not they not all be considered in some form sexual when every detail of the male form is outlined?
But put a doll in a mini skirt and suddenly and to quote GA it’s “a whore”?

You're intentionally ignoring my point. Portraying sexuality is not the idea behind superhero figures. You definitely cannot see anything particularly revealing in a batman, superman, spider-man figure. (besides big "tough" muscles.) The G.I. Joe's I played with in my day all had proper undergarments molded right into the plastic so as not to be removable should a child decide to "change uniforms". And I've yet to see one in a halter top with an undersized jean jacket.

On the other side of the coin lets look at the average wardrobe of a Bratz doll: Low cut/Low Rider jeans. Halter tops, v-neck spaghetti strings, mini-skirts, fishnet stockings, you name it. If there's a piece of clothing out there that screams "sex me" it's probably been shrunk to doll size and mass marketed to your children. I've yet to see any Bratz clothing consisting of a nice summer dress, fitting shirt and long skirt, not even a decent fitting business suit.

This comment is very drastic, and very offence in its connotations’. You are suggesting that all girls that play with Bratz dolls will turn out to be nothing but sluts. That is a pretty harsh thing to say.I don’t think I’ve ever come across an encounter that my girls have asked to dress like their dolls even though they idolise them. They have never showed any degree of hero worship to the extreme measure you are suggesting. I myself played with dolls I don’t ever recall wanting to dress like them or wanting to emulate them in anyway.

Again you ignore my point. Lets re-look at what I said:

Bratz on the other hand and pretty much all about sex. They look like sluts. Talk like sluts. Act like sluts. You'd be amazed at how much toys and TV can influence the mind of a child in the wrong way. (coming from a family of 8 I've been around plenty of instances of this.) I've seen what can happen when this sort of thing starts to infest a household. First they just have one. Then they get a small collection. Then they need the accessories. And for a while it remains somewhat dormant in their toy chest. That is until they start finding out that "hey! these clothes look like sasha's! mommy I want these!" The child herself doesn't yet realize what they're dressing like. They just think they're dressing like their doll.

First word is "can". You have immediately taken that word and translated it as "will". I did not say at all that girls that play with Bratz dolls will become sluts nor did I imply so. What I did say was that they (children) can be unknowingly influenced by their playthings to adopt certain attitudes and behaviors. The very fact that your girls "idolize" their dolls is a sign of that influence. Will they become sluts? Probably not. However the influence, however minute it may seem, is there and does affect them whether you want to realize it or not.

By your own admission you are suggesting something very horrible about the females in your family and that is a very low thing to do.

And what exactly am I suggesting? I'm sorry but my "peanut brain" doesn't seem to be able to comprehend that one.

Of course girls grow out of playing with dolls and suggesting that what is innately female i.e. to dress nice feel good about herself, and choose express her individuality through her choice of dress has very little to with what dolls they used to play with.

How is it that you know that men grow out of there fascinations with their toys/dolls?

Why a young man’s doll play may influence him to be a policeman (hero) or join the army etc or even and I dare to follow in your drastic path they may also turn into homicidal murderers all because they played with dolls.

You're right, they do grow out of playing with the dolls. However the influences remain.

And it is true that the influence that action figures have on young boys can remain just as easily. However I fail to see what's wrong with becoming a policeman or joining the army. And becoming a homicidal killer, while certainly possible, is highly unlikely without the influence of additional outside forces.

However I don't really see anything right, respectable, or particularly nice about walking around looking like a hooker. (even though they may not actually be one) Which is exactly what these dolls suggest.

Additionally, to get back to Mr. Toucan's main issue the sexuality promoted by these dolls has been deemed "OK" for three year olds. This circles back to my argument that it's simply cementing the idea that this "fashion sense" is ok at a very young age which then opens them up to much more later in life.

hat is one totally male chauvinistic statement and very daring to suggest that I should be submissive! If your intention in life is to eventually find a wife you best be changing that attitude for there is not a woman alive that would submit to such depravity. It is a changing world out there young man and with influences siding with a more the feminine tone. You would be best to take heed of it. No woman would bow down to some pig-headed egotist. Who excepts her to shut up and be a good little wife damn what age where you born in!! Times have changed, the bra has been burnt and liberation has grown with every passing year. You young man need to remember your place in the great chain of life and hold your tongue before making such outlandish comments. I can see that your upbringing has taken root in the garden of stupid men with ostentatious ideas thinking they can rule over women. Best do some weeding before you find yourself quite alone with no one to wash the dishes but yourself and your depraved narcissistic mind-set.

I apologize if I offended you. I will agree that it was a sexist comment and reflects my "old school" views (read: non-feminist) on marriage and women which I will not get into here.


Yes, because sex is definitely a more terrible thing than war.

As you can also see in movie rating systems, a lot of people think this way. Any nudity will pretty much always make a movie 15+, though killing people doesn't seem to be an issue.

I think you'd all agree that an orgasm is quite preferable to getting killed, so why are sexy toys worse than violent ones?

Perhaps looking at it this way would help. Would you rather see your little kids playing army guys? Or playing "Bob, Dave, and Renne' have a 3-some"?

[Ktan]

U-238, that's a very distorted comparison, because to 'enact/play' in a sexual nature requires 'Bob, Dave and Renee' to actually physically act sexually. Even if they do not perform the act, they would have to act in such a way that to a distant observer could be easily compared to the act itself. This is the problem with sexual portrayal with children (and I have in fact read of instances of it being emulated from soap operas by young children)

However, with 'toy guns/army' the intent is to represent armed conflict via a painless medium that is in no way representative of actual combat. Paintball is as close as you get, and would you let young children run around unsupervised with paint guns?

Also, it is worth noting that we would rather see our boys play 'army' because that's much more socially acceptable. I personally would have no problem with kids playing army guys as much as I would two kids playing 'mommy and daddy' in a somewhat 'innocent' way (I can't think of a good example, but basically it would be a sexless relationship). However, to have the children play 'bump and grind' would be just as bad as allowing them to replace the toy guns with paintball guns or run around with giant metal poles. Sure, neither would be an exact replication of the respective situation, but they would be a 'step too far' so to speak.

I know this from experience, since I fell out with some friends for a brief while when a game of 'army men' simply went too far.

The thing is with 'violent toys' is that they portray violence in an almost non-violent manner, or at worst 'for the greater good'. Very few action toys actually show the nitty gritty of what war is about, such as severed limbs and spilled guts. However, you cannot portray sexuality in a non sexy manner, and it is hard for me to think of a situation where one would have to 'sit back and take one for the team'.

I personally see that for whatever reason (perhaps the influence of the Christian foundation of our morality. This is not to bash Christianity, merely to highlight that it has had a major part in sex being so 'taboo' compared even to violence) that sex has been exaggerated in the face of violence, but that does not chance the fact that children should be made aware of both in a manner that is educational. Kids who play army should ideally be made aware that war is not glorious as much as kids that play with any kind of doll that could be construed as provocatively dressed should be made aware of any issues with the way they dress or physically appear (the anatomical impossibility of Barbie being an example that springs to mind).

Therefore, I'd conclude that the comparison of 'violent' toys to 'sexual' toys is tentative at best, and outright flawed in other contexts. Honestly, the discussion of the portrayal of violence via toys would be more suited to a thread about 'movies/games which are too violent', since the crux of this discussion seems not to be 'how bad is sex' but 'how extreme is this particular portrayal'. Comparing violence and sex is a bit like apples and oranges.

A little off-topic, I am aware, but an point I felt it was prudent to point out. With regards to the primary topic of the thread, I personally have no strong and certainly no coldly deliberated opinions of my own to add to the cooking pot so I shall refrain in this instance and simply 'watch from the sidelines.'

With popcorn and drinks.

[IrishDutchman]

Perhaps looking at it this way would help. Would you rather see your little kids playing army guys? Or playing "Bob, Dave, and Renne' have a 3-some"?

To make that comparison fair, exchange 'playing army guys' with 'killing eachother'. The ultimate act of violence is murder, and the ultimate erotic act is sex. Comparing toy soldiers to a 3-some isn't exactly fair.

-EDIT: Soo, Ktan beat me to it, in a much more refined and eloquent way. Bye bye.

[hammocksleeper]

Holy shit, every post in here is at least 1000 words. Well, I promise mine won't be. Yeah, it's very understandable that you find that to be inappropriate. There are some children's stuff that is great, and some that I think is just horrible. If you don't mind I'll just tell you my opinion of what is good stuff for kids, which should bear no weight since I'm not a parent.

I watch a lot of Disney channel. It's a guilty pleasure, I actually think quality children's programming can be good for adults to watch too. Well after you watch enough of it you pick up on a few things. First of all, there are no commercials from outside advertisers. Everything that is shown during breaks is related to Disney channel programming, or Disney kids movies, or special "minishows" in between. Which on the one hand might sound like brainwashing, but on the other hand it's great because you don't have to worry about what is being shown in those commercials.

Second, the wardrobe on every single Disney channel show is very modest. No cleavage is ever allowed. And if a girl is every wearing a short skirt, she always has on opaque tights on underneath. Watch it sometime, you will notice. Also topics of sex and relationships are taken very conservatively, slowly and responsibly.

Other quality programming I like is Sesame Street, Lazytown, Mr. Rogers, some of the stuff on Nickelodeon. The Lilo & Stitch cartoon is really good, entertaining with morals but the storyline is never built around the morals as with most shows. Doodlebops is fun to watch, but I have questions about the messages they send across. Did you know that Hannah Montana is singing at the Super Bowl Halftime show? The Wiggles are good too, a fun musical act (much better than Hannah Montana, which is awful).

[GenocideAlive]

Holy shit, every post in here is at least 1000 words. Well, I promise mine won't be.
Your post wasn't a 1000 words, but it was far longer than kongs, IrishDutchman, and a few others'. What exactly was the point of rambling about the Disney channel for 4 paragraphs? You're very clearly driving around, but it's difficult to determine where you're looking to arrive.

Additionally, is there some chance the in-thread messages between members can be moved to PM so as not to overly clutter the topic? There's a lot of cross-line conversations going on here, and it's making the thread rather convoluted. I'd hate to miss out on a good thread due to mechanics and a tangled mess of he-said-she-saids.

[Oblongato]

It is at this point that 'fit' no longer becomes attractive and reaches the point of being 'disturbing'. In the same way, seeing women with skinny enough arms or waists makes them look unattractive. So it is, to me, that 'Bratz' are not attractive, but instead repulsive, as I have said in my previous post, mainly because psychological diseases like anorexia nervosa have devastating effects on teenagers, male and female alike.

As I noted in the comment that led to the comment that led to the comment of yours I'm here commenting about (say that ten times fast), I personally do have a bit of an issue with boys' fascination with rippling musclebound men in spandex. I am the eldest of five male siblings, and find that two of my siblings have taken this to extremes, fretting over their external appearance for hours to the point of being late for school.

Superman would indeed not appear as super if he were not musclebound, but at least he looks healthy, and not about to drop dead from malnutrition or insufficient spinal support.

I agree with practically everything you say in your post (number 19), but would like to comment here.

While it is true that eating disorders are an issue and that obsessing about appearance can be unhealthy both physically and psychologically, just being thin is not a disease. When I was young I was very thin despite being healthy and having an appetite like a velociraptor. I know women today who are naturally very thin without dieting. They, too, are healthy. Obviously, for people with a larger build to try to achieve the natural thinness of such slight people is not healthy.

But at the same time, it almost seems as if attitudes are shifting in the other direction, people are letting themselves go, largely because of widespread attitude that you should "be yourself". If they are fat, they call it genetics and say big is beautiful. Why, then, are most Europeans (with the exception of certain, fat, European states that have adopted American eating habits) so much thinner than Americans?

In short, I think you are right, but there is also a dangerous, perhaps even more widespread trend in the other direction.

Also, Bratz are obviously heavily influence by manga / anime, where only certain features are emphasized for greater expressiveness. The highly abstracted form of the Bratz dolls should no more be a role model for healthy body weight than any other cartoon figure.

I am not saying that the comment in question wasn't sexist (and I said potentially because the post was intended to be a caution to all), but I am saying that basing your entire argument around it in an attempt to discredit him because he made the comment when the rest of his argument that these toys are not appropriate for children is incredibly stupid.

Yes, U-238's comment was sexist, but this topic isn't about sexism or persecution thereof, it's about a line of toys that are supposedly aimed at toddlers and older yet they have clothing that are not aimed at toddlers and exaggerated features that tend to be emphasized upon as attractive.

I am certainly not trying to discredit U-238 the person or the poster. On the other hand, his idea that Toucan should make the decision and not MrsToucan because he's the man and she's the woman is, shall we say, insufficiently justified.

The question of whether the dolls are appropriate for the Toucan offspring depends one's perspective on girls wearing miniskirts. If one sees nothing inherently wrong with displaying the female body, then it is entirely possible to hold the view that there is nothing wrong with the way the dolls are dressed.

This is not to say that it is unjustified to to be concerned about those individuals who believe that miniskirts are a sexual provocation that could lead to disrespectful treatment or even abuse.

I apologize if I offended you. I will agree that it was a sexist comment and reflects my "old school" views (read: non-feminist) on marriage and women which I will not get into here.

It's entirely OK if your wife is happy obeying you because you are male. On the other hand, as soon as you say that that's how it should be for others, you need to justify it, especially in a debate forum. If you don't want to debate it, you should probably leave it out of posts made here unless you don't mind being attacked for making unjustified claims. Self-righteousness does not an argument make.

Holy shit, every post in here is at least 1000 words. Well, I promise mine won't be. Yeah, it's very understandable that you find that to be inappropriate. There are some children's stuff that is great, and some that I think is just horrible. If you don't mind I'll just tell you my opinion of what is good stuff for kids, which should bear no weight since I'm not a parent.

I watch a lot of Disney channel. It's a guilty pleasure, I actually think quality children's programming can be good for adults to watch too. Well after you watch enough of it you pick up on a few things. First of all, there are no commercials from outside advertisers. Everything that is shown during breaks is related to Disney channel programming, or Disney kids movies, or special "minishows" in between. Which on the one hand might sound like brainwashing, but on the other hand it's great because you don't have to worry about what is being shown in those commercials.

Second, the wardrobe on every single Disney channel show is very modest. No cleavage is ever allowed. And if a girl is every wearing a short skirt, she always has on opaque tights on underneath. Watch it sometime, you will notice. Also topics of sex and relationships are taken very conservatively, slowly and responsibly.

Other quality programming I like is Sesame Street, Lazytown, Mr. Rogers, some of the stuff on Nickelodeon. The Lilo & Stitch cartoon is really good, entertaining with morals but the storyline is never built around the morals as with most shows. Doodlebops is fun to watch, but I have questions about the messages they send across. Did you know that Hannah Montana is singing at the Super Bowl Halftime show? The Wiggles are good too, a fun musical act (much better than Hannah Montana, which is awful).

I agree that Disney programming is modest (by western standards) and wholesome (by western standards). The question is whether this is a good thing. How useful are our sexual taboos? We need only look as far as Taliban Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. for examples of rigid standards of modesty being strictly enforced. There the exposed female body is perceived as an invitation to sexual assault - women are seen as temptresses who are capable of luring righteous males away from the path of purity and goodness.

This line of thinking is also present in western society, though to a considerably lesser extent.

I would prefer to see a further destigmatization of sexuality in the west and a move in the opposite direction of, for example, conservative Islam. I'm not looking for a skanky world of cheap and nasty sex - I see that as more a consequence of prudery and and the stigmatization of sexuality. (Look at the TV preachers who visited prostitutes for the cheapest, nastiest sex you would ever want to read about...) Instead, people should be able to express their sexuality more openly without fear of stigmatization. In this kind of world, Bratz dolls would be no problem.

In the real world, of course, things are not so rosy. I must admit I would be concerned about what other people would think of my daughters (if I had daughters) if they did decide they wanted to dress like their dolls. (The daughter of a friend of mine often wears dresses that are identical to her doll's dresses.) On the other hand, I would not want their lives to be limited as are the lives of women in fundamentalist Islamic states, nor would I necessarily want them to be limited by current American standards of prudery where a nipple causes a nation to recoil in horror.

[Anoiktos]

In short, I think you are right, but there is also a dangerous, perhaps even more widespread trend in the other direction.
I agree, though I personally think a lot of this has to do with incredibly unhealthy eating habits in the U.S. and the prevalence of badly-regulated fast food. If you've worked in a fast-food restauraunt in any capacity having to do with the food itself, it's pretty disgusting, for the most part.

It also has to do a lot with the lack of exercise, but I really think a ton of it has to do with the quality and makeup of the food in the states compared to other countries.

[Icarus]

In here, girls compete at who is going to give better oral sex at 13. Girls of 14 of age go and flirt with lads over 30. Is Bratz the symptom or the cause ? Early sexualization in our culture is a fact. I just wonder about the causes: is it just a ploy to sell more ?

I think what we need to recognize is that the tolerance of much more sexual content within our media, and our culture wasn't here, or pretty much anywhere, before.

It's obvious that this industry makes it's products more sexy to make more money, because that's apparently, and economically proven, to be what consumers desire. The real question is, why is it that these consumers, small children, desire such things? I haven't met any satisfying conclusions so far.

------------------------------------

On a side-note- because for a brief time in my life, I practically never put down the comic books, I have to say the male adolescent figures portrayed are much more complex and real, with real positive messages, whereas all these girls promote are all the things i've come to hate that seem to manifest themselves regularly in females: Attract as many males as possible(the ends of which I don't have to make clear), become as popular and accepted as possible, and buy buy buy buy!

Batman deals with justice, that is identifying real justice, and also identifying that sometimes, true justice cannot be dealt conventionally.

Superman deals with finding a familiar place to become a part, living as an alien in a world which is supposed to be you're home, which many people can identify with.

Spiderman, while dealing with very common adolescent problems, I think deals in the long run with responsibility, and with growing and maturing.

What does barbie or bratz have to offer young kids that have any substantial value behind it?

[dirtwitch]

So how about this....the kids spent Christmas with my ex - their bio dad - this year. seven year old Daughter was given a Bratz doll from "Santa". Daughter never asked for a Bratz doll, and in former life as spouses, ex and I discussed many a time how overly sexualized and inappropriate these dolls are.

Why do you think he got her one of these little strippers in training dolls?

Thank goodness she's more interested in soccer, dragons, and watching Totoro and Howl's Moving Castle!

Yes, U-238's comment was sexist, but this topic isn't about sexism or persecution thereof, it's about a line of toys that are supposedly aimed at toddlers and older yet they have clothing that are not aimed at toddlers and exaggerated features that tend to be emphasized upon as attractive.

"3 and up" isn't a suggestion for play with stuff like this, its a liability deflator - small parts, choking toddlers kind of thing.

You know, Barbie WAS based on a sex toy doll from Germany.

Parents need to take responsibility for the toys they provide their children with.

What does it say about our moral backbone when we buy these things for our kids? What are we telling them?

"when I was a kid" god, I feel old...When I was a kid they did not market to us at age EIGHT as preteens.

When I was a kid we certainly played with our barbies and they certainly were used as sex dolls, lots of doll on doll sex...but then we were still playing with those Barbies when we were 12 and 13. I remember listening to Blondie, getting my hair dyed green for the first time, and playing with barbies at my friend's house in grade 6.

Just because these things are marketed doesn't mean we need to buy into them. Parents need to show a little consumerist backbone and say "No" if they're offended by a toy.

And just what do you do when you disagree on the impact of these things as parents???? "Obedience to a spouse" isn't the answer, but really I don't see this as a minor disagreement between partners.

[GenocideAlive]

It's obvious that this industry makes it's products more sexy to make more money, because that's apparently, and economically proven, to be what consumers desire. The real question is, why is it that these consumers, small children, desire such things? I haven't met any satisfying conclusions so far.
Children desire what they're given and told to model. If they see teens dressing and acting a certain way, they wish to emulate it. This is why you will see 9 year old boys dressing and acting like "thugz". They want to fit in with their peers and be liked and respected. For girls, that is sex appeal, social networking, and ownership of desirable possessions (cell phone, jewelry, etc.). For guys, it's ownership of desirable possessions (jewelry, shoes, etc.), physical prowess, and mastery of their environment.

Adults who buy things for children (subconsciously) recognize these traits, and give them role models as appropriate. Please remember, numbers, children do not buy anything.

[Toucan]

Ok, I need to clear up a few things.

I would like it to be known to all that this debate, either in real life or on these forums, has not placed my relationship with my wife in jeopardy in any way. I would like to point out that while I do think Bratz is bit to adult orientated for children that my opposition to them has been somewhat overestimated.
I did however think this subject had the potential to be an interesting debate and I don’t think anyone can argue that it has not been that.

I would also like to make a public statement of apology to my wife for beginning this debate in a public forum without discussing doing so with her before hand and to using her as an absent opposition. Or as she so colourfully put it, as a “Patsy”.
This is more the reason she joined the debate than the debate itself, but now that she is here she thoroughly enjoying the discussion and I assure you will be back with another post soon.

But anyway, as my wife has now entered the debate I do not wish to debate with her publicly or to take away from her enjoyment.

But just one point:-
You know, Barbie WAS based on a sex toy doll from Germany.
Barbie was released by the German Nazi party as a tool of propaganda. The intention was that she be a medium to portray the ideal Arian female to young German girls.
Her dimensions are based on those of Eva Braun. (Adolph Hitler’s wife.)
Even though Barbie does have a dark past, she has never been a “sex” toy.

[dirtwitch]

"The Mattel Barbie doll -- more familiar to us as Barbie -- has, in the last four decades, taken on a life and persona of her own. In 1994, an unofficial biography revealed that Barbie was modeled on a German cartoon character, an ambitious hooker named Lilli. At a 1995 exhibit, "Art, Design and Barbie: The Evolution of a Cultural Icon" at New York's Liberty Street Gallery, Lilli's role in Barbie's evolution was heavily underplayed. This subterfuge was part of a larger controversy, in which columnists and curators accused Mattel Inc., the sponsor, of being excessively meddlesome. While Mattel purged the exhibit of certain works of art inspired by Barbie, the company also did its best to camouflage the doll who had inspired the creators of Barbie. To understand why this was inevitable, we must put ourselves in Barbie's shoes, and follow the progress of a very hard-working plaything.
Until recently, few Barbie owners were conscious of Barbie's true age -- or of the life this all-American prom queen once led in another land, under another name. But Barbie's first playmates are now old enough to handle the truth. M.G. Lord, the author of "Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll," is one of those women. In "Forever Barbie," Lord reveals that Lilli -- "an eleven-and-a-half inch, platinum ponytailed" German doll -- was the pre-American Barbie. The Lilli doll was the three-dimensional version of a popular post-war cartoon character who first appeared in the West German tabloid Bild Zeitung in 1952. A professional floozy of the first order, Bild Zeitung's Lilli traded sex for money, delivered sassy comebacks to police officers, and sought the company of "balding, jowly fatcats," says Lord. While the cartoon Lilli was a user of men, the doll (who came into existence in 1955) was herself a plaything -- a masculine joke, perhaps, for West German males who could not afford to play with a real Lilli. A German brochure from the 1950s confided that Lilli (the doll) was "always discreet," while her complete wardrobe made her "the star of every bar." The Lilli doll who made it into the "Art, Design and Barbie" show was dressed in her most (perhaps her only) demure outfit. This was a literal cover-up. Easily overlooked by anyone who didn't understand Barbie's history, Lilli was dressed like a prostitute who didn't want to be noticed -- lost among the other non-Barbie dolls who were provided for educational purposes.

It seems fitting that Lilli dolls were manufactured in Hamburg, a city where government-approved, licensed prostitutes are a fact of life. In the United States, where legal hooking is virtually unheard of, Lilli had to tone down her act. (Perhaps she changed her name in order to get around a U.S. immigration law barring prostitutes from becoming residents -- but that is just conjecture.) While it is still unsafe for a foreign prostitute to reveal her trade in the United States, Barbie -- decades later -- is no longer foreign. She is more American than many Americans, and perhaps even more hypocritical."

Eva Braun was not the model for Lilli.

Eva Braun was maybe 5'4" tall and while definitely curvy, she did not look like a barbie doll. She had large breasts, wide hips and a normal waistline. She was never bandied about as a tool by the Nazi Party, she and Hitler had a very discreet relationship and only married a day before their suicides.

Barbie's original measurements translated into - 6' tall, weight about 100 - 115 lbs. Her measurements would be 39"/19"/33". The new barbies that came out in the late 90's have more realistic proportions (well, similar to fashion models) - 34-22-33 - still 6 ft tall - for comparison's sake - Kate Moss' proportions are 33-23-35 and she's only 5'6".

So Barbie is now a very tall pubescent teenager. Her proportions were not changed because of how unrealistic she was or any consumer criticism about "unhealthy body image issues", but because fashions have changed and she looked bizarre in midriff baring tops.

When I was a kid I hd the ULTIMATE "The Art of Being a Girl" Mattel doll - "Skipper Grows Up" You literally twisted her arm and she grew taller and grew breasts and you traded her toys for a telephone and a soda pop bottle. Talk about teaching kids gender roles!

Still she wasn't as bad as Bratz dolls - have you seen the dance club you can get for Bratz? It is a stripper runway complete with pole dancing poles!

[femoimal]

interestingly enough, i read about a study in Scientific American a few months ago that, if a recall well, talked about sexualization and archetypal imprint on youngsters. It was proved that male parents where the ones who stuck most to archetypal gifts and toys (you know, GI joes for boys and dolls for girls).
As if men where more afraid of turning their boys into gays (yeah, right) or girls into lesbos but toys alone.

[Toucan]

Well, thankyou for correcting my Barbie history, I have no choice but to admit that what I thought to be true, is wrong.

However the fact that she was once based on a small figurine that represented a sex worker hardly makes her a "sex toy". The tone of your statement suggested that the doll itself was designed to enhance sex, witch is still just not the case. If anything it was designed to be a tourist souvenir.

But if we go back even further, what doll was Lilli based on? She wasn't the first female doll in the world. In fact I think the history of dolls may be a little more colorful than Lilli and Barbie.

[dirtwitch]

But if we go back even further, what doll was Lilli based on? She wasn't the first female doll in the world. In fact I think the history of dolls may be a little more colorful than Lilli and Barbie.

Well of course it is, but until Barbie dolls marketted to children (and lets be clear on this - marketted to children's parents) were child like or baby dolls. We did not sell "sex appeal" to children.

And I'm not a "in the past childhood was all purity and play" kind of person. Childhood has, for most of history, been a class construct as much as anything. But regardless of how children were treated (small nimble workers) in the past, it is a curiously mid 20th century to now idea that we should force "childhood" on an expanding bracket of society - birth to 18, or 21, or by some factions - 25 - while sexualizing *girls* earlier and earlier.

I mean, even in cultures that marry off their toddlers in arranged marriages they are ignored sexually until they hit puberty. Our culture puts children - really girls - in the sexual spotlight from the time they leave diapers. This is true whether we're discussing fashions (thongs for 3 year olds) or fashion dolls like Bratz and Barbie. They do have an impact on what little girls absorb about our culture and its expectations of them.

I don't think our culture is "okay" with this either. I think it does creep us out, but instead of standing up to advertising and marketting (a true capitalist evil in my mind) we arrest parents for taking photos of their kids playing in the bathtub.

[MrsToucan]

I am happy to see that the topic has turned from what was looking like an all out war of the sexes!
Also the personal pot-shots have subsided. Oh and hubby is allowed back upstairs now…LOL

From what I’ve seen over the last few years, dealing with my girls both at home and in school, I have yet to see a case of any young girls over idolising Bratz dolls. Perhaps, this a rare occasion where our two countries differ, for the most part you will not see young Aussie girls dressed in fishnets, high-heals etc because it’s generally not done. We, to a degree have laid back style here in Oz so being as over-done as a Bratz doll is kind of out of place. Fortunately we bring our children up with the same casualness of fashion as we ourselves were. One could almost dare to say that the national dress standard is nothing more stylised than shorts, thongs and a t-shirt.

I suppose that is why I have so strongly disagreed with much of the arguments put forth, perhaps a little of my own arrogance there. But such dolls are just not taken seriously enough to warrant such a degree of parental concern. I have spent much time around primary school aged girls and never really seen any degree of heroism or idolisation for a Bratz doll. If anything they are more into the comfort of their clothing than wether or not they look like a Bratz Doll.

Yes I am falling on a lot of my own personal experiences to debate this topic, where as many have immediately grabbed a host of written references to justify their arguments and suggestions. And I might add some have been hostile and offensive. Perhaps a lesson of a practical nature is required here. Perhaps putting those personal perceptions aside and actually asking a young girl how she feels about a Bratz doll would give a better insight. Just because a psychologist said something does not deem it as the truth. There are a lot of influences in a young girl’s life not just the dolls she plays with. Dressing like a tart or with decorum and sophistication has very little to do with they dolls they played with. The sad truth is a lot of fashion is decided more from the magazines. One thing I have noticed most true is that the apple never falls far from the tree and sadly if mum dresses with big hair and plunging neck-lines well that is what her daughter will grow up perceiving is the way to dress.

Just to toss the coin a little;

If I was to say that I don’t want my young son playing with GI Joe or toy guns because I feel it may influence him to either enlist in the armed forces or even cause an unlawful act would this statement be met with the same furore as my daughters playing with a Bratz doll?



P.S.

I very much like your new Avatar GA and I do get the joke. But didn’t he have a crack in his armour.

[dirtwitch]

Mrs Toucan how old are your girls?

My kids range from 16 down to 3 months and my siblings kids range from 25 on down.

My experience has taught me that the lessons kids get about gender identity from toys and the media doesn't start to show itself in their own behaviour and decisionmaking until they are in their teens. At the same time, their peers become more important to them than us.

As a result of what I've seen in my kids and my neices and nephews I'm careful about protecting my little kids from marketting - commercial free television and I avoid buying anything tied into the shows they do watch - so no Dora underwear, bedding, plush toys etc, (and I'm no zealot - we have Mole Sister finger puppets here!) and when they reach an age of "reason" I discuss this stuff with them a lot. I don't ban toys from our home but I do discuss why they find them appealing...and if *I* have issues with a toy I will not purchase it - they can buy it themselves.

I promised my warboard member kids I wouldn't out whose mum I am, but in discussions about bionicle way back when, my "I won't buy it" stance changed because the bionicle lover was so genuinely persuasive in his arguments I was won over. At 7 or 8 he was referencing Joseph Campbell and the "everyman" mythic hero. And thats what matters to me as a mum...do my kids understand why they are attracted to consumerist products, lifestyles, etc?

Can a 3 year old explain their attraction to collecting Bratz dolls past what they saw in the marketting?

[Oblongato]

I think it's interesting that nearly all of these posts are about how to keep the sex drive under control.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that it's necessarily a good idea to give the sex drive free reign, but I kind of wonder what would happen in a society where it is not all repressed under concepts of modest dress and the idea that children do not have sexuality.

To my knowledge, there has never been such a society, although there are societies where parents do not leap to cover their children's eyes to protect them from a statue with no pants or call the police to arrest some woman nursing her baby.

I know I was raised with the idea that sex was a relatively taboo subject, "dirty," except in rare cases when it is necessary to discuss procreation or health.

I am now convinced that all of that is prudish, puritanical nonsense. Sex is not the "necessary evil" of procreation. Nevertheless, if/when I have children, I will definitely have to take into consideration the fact that most people - where I come and even where I don't come from - from still think just as my parents tried to teach me to think. I suspect they didn't know what else to teach me about sex. Personally, however, I think it is possible to raise children to believe that sex is not something that has to be stigmatizing, degrading, immoral and dangerous, even outside of marriage.

Strange that in both the east and the west it is sex that has the power to cause man to fall from grace, whether it be Eve tempting Adam or conservative Muslim women being covered from head to toe to avoid destroying the virtue of men.

Surely sex can't be as bad as all that. But I would like to hear what the underlying motives are for covering up the body, beyond the external concerns for safety and avoiding being stigmatized. What are the true evils of the miniskirt?

[Anoiktos]

Surely sex can't be as bad as all that.
Oh, no indeed, sex is not a bad thing in the least, nor should it be confined to a procreational activity. It's one of the ultimate demonstrations of intimacy and a good pastime.

Encouraging sex among underage children, however, is inappropriate, if only because those children will run the risk of being charged for lewd behavior, sexual harassment, or statuatory rape, not to mention the more mundane problems of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, which are particularly harmful at an age where their existence makes the child more vulnerable to subsequent litigation and makes it more difficult for that child to progress in school or work during formative times in their lives.

That said, I am *not* saying that buying Bratz dolls will go and make young children into nymphomaniacs - this is absurd, as neither the dolls themselves nor the videos emphasize sexual activity. They do, however, emphasize features which others obviously (look at the contents of this thread) associate with sexual activity, and so allowing this unmitigated emphasis to proliferate among young children will tend to subsequently emphasize the above-listed problems.

All of this shouldn't be a problem if:
1) the childrens' respective guardians and peers take effort not to take advantage or further emphasize or reveal the sexually-associative themes prevalent in the dolls, whatever they may be.
2) the children have enough common sense to make up their own minds about fashion and realize the implications in their and others' eyes about the ways that they are acting or dressing.

I personally believe, from my experiences around young children and parents in both solo and community settings, that both of the above two points' veracity is less than certain, and as such tend to be skeptical that the benefits of allowing young children to play with these particular dolls outweigh their risks, especially considering the wealth of less risqué (and perhaps more creativity-sponsoring) merchandise out there.

Mrs. Toucan may not agree. That's her decision, just as they are her children: All we can do is express our concerns and hope that she at least takes them into consideration as the voices of people trying to be helpful.

[Oblongato]

Parents, I suspect, would tend to play things safe, as I would as well. Yet all of the things you mention I would consider external concerns. What I am really curious about is what humans would be like if they didn't treat sex like weapons of mass destruction. The very idea of children engaging in any kind of sexual activity whatsoever gives most people the creeps, with the possible exception of playing doctor, which is normally not classified as sexual activity but rather as normal curiosity. But from my own experience I know that children, even pre-pubescent children, do have sexual thoughts and feelings, though of course not on the same level as those of post-pubescent kids.

What kind of person would result from an environment where sexual feelings were not repressed?

One theory (sorry don't ask me whose, it's been a while...) has it that males are motivated by sexual stimulus, and it is the role of the mother to deprive male children of intimate contact unless they accomplish tasks, which will later result in motivated breadwinners. Can this theory be correct? Will a male child with unrepressed sexuality develop no motivation and hang around his parents' house?

Is it perhaps this system of sexual repression that in fact separates us from other animals?

**************************

By the way, I hope in your earlier post about eating habits you were not suggesting that healthy food standards should be enforced by law. ;)

[Anoiktos]

By the way, I hope in your earlier post about eating habits you were not suggesting that healthy food standards should be enforced by law.
I believe all people should have healthy food available to them, and all people not considered mature enough to make their own decisions to be given healthy food. If someone of contractual age or higher wants to kill themselves, that's their decision.

This is, to me, the same way that I would not support a parent beating their five-year-old to the point of being dangerous to their health, or giving that five-year-old cigarettes.

I believe that for a 'free market society' to function, each human must be given a chance to begin with the same groundwork and opportunity that each other human is given, thus giving each human a chance to distinguish itself for the improvement of society.

Now, in practice this isn't realistic, at least in current society, but it is what I would like to see.

[Oblongato]

That again gets into the issue of parenting - and the extent to which parents should be allowed to be lousy parents. When parents smoke in the car with their children is it child abuse? When they regularly feed them cheeseburgers instead of healthy food should the children be placed in foster care? These things seem slight when compared to more serious forms of abuse, but the consequences can be just as severe in later life, with a little bad luck.

It also gets into the issue of defining what is healthy, which is again related to the topic at hand, the appropriateness of Bratz dolls that wear miniskirts.

Who should decide what is healthy for children? Who determines whether parents are hurting their children, or hurting them enough to justify placing them in foster care?

The impossibility of answering these questions seems to head back in the direction of children being the property of the parents, to do with as they please. Or, government establishes standards of what could be damaging in different areas and monitors parenting. I find both options repulsive. Are there alternatives?

[dirtwitch]

When parents smoke in the car with their children is it child abuse? The impossibility of answering these questions seems to head back in the direction of children being the property of the parents, to do with as they please. Or, government establishes standards of what could be damaging in different areas and monitors parenting. I find both options repulsive. Are there alternatives?

Where I live it is "illegal" to smoke in a vehicle with children. You'll get fined if you do. Just like you'll get fined for not having kids in carseats.

I don't think community standards on childrearing are necessarily a bad thing. You can use the word government like it is a bad word, but ideally that is what laws do - hold up community standards around health and safety. As long as we live in a culture that does indeed treat minors as property of their parents then I appreciate laws like this.

[Lithium]

[COLOR=Black]Batman deals with justice, that is identifying real justice, and also identifying that sometimes, true justice cannot be dealt conventionally.

Superman deals with finding a familiar place to become a part, living as an alien in a world which is supposed to be you're home, which many people can identify with.

Spiderman, while dealing with very common adolescent problems, I think deals in the long run with responsibility, and with growing and maturing.

What does barbie or bratz have to offer young kids that have any substantial value behind it?


I think that Barbie Dolls and Bratz are supposed to offer female-mentality. For example, a little girl wouldn't want to be participating in wars, because the majority of males already dominate that position, so Bratz and barbie dolls are perfectly sound, of course. Oh yeah, Bratz supposedly offers Team-Work and Friendship - the two most bullshit morales I've ever come across. I think that pretty much everyone who's not a drug addict can achieve these two "goals" by being a person. It's part of human nature to value cooperation and interaction.

Besides, what can a toy do to help a child learn about teamwork? That's the parents responsibility, not Bratz Corp. or some sheezy writer that made up these horrific children. You buy toys for your child's happiness, if you expected it to make them learn moral values, send 'em off to a private school and whatnot. I think that the people who manufacture Barbies are getting so greedy that they try to incorporate all kinds of shit into their products just to make a parent feel good about buying them.

I do believe that Bratz is for age 3 and up. It's actually the parent's responsibility to decide whether or not their child is mature enough to realize the concept of the toy.

[femoimal]

apparently toucan has not been the only one thinking brats have gone too far :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=user&v=eCBcv7YWlAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5WAgDBVMoo

for information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIdlHcZmniI

[TinyDancer]

I'm going to interject here to say, if these Bratz characters are actually good role models for children, showing examples of friendship and compassion and whatever else, aren't they capable of being good heroines without wearing crop-tops and miniskirts? The target audience for Bratz dolls (if I'm not mistaken) is the 7-13 year old girl crowd, a highly impressionable bunch. When I was a wee young thing, I had a fair collection of Barbies (and one doll called Happy To Be Me, who had healthy proportions and sensible flat shoes), and I would have given anything to have some of the beautiful clothes that my Barbie wore. Of course, back then Barbie wore jumpers, suits, jeans with sweaters, and ballgowns. It's ignorant to deny the fact that young girls are being exposed to sexualized characters and clothing earlier and earlier, all the while being told that girls who are aware of their sexuality are skanky and slutty. If you haven't seen it happening, I guess you've never walked into a mall and seen a troupe of 11 year olds skipping out of Club Libby Lou wearing sequined tube tops, miniskirts, and more body glitter than should be legal. Lucky you. If the girls featured in the Bratz movies are actually worthy of our daughters' and sisters' attentions, they should be able to deliver their positive message without displaying their toned thighs, flat stomachs, and overly buoyant décolletage.



EDIT:

That isn't to say that the female body is something that a girl should be ashamed of, nor does it need to be covered from head to toe. I'm pretty sure my point is still clear.

[Oblongato]

Indeed, they should be capable of being good role models while covered from head to toe in black robes that do not even reveal the eyes. They should be capable of displaying their own female virtue without placing men's virtue in jeopardy by wearing the garb of temptresses. Because as we all know, it is the female body that led to Adam's fall and to the birth of skankiness and sluttiness.

I guess.

[Toucan]

Indeed, they should be capable of being good role models while covered from head to toe in black robes that do not even reveal the eyes. They should be capable of displaying their own female virtue without placing men's virtue in jeopardy by wearing the garb of temptresses. Because as we all know, it is the female body that led to Adam's fall and to the birth of skankiness and sluttiness.

I guess.
Thats my problem with allot of the arguments put forward as well, every one of them is a variation of the "she was asking for it" defense that was once all the rage in rape cases, my opinion has been reversed not enforced by them. Bratz have a very important job to do not only in educating children, but in educating society as a whole. That namely being that women have the right to wear what they choose with out being harassed, judged or attacked.

People simply do not have the right to assume a woman/girl wants sex based upon the clothes/make-up/hair-style she is wearing, to do so is extremely distasteful, to act on it is sexual harassment and a crime!

People have screamed the over-sexualization of women for centuries, but are so selective about it.

The fact is women have the right to dress how they choose, men need to learn that women are not property that they have the right to judge, every girl has there own individuality that they have the right to express in there own way.


So would I be right in assuming most in this thread would like to see the bikini banned from beaches? Go down to any beach you will find women and girls wearing them, I wonder if they all want sex?

[femoimal]

hold it there, toucan.

Women have the right to wear anything they like, sure. But they have to:

1- target carefully the audience and environment. You do not dress the same to go clubbing with 10 girl-friends in a uber-trendy bar when you are 30 than when you go and buy fish to the market. I am not talking decency, fuck that, but harmony with the environment here. Go on the docks in the evening with a tanga and have fun. My woman was telling me tales of a primary school where the teacher was that sexy woman wearing fish-net stockings and no panties. One lad was caught masturbating in class haha. Inappropriate, you'll agree (not).

2- deal with the social consequences of the clothing. Like peer-pressure, assumptions about character and increased desire from males (and jealousy from females). In clubs it is alright, but at work it is not so. I myself told a couple of times at colleagues not to dress up too sexy, but in greece, most women are 24/7 dressed and lipsticked as in clubs (i think its the pressure of having to be ever ready to find a husband -sigh-).

my woman and her friends go nude on the beach. I did so this year. I am not very fond of it, but after a while you stop seeing dandling organs, but people. Its okay on a desert island, but i would not do that in the city :D (btw, there was not particularly more fornication between nudists than between dressed-up people).

my point is that sexiness is a targeted thing. It generates stress and pleasure:
- Women like it when they are more sexy than the other females. "take that in your face bitch, i got smaller thighs and bigger tits than you. My god, look at your hair and skin ! eeeeew"
- Women feel nice when they are desired by good looking males, but they really look the other way and tug the mini-skirt when facing a tooth-less old fisherman.

...Alas, they cannot always totally control the environment and the target audience. On the other side, parents should not accept their children being the target of that stressful game too early. And parents control the environment, their home.

[Toucan]

Certain clothing (ie. uniform) is a requirement of just about any job. Though you are right, women do like to get dressed up in the office, though that does not give you or anyone else the right to harass them, do so and you will be charged with sexual harassment and rightfully so.

You see Fem, you are only identifying the issue and nothing more.
The problem is not what women choose to wear, the problem is societies perception of it.

The fashion women choose to wear is not a reflection of the choices or desires of men. These are the things women like to wear and women most likely wear them in abundance in every home city of every person that posted in this thread. It really is time for the wowsers of the world to get over the fact that our species is made up of men and (OMG) women.

[femoimal]

well, i guess that women (and men) have a latitude of clothing choices, fitting their surroundings. You agree ?

Like you will not wear a bikini at work, however comfortable it may be. Maybe one day, when we are not animals anymore and sex (desire) has disappeared, we may. But i find it disrupting when a colleague shows me her tits when asking me for a pencil. So would she, of course, if i wore fish-net pants (i love those, don't you?). It is about tuning.

I wonder if there is sexual harassment in muslim countries, even when women are wearing all those beautiful sheets. Do they have dolls too ? those dolls wear phantom sheets too ?

I disagree when you say "The fashion women choose to wear is not a reflection of the choices or desires of men. These are the things women like to wear and women most likely wear them in abundance in every home city of every person that posted in this thread". You wear clothes for 2 things. Comfort and looks. Now you tell me that woman's fashion has nothing to do with how they look in it ? (how it erases the defaults and brings out the good). They like it for a reason. They look good in it. So of course it is for the public. Female and male.

Now why is it the females of our speci