Are these dolls totally inappropriate?

[Itsbeen84yearss]

Just seen the ad for these on channel 5 (in between peppa episodes). Marketed as ‘opposites’? I might be being bad minded but these look highly sexualised to me. I bought my dd an lol doll once but I think it had a school uniform on. Didn’t look like these at all. Why are they like this now?? Surely it’s sending all sorts of bad messages to kids

Barbie had a younger sister called Skipper who would have been appropriate for school uniform but I don't see her on shops very often.

Dolls like Bratz were probably initially aimed at girls who outgrew Barbie and princesses but the age they appealed to went down over time.

Or am I going to be accused of "racism-shaming women" now?

I’ve never heard the term ‘racism-shaming’ so no.

Not my cup of tea. But, sexualised?

@choli

Surely it’s sending all sorts of bad messages to kids What messages do you think these dolls send that is any worse than Barbie?

Barbie has never been seen as a good thing for children though has it

They're horrible and odd.

Barbie is an impossible shape but at least wears normal everyday clothes.

Sindy was the British equivalent of Barbie and has been described as more 'wholesome' and 'girl next door' than glamorous Barbie.

[quote MondayYogurt]@User5490453456 interesting thank you. Blind boxes remind me of the gaming loot box principle - by making it random and unknown it's effectively gambling, or at least getting children into the mindset of chasing a win.[/quote]
Maybe gambling companies are trying to get more people into gambling this way since they have to advertise 'when the fun stops, STOP'
My little brother spent £200 on loot boxes a few years ago. He was only 6 or 7 and I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up gambling in future.

My mum was a bore. No to everything like this and I thank her for it now and I am doing the same. No LOL or anything like that. I don't mind barbies, they are thin, fine, but they have minimal makeup and just normal pretty dresses.
Also those bigger dolls who have cute little outfits. I don't know why you would connect child's toy to sexy without having a grooming reason. its sad.

@Lweji

Not my cup of tea. But, sexualised?

Errr....the one on the right?? The top and jacket isn't to bad, but those are latex fetish gear she's wearing as trousers, designed to titillate adults. I used to go to metal/clubs and those are very clearly fetishy even for an environment where people wear all sorts.

Yes, very appropriate for little girls.

I admit Barbie wasn’t a great role model in many ways but I do think this is in another stratosphere of inappropriate and yes I do think some clothes are more sexual than others. I mean you don’t see jogging bottoms and oversized woolly jumpers in sex shops do you?

@TrueCrimeWave

What a depressing thread.

Let’s tell all girls that if they dress in XYZ they’ll look like “hookers” or as if they’re off to a “fetish club”.

How about “wear what you fucking like in your own time & to hell with judgemental pricks. They are only clothes”.

No little girl will look at these dolls and think “hooker”. It’s YOU teaching them that.

@TrueCrimeWave

What a naive post. Apart from anything else it’s not only clothes: girls have surgery, Botox and fillers to transform themselves into the images they see, at ever younger ages - see Kylie Jenner.

40,000 teenage girls had Botox this year, so the government are thinking of banning for under 18s.

They are dreadful. My DDs are far too old for dolls now (and stopped playing with them around 9 or 10) but we were exclusively a Lottie house (boxed Barbies went straight to the charity shop). Love Lottie dolls and all their outfits.

My dd has 7 of the big ones and 100s of the small ones. She wouldn't wear what they wear.

@Lweji

Not my cup of tea. But, sexualised?

red latex fetish leggings

Mine are way too old for dolls so I had to look them up.

Absolutely disgusting. You have to wonder what will come out later about their creator issac larian

The fucked up lingerie and the bizarre looking genitals on these dolls.

@Potteringshed

Where do you live that red latex or tutus are fashionable?

Looks like the kind of clothes I'd see young people wearing to go clubbing in Glasgow or London. Not necessarily fetish wear - trendy but a bit alt I'd say. No more sexualised than Bratz or Barbie.

But they're aimed at 5 year olds, not people of clubbing age 😬 They're bloody awful.

@Itsbeen84yearss

I admit Barbie wasn’t a great role model in many ways but I do think this is in another stratosphere of inappropriate and yes I do think some clothes are more sexual than others. I mean you don’t see jogging bottoms and oversized woolly jumpers in sex shops do you?

Don't google "knitwear fetish"!!! (it's actually quite a big scene!)

There's a serious point here though - you're likely to find literally anything replicated in adult kink products/scenes. Most likely a lot of stuff many posters have in their own wardrobes, too.

The red PVC (not latex! very different in fact!) doll is covered neck-to-ankles and is wearing a full-length cotton t shirt under her jacket. Googling for (male!) latex adult fetishwear and claiming that it's analogous to a doll's vinyl-sprayed fabric outfit is utterly bizarre.

If you're scrolling through gay male rubber couture to make a point about a doll who's wearing something in a vague similar colour and texture... maybe you ought to have a look at yourself.

I could see both sides at first but pp has changed my mind with this post.

Why are these sexualised dolls never aimed at boys

So true. Imagine the right sided doll was supposed to represent a boy instead of a girl, and was dressed in men's fetish wear. Say a gimp suit, or maybe a pair of arse less chaps and some nipple clamps. Would that be considered normal and just a bit of fun?

To the innocent eye they probably look fashionable but there’s such a thing as fashion based on fetish gear. The one on the rights trousers are suspect.

I think they’re ugly and they make Barbie look like a good role model in comparison.

@TreeSmuggler

I could see both sides at first but pp has changed my mind with this post.

Why are these sexualised dolls never aimed at boys

So true. Imagine the right sided doll was supposed to represent a boy instead of a girl, and was dressed in men's fetish wear. Say a gimp suit, or maybe a pair of arse less chaps and some nipple clamps. Would that be considered normal and just a bit of fun?

Plenty of dolls for boys are full of mucles/naked torsos/etc.

And from where I watch, what you are considering sexualised really depends on your perception. I see nothing sexual in those dolls. I may not like them and I would not buy them unless requested explicitly.

I still fail to see the sexualised bit (unless you can see pretty much on every thing).

I’m not sure about this one… my dd had a few LOLs and it was mainly the bits and bobs, play sand etc in the packaging she enjoyed the most, plus anything that changes colour in the cold etc. I avoid them if possible because of the excessive plastic. In terms of the clothing - she liked swapping things around, putting skirts/shoes on, but wouldn’t aspire to dress or look that way and had many other toys which were played with more - from tractors to sylvanian families. I think in her mind they go I’m the same category as a build a bear cat in a tutu or a trolls figurine… cartoonish. I agree that as kids have no preconception about clothing etc, she would just see “cheerleader in sparkly pants” rather than “sexy cheerleader”

However I think as adults, there is a worry about the normalisation of certain looks and body types - particularly figures only possible with plastic surgery or extreme weight loss. Even down to Disney dolls with extreme thigh gaps and waists narrower than their foreheads. Also, the issue of sexualised images/dolls which would appeal to paedophiles as much as 5 year olds makes me feel uneasy, so I’m really not sure.

Those tree change dolls are so beautiful though.

@Flyingantday

I’m not sure about this one… my dd had a few LOLs and it was mainly the bits and bobs, play sand etc in the packaging she enjoyed the most, plus anything that changes colour in the cold etc. I avoid them if possible because of the excessive plastic. In terms of the clothing - she liked swapping things around, putting skirts/shoes on, but wouldn’t aspire to dress or look that way and had many other toys which were played with more - from tractors to sylvanian families. I think in her mind they go I’m the same category as a build a bear cat in a tutu or a trolls figurine… cartoonish. I agree that as kids have no preconception about clothing etc, she would just see “cheerleader in sparkly pants” rather than “sexy cheerleader”

However I think as adults, there is a worry about the normalisation of certain looks and body types - particularly figures only possible with plastic surgery or extreme weight loss. Even down to Disney dolls with extreme thigh gaps and waists narrower than their foreheads. Also, the issue of sexualised images/dolls which would appeal to paedophiles as much as 5 year olds makes me feel uneasy, so I’m really not sure.

Those tree change dolls are so beautiful though.

I am no expert, but my guess is that paedophiles are attracted by the "innocent", non-sexual aspect of childhood much more than by this teen's look. The more innocent, the better..

We may not like the style or the promotion of certain body types directly or indirectly, but I see no sexualisation whatsoever there. And I very much doubt children do.

@RantyAunty

Mine are way too old for dolls so I had to look them up.

Absolutely disgusting. You have to wonder what will come out later about their creator issac larian

The fucked up lingerie and the bizarre looking genitals on these dolls.

OMG, at first I thought that dolls was smeared with blood.

@InPraiseOfBacchus

Googling for (male!) latex adult fetishwear and claiming that it's analogous to a doll's vinyl-sprayed fabric outfit is utterly bizarre.

First of all it makes no odds if it’s pvc or latex - they’re shiny red rubber/plastic.

Utterly bizarre to deny that the doll’s red leggings are inspired by adult fetishware. Red, shiny leggings with criss cross black ties. Googled for a pic I’ve seen people wearing them. Linked a male as cba to find a female.

Those dolls are grim and inappropriate OP. Does anyone remember the Sheena doll? She sported a rather fetching lilac trouser suit. She had short auburn hair but had a miraculous contraption on her back that you could turn and she grew a long ponytail that could be styled. She must have been considerably cheaper than Barbie otherwise I wouldn’t have got one. My Nan made her a whole wardrobe of clothes none of which funnily enough included fetish wear!

@TreeSmuggler

I could see both sides at first but pp has changed my mind with this post.

Why are these sexualised dolls never aimed at boys

So true. Imagine the right sided doll was supposed to represent a boy instead of a girl, and was dressed in men's fetish wear. Say a gimp suit, or maybe a pair of arse less chaps and some nipple clamps. Would that be considered normal and just a bit of fun?

The dolls for boys is a whole other typed of f*cked up. It leads increasingly more often to steroid use and excessive work out routines.

@Lweji

Not my cup of tea. But, sexualised?

The one of the left is wearing the full Lolita get-up. Pretty sexual if you ask me.

It’s just an odd choice by the designer.