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

@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?

Action man and Ken were pretty buff, but straight men don’t tend to sexualise their appearance as much as gay men, and neither does society so a sexualised male may not sell so well to boys. I suspect it would be regarded as looking ‘gay’.

Having said that boys do get pressure on their appearance from popular culture - one of my sons is preoccupied with diet and working out at 15.

Assumptions are interesting @rainbowmash

I'm pretty active in the local fet scene, I helped set up and run a successful and popular local munch. I go to a variety of clubs, events and parties where actual BDSM and fet play takes place and am friends with people who are heavily involved with the rubber/PVC fet scene including someone who runs PVC and vac bed events.

What I'm not into are dance clubs with a dress code like some of the more well known ones that make the papers.

Yuck.

Yes because Googling “red pvc outfit” throws up so many fashionable lady choices… I actually can’t see any rubber male suggestions?

My ex used to run fetish nights at Torture Garden in the early noughties and I can confirm that a head to toe red pvc is indeed fetishwear 🤣. If you take off the t shirt underneath it ain’t nothing else. The t shirt is the only aspect that is not fetish in the whole outfit!!!

I always thought Barbie was a teenager as she had a little sister and a boyfriend. You can get Barbies which are all different sizes now and colours and hairstyles. Some are marketed at younger girls while some are definitely collectables for older people. I used to have a Sindy ballerina doll who wore trendy clothes after her ballet classes. Notable was her gold pencil skirt and red blouse. We used to put on fashion shows with them at school.

Those LOL dolls do look a bit over the top and I probably wouldn't buy them for a child. Barbie is much more wholesome.

@User5490453456

I have inside knowledge on how the company markets these dolls. The whole image is based off "coolest girl in class" and the products are extremely expensive. It's primarily targeted to tweens/teens and the pester power they give their parents because having a doll is like being friends with the cool girl. The company spends enormous sums of money on influencer marketing (eg someone getting paid four figures to attend a single pr event, which is almost always unpaid in influencer marketing). They make sure the brand is associated with real life idols of these young girls which heightens pester power.

To be honest the outfits aren't really the issue. They're supposed to be edgy and a bit sexy and I wouldn't be surprised if they're based on fetish costumes. However at a glance, the doll on the left is inspired by "soft girl/fairy kei/gothic lolita" fashion which is very popular online, and the one on the right is a dupe for Kim Kardashian. Basically girls don't buy the dolls because of the sexiness factor even though it might look that way to adults. The selling point of those dolls are the surprise factor (there are tons of cheap plastic tat in each set to unpack) and the exclusivity and hype.

The outfits may appear inappropriate but no worse than what girls see on celebrities or a casual flip through Instagram. It'll also be a stretch to say the dolls are a bad influence since teen girls will eventually get exposed to slutty content all over social media anyway. The dolls are simply money making machines because of the huge markup and the fact that girls are pressured into wanting something that's reasonably well over any parent's budget. The prices range from £20 (blind boxes that cost £5 from other brands) to £200+ (dollhouses).

It feels like a gateway into irresponsible spending as an adult. The idea that something is priced just out of reach but you "have to have it". It's also introduces kids to status symbols and judging or being judged for no being able to afford something.

I can understand that they’d want to associate the dolls with teens in the minds of younger girls, but I’m pretty sceptical that they’re actually concentrating on marketing them to teens.

Have you met any teenagers?

@DoylyCarte

Yes because Googling “red pvc outfit” throws up so many fashionable lady choices… I actually can’t see any rubber male suggestions?

My ex used to run fetish nights at Torture Garden in the early noughties and I can confirm that a head to toe red pvc is indeed fetishwear 🤣. If you take off the t shirt underneath it ain’t nothing else. The t shirt is the only aspect that is not fetish in the whole outfit!!!

I linked a pic of a man wearing red latex leggings with black cross ties very similar to the doll.

Idk why anyone is bothering to dispute the red pvc look is inspired by fetishwear, it’s bleedin’ obvious.

It is not that 'bleedin' obvious, you see? At least not for those among us who are not into fetishwear.

Red lace-up PVC, and spiked dog-collar type hair accesories.
Alrighty then.

Having said that boys do get pressure on their appearance from popular culture - one of my sons is preoccupied with diet and working out at 15.
Young men/teenage boys are definitely under pressure now, watching love Island and viewing Instagram.
Lots of them body shave, eyebrows shaped, sun bed, some of the teenage boys my niece's hang out with are chiselled and sculptured with muscles.
My nephew 14 was suicidal after some counselling his slim body was the main focus of his despair.

*accessories

@camaleon

It is not that 'bleedin' obvious, you see? At least not for those among us who are not into fetishwear.

You don't need to be into fetishwear to know the outfit is inappropriate for a doll aimed at 5 year olds.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8732677/One-Britains-best-selling-dolls-reveal-secret-adult-style-lingerie-plunged-water.html

Yeah, and when you put them in water it reveals the lingerie they have on. Fucking gross.

It's primarily targeted to tweens/teens

Really? I'm middle-aged but even in my long-ago youth, girls didn't really play with dolls beyond primary school age.

YANBU

I HATE the LOL dolls. Why the fuck do dolls need to be in fishnet tights and knickers.

And the names - fucking spicy babe?

It's primarily targeted to tweens/teens
Wtf? Of course they're not 🤦‍♀️

@Mummadeze

Lots of dolls look like this now. They don’t look sexualised to me. Just fun and fashionable.

The eyes are far too large surely?!

Going on a tangent, the company plagiarised the entire image of a blogger and turned it into a doll: www.thefashionlaw.com/last-year-mga-introduced-a-new-l-o-l-surprise-doll-and-it-looks-a-whole-lot-like-this-artist/
The CEO was extremely rude to the blogger on Twitter when asked about it and not sure how the story ended. I think she wanted to sue but obviously lacked funds and would probably not win anyway.

A lot of the LOL dolls are based on grossly exaggerated street fashion, celebrities, pop stars, influencers etc. It's simply whatever is trendy and edgy right now. If you look at the concert outfits of Cardi B or Meghan Thee Stallion, they are virtually identical to fetishwear and nobody cares (nor should they). Many of the dolls are actually more tame in design and focus on cute styles but it's basically whatever appeals to girls.

Yes, I agree with PP that although they seem to be marketed to tweens, a huge demographic is between 5 and 10. The cheap products inside never match the price and there's a MASSIVE amount of plastic packaging waste. I'm not even a typical eco-warrior/Fridays for Future person but the wastage in a LOL ball is insane. I personally don't allow DD to have them. She can complain all she wants but she'll be getting a lecture in capitalism and marketing from me

Having said that boys do get pressure on their appearance from popular culture - one of my sons is preoccupied with diet and working out at 15.

Yes this is a big issue but a different one imo. Yes Ken might be muscled but would you see him on the shelf wearing a leather fetish outfit and carrying a cat o nine tails, no you wouldn't. It's impossible to even imagine.

You don't need to be into fetishwear to know the outfit is inappropriate for a doll aimed at 5 year olds

Exactly. So much denial and faux naivety. The red doll is wearing a full pvc suit and a studded collar with a ring at the front. Cute and fashionable? Ay right. Anyone who doesn’t admit this is blatantly normalising the sexualisation of children is either extraordinarily gullible or part of the problem.

@FuckingFlumps, my point is that not everybody sees as you do and not 'appropriate', whatever appropriate for a doll means, is not the same as sexualised.

The showing underwear thing under water, if true, is a cut above and I would consider that very sexualised. But the dolls as presented in first photo do not seem to me sexualised per se and I very much doubt they do to a 5 years old.

(not sure at what age 'fucking' becomes 'appropriate' as username)

@PinkTonic

You don't need to be into fetishwear to know the outfit is inappropriate for a doll aimed at 5 year olds

Exactly. So much denial and faux naivety. The red doll is wearing a full pvc suit and a studded collar with a ring at the front. Cute and fashionable? Ay right. Anyone who doesn’t admit this is blatantly normalising the sexualisation of children is either extraordinarily gullible or part of the problem.

So count me in. Does it make you feel any better to go around knowing that much about other people based on the fact they don't see fetishwear and sex on those dolls.

But the dolls as presented in first photo do not seem to me sexualised per se and I very much doubt they do to a 5 years old.

Just because they wouldn't seem sexulised to a 5 year old doesn't mean that teh adults designing them should make them. Many things would pass over a child's head due to their innocence but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still have standards on what is and isn't acceptable. You might think it's cool and clever to say that you don't see them as sexulised but you're clearly in a minority and the intention of the designers was very obviously not innocent.

not sure at what age 'fucking' becomes 'appropriate' as username

Not at all sure what my username has to do with anything but if you must know it's because all my toddler wanted to eat whilst he was cutting his molars was flumps and I got sick of buying more fucking flumps. If you read something more into it then that's ok you.

(not sure at what age 'fucking' becomes 'appropriate' as username)
This is Mumsnet. It's not aimed at 5 year olds, unlike those abominations which are; despite the attempt to persuade us they're actually aimed at teenagers.
As if...

@SquirryTheSquirrel

It's primarily targeted to tweens/teens

Really? I'm middle-aged but even in my long-ago youth, girls didn't really play with dolls beyond primary school age.

I remember that. No more barbies by the time you were actually a teen. At that point you're supposed to be the "barbie" so to speak. At that point you're suppsed to focus on your own appearance and be well versed in pop culture.