Yah or nay?
And parents would you or have you allowed your child to have a anatomically correct doll?
And parents would you or have you allowed your child to have a anatomically correct doll?
Should children's dolls be anatomically correct?
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
Might depend on the age group (infant/elementary age/teen/adult) the doll is supposed to represent. I'm thinking it's better for a child to learn that boys are different than girls (without knowing the purpose behind the difference) in a manner where the parents can control the situation. But the fashon dolls and the action figures that have different uniforms are fine with an appearance resembling what would occur if a real person were wearing a skin tone body suit.
I overheard two women talking about this today. One had bought an anatomically baby boy doll for her daughter and the other woman disapproved.
Dolls make me more uncomfortable the more they are lifelike, for example those baby-dolls that cry and stuff are extremely creepy to me and I don't understand why parents let their kids play with that.
Definitely yes. When I was a kid I had a Teddy Bear and the spleen was in the wrong place-- drove me crazy. 
So if these baby dolls came to life and starting overrunning the world, would you be of no use in humanity's fight for survival?
No, I would probably dig myself a bunker and hide for a couple decades hoping the dolls are defeated when I come up again.
I have just spent time doing a little research on this subject and among the interesting sites I looked at was The Naked Barbie Project. This site might or might be NSFW depending on how prudish your employers are.
On the site the man tells about his phone calls to Mattel telling them of his desire to buy an anatomically correct Ken and Barbie.
He then tells (and shows in photos) how he modified Ken and Barbie himself. For example he says
After sorting out the problem with eBay he phoned Mattel again to tell them about his success.
On the site the man tells about his phone calls to Mattel telling them of his desire to buy an anatomically correct Ken and Barbie.
He then tells (and shows in photos) how he modified Ken and Barbie himself. For example he says
He then put his Anatomically correct Ken and Barbie up on eBay. He had bought the dolls for $14, spent a few cents modifying them and was able to sell them for $250. However after the sale eBay took the listing down and he had to email them to see why.
After sorting out the problem with eBay he phoned Mattel again to tell them about his success.
Last edited:
^ Darn, I haven't laughed that hard in weeks. 
I don't see why not. I mean, when I was a young child my sister and I were bathed together. So we were quite aware in a casually detached way that boys and girls were different. It wasn't an issue. There was zero interest in "parts" because they were simply there. The sexual aspect was explained to me at age 8 following the "where do babies come from" question, my mother showed me a book and I learnt some biology, then went off and continued on as normal. Interesting, but of no particular importance. These things only become issues when you insist on making a fuss of them and acting like it's some sort of forbidden knowledge. At the very least, that encourages children to associate genitalia with sex alone, where otherwise sex is simply one function for adults and genitalia are not in themselves sexual. And if it's forbidden, hush-hush, it encourages children to want to grow up and learn it, so they're far more likely to obsess over sex at an unhealthy age. I never did- I knew the basics about sex, so I had no particular urge to discover "the secrets" and continued happily on into adolescence before becoming sexual at a healthy time.
So, yes, I'd give my young children anatomically correct dolls. Let them become used to basic biology instead of tantilizing them with forbidden fruit and acting as though genitals implies sex. That's pretty disgusting seeing as young children see each others genitals, parents see the children's genitals, etc. What are you implying? So many adults may be fixated on the genitals but I'm sure to the child it'll be just another part of the doll and they won't think anything of it. Frankly, I'd rather not install in my children this complete and utter obsession with sexualized genitalia and the concept of some sort of hushed-up nautighness.
Genitals do not equal sex. To imply that they do is...disturbing.
So, yes, I'd give my young children anatomically correct dolls. Let them become used to basic biology instead of tantilizing them with forbidden fruit and acting as though genitals implies sex. That's pretty disgusting seeing as young children see each others genitals, parents see the children's genitals, etc. What are you implying? So many adults may be fixated on the genitals but I'm sure to the child it'll be just another part of the doll and they won't think anything of it. Frankly, I'd rather not install in my children this complete and utter obsession with sexualized genitalia and the concept of some sort of hushed-up nautighness.
Genitals do not equal sex. To imply that they do is...disturbing.
The mother who I overheard told the other woman that her daughter regularly saw her baby brother naked and therefore it was only naturally for her baby boy doll should look the same as her baby brother did.
Edited to add - as far as Barbie dolls go - as I child I found it odd that Barbie had no nipples especially as one of my two baby girl dolls did.
I played with Barbies from between about 7 to 11 years of age. I couldn't have care less about having a Ken doll, I though Ken was boring, and him having genitalia wouldn't have made any difference to me.
Edited to add - as far as Barbie dolls go - as I child I found it odd that Barbie had no nipples especially as one of my two baby girl dolls did.
I played with Barbies from between about 7 to 11 years of age. I couldn't have care less about having a Ken doll, I though Ken was boring, and him having genitalia wouldn't have made any difference to me.
This is strange, when I was a kid, Barbie seemed to wear some sort of underwear. The one on this site seems to have just nothing. Now I'm uncomfortable.
Indeed.
The way I see it, if "he" didn't, she'd ask why, and that would raise the issue of sex, and the adult's blushing concept of secret naughtiness. Soon that girl would be identifying genitalia in and of themselves with naughtiness, plus a desire to learn these "secrets"...that's not healthy, in my opinion, because I see it as encouraging her to equate genitalia with sex, making her a sexual being long before she should be.
Do you mean having underwear as part of her body? I don't remember my Barbies being like that (but I might be wrong). I do remember having underwear among her clothes.
That was maybe only Ken, I don't remember very well and like you, I didn't have any Ken dolls (because boys are just annoying
).Edit : I will try to find pictures when I will be at home. How weird is typing in google "Ken Barbie naked" ?
Last edited:
From what I recall of my sister's Barbie dolls, the male dolls always had unremovable fleshtone briefs, and the female dolls just had... nothing. Definitely weird.
I wouldn't object to my kids having genitally-accurate dolls. They already know that boys are different from girls. A doll isn't going to teach them anything they don't know.
I wouldn't object to my kids having genitally-accurate dolls. They already know that boys are different from girls. A doll isn't going to teach them anything they don't know.
Similar threads
