• Tue, Feb 18 - 12:53 pm ET

Barbie Is No Longer For Your Daughter And Sports Illustrated Has Made Sure Of That

Barbie Celebrates 50th Anniversary of Sport Illustraded SwimsuitLooking at the images of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition launch party that was held last night in New York City for the release of the 50th anniversary issue I can’t help but feel that my initial concern over using Barbie for the cover-wrap and in the four page advertorial inside the magazine was justified.

Barbie, who many of us parents know as a toy our kids love to play with has now graced the cover wrap of a men’s magazine that showcases beautiful and heavily photoshopped models in provocative poses wearing swimsuits, body paint, and in some cases, nothing. There is nothing wrong with the female body or beautiful women or adults admiring these things, but adding a child’s plaything, and an amazingly iconic one like Barbie, to the mix has taken this toy and shoved it into a world of grownup sexuality and soft-porn, heavily-filtered, lip glossed and silicone masturbation material.

he Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 50th Anniversary ny

Because that’s what the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition is. Don’t kid yourself. People don’t purchase this edition of the magazine because it showcases strong female athletes and discusses their athletic prowess and how they became the best in their respective sports. People don’t purchase this edition of this magazine because it informs them about the models who pose legs splayed in its pages and what they did to become some of the most beautiful women in the world.

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 50th Anniversary

They buy it because it gives them boners. Because it’s titillating. Because it’s hot and sexy models in beautiful locations wearing next to nothing and providing the world a chance to gaze upon their beauty and reveal in their sexiness.

And now your daughter’s toy, that she dresses, that she lugs with when you go out to eat , that she kisses and sleeps with and creates stories with and has all sorts of playtime adventures with is next to these women, these hot, sexual, scantily attired and provocatively posed women and I’m sorry, I’m amazingly #unapologetic at how pissed off this makes me.

My kid, your kid, may never see this magazine. They may never know of its existence. But as parents, and as consumers, we do see it, and we know about it, and if you aren’t creeped out by the fact a TOY YOUR OWN DAUGHTER PROBABLY ADORES is placed in the pages of what is basically a masturbation magazine I can’t change your mind. If you can’t see how problematic this is, not only to women and to young girls, and what a huge disservice this is to our kids and the tremendous problem of the sexualization of children, I can’t change your mind. This whole Barbie fiasco is basically spitting in the face of the notion of protecting the innocence of children who at Barbie playing age have no business even being exposed to the idea of adults using magazines to get off on.

Because that’s what the Sports illustrated Swimsuit edition is.

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 50th Anniversary

And now your kid’s toy is in it.

This is wrong, and I’m totally #unapologetic about wanting to toss all my kid’s Barbies on the BBQ. I wonder if Mattel considers I might not be the only mom who doesn’t want to consider eyes roaming from one beautiful women in a bikini to my kid’s doll wearing a bathing suit.

Barbie belongs to MY kid. I have purchased many Barbies in my life time, and she wasn’t supposed to be used in this way. Barbie doesn’t belong to adults who want to look at beautiful women wearing swimsuits. Barbie sleeps next to my daughter and gets held and hugged and played with. Barbie was for little kids, and little girls especially. Mattel and Sports Illustrated have taken her away from our kids. It isn’t hysterical for me to be offended by this. This has nothing to do with whether or not I feel Barbie is a good role model for my daughter and her own developing body image. All this has to do is with a TOY being placed in an adult publication, a place that is for adults, and for adult consumers. Barbie doesn’t belong there. And until this happened, she belonged in my daughter’s toy box. But guess what? You can have her.

(Images: WENN)

Share This Post:
  • Elisa Probert

    Honestly, every kid I know has like, zero interest in Barbie. They’re all about Bratz or Monster High. Or those American Girl knockoffs.

    Mattel has been working on slitting their own throats for a while now by making the play dolls a bunch of uninspired cheapo crap you have to buy DVDs to understand. This, well, it’s just one more really weird decision in a string of decisions made by people who were apparently never girls. Or maybe even never humans.

    And you put a Katy Perry song in my head now with the mental image of Barbie on the barbecue. Stupid Friday night song. Why must you be so catchy?

  • tk88

    You know Barbie was modeled after a German sex doll that was originally meant for adults? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild_Lilli_doll
    She’s always looked sexual, this isn’t a new thing. And I still think Barbie doesn’t look as bad or slutty as Bratz or other popular dolls.

    • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

      They should just use a blowup doll in the SI issue

    • Amy

      Yes because that response wasn’t hysterical or weird at all. In reality that *is* the history of Barbie. She’s always been a defacto sex object for little girls to emulate so they can grow up to be women who are in turn viewed as bjects to be coveted, much as Barbies original inspiration was. Ignoring that by glossing over it with an inane does nothing to advance the conversation you started and doesn’t help your case or convince anyone that you’re anything more than misguided at best and an aimless malcontent at worst. Maybe next time google before you hand your kid the toy based on a sex doll and save everybody the trouble.

    • Buffy

      No, the german Lilli-Doll was modelled after a comic-strip about a modern secretary. Yes, she looked sexy, but was never a “sex doll”. Like a matchbox car for men it was meant for women ( also for children but she was expensive)-like a clever design idea. A grown-up doll you could dress in fancy clothing ( well, it still fascinating for kids/adults)
      The original Lilli isn’t even able to spread her legs—she was sassy but also ladylike ^^
      A distant friend of my mother had one and my mother did envy her so much!

  • Janette

    So, based on this inane premise, any child’s toy featured in a wank mag is forever tainted? Are you serious? This argument reminds me of the nonsense that I use to hear as a child living among southern Baptist extremists, about forbidding people to see movies because the ticket money goes to making porn films. Yes, your argument is exactly that stupid and extreme. The mentality is the mentality of the book burner. Your position is the position of the victim. How about this, how about making your child’s Barbie doll exactly what you want it to be for her instead of letting the patriarchy dictate to you what THEY want it to be for her. You can be a victim, and you can let your child be a victim of that, but not me. This kind of uneducated knee jerk reactionary response is the result of fear. When I watch my two daughters play with their dolls and think of how this article tries to shame the actual doll and giving up power instead of taking that power back, it just makes me sick for the state of feminism today. Slut shaming a doll. That’s what it’s come to. Book burning by conservative extremists to feminists burning Barbie dolls because of what a MAN did with it. I really feel terribly sorry for you. I hope you do not pass on this paralyzing, dangerous and reactionary fear of the patriarchy to your children.

    • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

      It has nothing to do with a victim, it has to be not being a consumer of a product that is marketed to children and then featured in a “wank magazine.” I’ve cut Barbie enough slack, for me this is taking it to far.

  • Personal

    Amen. It bothers me, too. And yes, my girl is a Barbie-fanatic. For now.

  • Momma425

    Barbie was my favorite toy growing up. Not kidding- I was so socially awkward. When I was working on sharing- so were my Barbie’s. They talked it out. They acted out fears. When I was fighting with my friends- my Barbie’s were fighting too. Through them, I was able to teach myself empathy and really understand my friend’s point of view and perspective. When I learned how to braid hair and needed practice- Barbie was there for me. She was my best friend for years of my life and I look back on the time I spent playing with Barbie nostalgically.

    When I got my daughter her first Barbie, I am not going to lie, I was excited. I know, I know. I’m not supposed to pigeon hole my daughter and I’m not supposed to do the gender stereotype thing- but I don’t care. I was excited and thrilled to see my little girl sharing my love for Barbie in the same way my husband falls over himself running outside with his baseball glove when she asks him to play catch.

    This whole Barbie in SI thing- I am put off because I have a daughter, yes. I am put off because I know it will be an issue when she sees a “Barbie magazine” at the grocery store check out like, and doesn’t understand why we are not buying it. I am offended at the implications- why it is only girls toys that are turned into sexual objects, and not ninja turtles? But to be perfectly honest- I am mostly offended for me. I am offended because that was my favorite childhood toy, and to see my Barbie reduced to nothing but a sex object for men to jerk off to is disgusting and horrifying to me. It’s offensive in the same way I would be offended to go to Disneyland and see Minnie Mouse walking around in a thong bikini.

    I’m not going to take away all of my daughter’s dolls and burn them at the stake or anything- because she has no idea and will probably never understand. But for me, the joy of sharing my childhood BFF with my daughter is completely ruined for ME because while she doesn’t know…I do, and it feels like a loss of innocence.

    • kiwiinoz

      Well said. At first I didn’t understand that some women had fond memories of Barbie, but then I read posts like yours and see the innocence of childhood. Perhaps though, we grew up in a less openly sexualised era? Maybe. I don’t know. Maybe we just have more recourse to vent the frustrations our mothers had but got over. Kind of. I think its crap that they put a little girls doll in a mens magazine, even if it is “soft porn”. Its like, Barbie being all smiley and happy is no longer because she’s you know, Barbie, but because she is *sexy*. Sorry that you had a precious childhood memory ruined: that bites.

  • Crusty Socks

    As a dude, it’s hard for me to relate to you Eve

    But if I ever saw GI Joe’s in a bikini, I’d flip out too… unless it’s Lady Jane or Scarlett

  • Kelly

    I don’t really understand why she can’t be more than one thing. It makes me think of people who thought I couldn’t be a good mom because I was a stripper. I had no problem separating the two things.

    • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

      because this is people being dickish to you as a grownup. You are a human. This is a kid’s toy

    • guest

      But it’s not just that – it has been around for so many years, it’s endearing to children and adults alike – it is something that I as a late 20′s something have fond memories off, any man that passes an aisle of barbies will get as much exposure as the SI issue is showing- if that is what you are worried about!!

    • Kheldarson

      That’s not the worry. It’s not how much she’s exposed; it’s not how much this advertises. It’s the association. She is now directly associated with being a sex object. That should be viewed as being a problem.

    • guest

      With that logic anyone in a bathing suit ever should be identified as being a sex object. She will only be defined as so by the people who decide that is her new role, or you can just think the same thing many other people think- she is a plastic doll? For the record- I think people have objectified her as a sex object way before a magazine cover.

    • Kheldarson

      Yes, they have because she’s ridiculously proportioned. However, she, and the women in the magazine spread, aren’t being sexualized because of the swimsuits they’re wearing. They’re being sexualized because that’s how they’re being presented. They’re posed to titillate. They aren’t always wearing the swimsuits, as is. And Mattel has placed a toy that they keep claiming as a role model for girls in the middle of this. Is that the type of role model we want for our girls? “Hey, you can be anything as long as you look good and are willing to sell on that sex appeal.”

      Great message.

    • Dominique

      The thing is, they’re not sexualized on the packaging in the toy aisles. A 5 year old girl with a Barbie only understands what we as parents tell them about female objectification. It’s my job as a parent to help my daughter see something positive in Barbie or in any toy or doll. It’s my job to tell my daughter that not everyone looks like Barbie and that’s ok. It’s the job of the parent to define what Barbie, or any toy, should be to our children. Not Mattel and not Sports Illustrated. I prefer to teach my daughter to understand all this and empower her to make the definitions rather than letting advertisers and toy companies dictate them to her or us.

    • TngldBlue

      That is all well and good but we live in a big, wide, world and kids are exposed to some heavy duty levels of media in their every day life (an average kid will see approximately 50,000 commercials each year-and that’s just TV). You can teach your child, talk to your child, educate your child but it is an uphill battle combating the constant barrage of images they will see just the first 18 years of their life. You can tell your daughter 100 times a day, every day that it’s ok not to look like that airbrushed model but when they see those images over and over again, it is extremely difficult to counteract. It is insidious. And we’re not even talking about how this stuff affects boys and young men and how it skews their view of females. How blurry are we going to allow the media to make the line between what is appropriate for children and adults before we’ve had enough? Obviously by the comments here, even placing a toy intended for children in a magazine entirely based on sex hasn’t crossed that line so what will?

    • Momma425

      Okay- it’s like this ET toy. I would never ever buy it for my kid. My kid might never make the connection, my kid might not understand why I don’t find it appropriate, my kid might look at the toy and see simply a plastic ET finger.
      And maybe I am overreacting. Maybe you look at this toy and see no problem with it, and think nothing but a piece of plastic. With my logic, anything with finger-shapes on it should be identified as being a sex object. But I know what the toy looks like, and I would feel uncomfortable with my child playing with it, being the adult that I am and knowing what I know.
      The reason Barbie is so upsetting to me isn’t as much for my daughter. It’s because a toy I always saw as completely innocent is now turned into not. My daughter might never find out or see it- but I know.

    • Kelly

      I don’t understand your argument here. Yes, I am a person. I was “sexualized” at my job. That’s basically the whole point of being a stripper. Yet I was still able to go home and be a normal mom wearing sweat pants and going to PTA meetings and burn cookies and all that good shit.

      So, if it’s ok for a human being to do it, I can’t figure out why it’s so horrible and the worst thing ever for a chunk of plastic. Do we need to treat plastic better than human beings for some reason? Does plastic have higher standards?

    • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

      Because you are a human, you weren’t manufactured as a kid’s toy.

    • Kelly

      Yes, that’s true and it supports my stance on this issue. How do you explain to a child that Barbie is now bad because she posed in a swimsuit in a magazine and then expect her not to judge actual women who do it?

      This all just reeks of hardcore slut shaming to me and I’m surprised it’s coming from you. If you’re so offended by a picture of Barbie in a bathing suit, I have to wonder what you really think of women like me.

    • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

      It’s not even barbie that’s bad per se, and as far as explaining it to my kid, it’s more of me thinking it’s a bad move on Mattel’s part. If we need to equate this to your profession, I may have no issue with what you do, I may teach my kid not to have an issue with what you do, but would I take my young daughter to see you work? Nope.

    • Kelly

      I wouldn’t expect you to take your young daughter to a strip club but I also wouldn’t expect you to hand her the SI swimsuit edition so that seems like a moot point.

      Nowhere did I suggest you take your kid to a strip club, that’s kind of a ridiculous statement for you to make and it’s offensive. I guess you ran out of real points, huh?

      You’re slut shaming with this barrage of articles. Either it’s disgusting and horrible to be in a swimsuit magazine or it’s not. You are shaming each and every live woman in that magazine with this nonsense. Personally, I’d like our society, and especially my fellow women, to move away from that attitude, not rush blindly back into it over a stupid doll.

    • Momma425

      Okay, that is absolutely enough. If I could think of anyone anti-slut-shamey…it’s Eve.

      If you want to use a live person as an example- it would be like if the models posing basically nude in this magazine, or playboy bunnies, or whatever were featured on the disney channel for children. There is a reason that nobody decided to make a Jenna Jamison toy line for little kids- because Jenna Jamison is an adult star, not someone who belongs in the kids toy isle.

      You might not see the big deal, and that is fine. To me, it is something that I played with as a kid, and didn’t really think about all in that way and now it ruined Barbie for me in the same way that Christmas is ruined after watching Santa clause have sex. Do I think that sex is a bad thing? No. Do I think that every single woman who poses in the SI swimsuit edition is a slut? No. But it feels like a loss of innocence and is very disappointing to me as a consumer.

      Further- I’m going to be point blank here. I think that very few parents are sitting in the hospital, holding their baby daughters and hoping that one day she will become a stripper, or pose nude in a magazine. Would I still love my daughter if she chose to do that? Absolutely. Do I think she should dislike or be unkind to others who choose to do that? Absolutely not, I teach her to respect people regardless of their profession or hobbies or differing values. But I don’t teach my daughter that it is okay to wear barely there swimsuits and pose nude in magazines because those aren’t my values. Teaching my daughter what my values are and what my family’s values are isn’t slut shaming.

    • kiwiinoz

      Define slut. To me a stripper is more like a whore only she works harder. Neither industry is as exploitatave as being an unpaid slut who excercises no agency over her own power. Is it disgusting and horrible to be in afir swimsuit magazine? No. But for the stripper the whore the si model to deny that their only value in these arenas is in their pussies is to shame themselves as. woefully unintelligent.
      A childrens toy next to swimsuit models is a blatant statement of aspiration for young girls, it normalises a whole lot of messages.

    • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

      It’s fine and great for adult women to be in a swimsuit magazine.

      It’s offensive and inappropriate to put an iconic kid’s toy in a swimsuit magazine.

  • guest

    I kinds hate that you/commenters constantly refer to SI as a ‘wank magazine’ – I find that more offensive than the Barbie thing- by constantly writing about it you are drawing attention to it, this is like the third/fourth article you have written on it. Give it a rest – you don’t like it- guess what, just like everything else it will disappear. But SI is a wank magazine because it features scantly clad women in bathing suits on their bathing suit issue – come on! By that same logic almost every magazine excluding maybe Woman’s World is a wank magazine.

    • Rachel Sea

      Is there any reason why a magazine aimed at men would feature an entire issue of models in swimsuits, except as wank fodder?

    • guest

      Is every single issue of the magazine splattered with models in swimsuits? It’s no different that cosmo’s ‘hunk of the month’ or whatever issues and I certainly don’t use that as wank fodder. I think that there are many more magazines that are better wank fodder. Without the swimsuits.

    • Rachel Sea

      But this magazine, the swimsuit issue, it’s for wanking. It doesn’t matter whether you think there are better, because wank fodder is 100% subjective.

    • Kelly

      By that logic, anything could be considered wank fodder, including the Toys ‘r’ us catalog.

    • ElleJai

      Some guys I know used to use the Target catalogue to get off as young teens.

      So yeah, anything can be wank fodder, however it’s not all DESIGNED to be.

    • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

      It was the bullseye wasn’t it?

  • Kheldarson

    I personally think that Barbie being in SI is ridiculous because she’s a toy. Not because she’s meant for kids but because she’s a toy in a magazine that celebrates human athleticism (even if it’s the cover for wank fodder). A toy cannot be athletic.

    And not to negate the point here- which I do agree that this makes it weird in treating her as a good role model for kids now- but she hasn’t been a child’s toy exclusively for a while. About half the Barbie aisle are styles that are never supposed to be opened, but instead collected and put on display. By adults.

  • CrazyFor Kate

    Okay, this is like your third article on it, right? What more is there to be said? It’s just a toy whose image was used in an inappropriate manner, and in a week this will all be likely forgotten – if they had an ongoing campaign, maybe that’s a call for this much protest, but something like this is really not going to taint the brand forever. Furthermore, I don’t think most kids are browsing the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition, so they’re never going to make such an association. I just really think you’ve beat this drum WAY too long. One article, okay. Three? Come on.

    • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

      But see where it says Barbie in the head along with my name ? You should assume I am bitching about Barbie so maybe don’t click?

    • kiwiinoz

      See Eve you are supposed to accept the things your gut knows are wrong. That. Way we can continue to control and shape womens reality all the. way to the bank.

  • ArcRoyale

    Creepy, yes. But that said, barbie is practically the archetype of the models that appear in the SI Swimsuit edition.

  • Ro

    I guess I find it more worthy of an eye roll than furious indignation. I think it’s a silly ad campaign and strange that they are choosing to use a toy in a magazine for adults. My daughter will never see it though, so I don’t feel angry about it. I find some of the outfits on Barbie and the excess makeup more irritating than this.

  • chisai

    I am struggling with this a bit, because I can’t help but feel like it smacks a bit of slut-shaming. It feels like the argument is to not have Barbie associated with these women because there is something gross about them for being in the SI swimsuit edition. This is where I get confused in my still-growing feminist mind, because aren’t we supposed to encourage women to express their sexuality in any way they choose, and reinforce the idea that it’s OK to want to be sexy? But at the same time, we want to protect young girls from being taught that they are just sex objects. I don’t feel like these things are necessarily mutually exclusive, but the line is hard to see sometimes. I too am freaked out by Barbie being part of this, but for two different reasons: one, it seems like the makers of Barbie are trying to capitalize on the idea of women being able to express their sexuality, acting as if a plastic doll needs to get some of the love that these women in SI get for doing so, which is just weird and unnecessary marketing. And more importantly, the use of the word “unapologetic” really rubs me the wrong way. I get that we want young girls (ostensibly Barbie’s demographic) to be “unapologetic” about their bodies and their goals, etc., (assuming that was their point with this??) but how does plastering the word “unapologetic” on a skinny, blonde, literally plastic doll empower anyone but skinny blonde girls? Genuinely interested in hearing what Eve and others think.

    • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

      The demographic of children interested in actively playing with Barbie ( not adult collectors) can’t be in the slut shaming discussion because the notion of “slutiness” shouldn’t even enter into the conversation of children under 12 ( the common Barbie age range.)

      An iconic toy for children shouldn’t be co-opted into the adult realm of a sexualized men’s magazine.

      If there was some new doll that hadn’t been shoved down the throats of moms and consumers for 55 years as a kid’s TOY this wouldn’t bug me. If she were some new sexy doll and not one marketed specifically to girls ages 2-9 I don’t think it would be as problematic

    • chisai

      Oh I totally agree that the Barbie demographic can’t really be slut-shamed, I meant more shaming of the actual women posing in SI by suggesting that having a child’s toy associated with them diminishes the toy. Like I said I’m still really not 100% sure how I feel about it (probably in part because I’m not a mom so there’s definitely a piece of experience I’m missing!) I just wanted to make that part more clear.

    • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

      For me it’s more about how the toy belongs to kids, the magazine for adults

  • Byron

    I guess you have not been in the internet enough to be aware of rule 34.

    Rule 34 states that “whatever it is, there’s porn of it”. Basically, Barbie did not just now become something in a masturbation magazine. There has been Barbie porn for those with the inclination to find such porn for many years now. There’s Smurfs porn, there’s Teletubies porn (a lot of is gay porn), there’s Disney porn, there’s Pokemon porn (not just the human characters, the actual pockemon ravaging eachother). Whatever it is your kids might be into, there’s someone masturbating to it out there and someone making arwork about it in sexual situations so that other people can masturbate to it.

    Don’t overreact just because you’re ignorant of the reality you live in and don’t infect your kid’s innocent playtime with your own complexes. Unless you keep the kid in isolation from popular culture of any kind and make up your own characters for em to play with, chances are someone’s gonna be fapping to what your kid plays with.

    • ElleJai

      Rule 34 is true; however you don’t have to be a dick when explaining it and killing people’s illusions.

    • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

      I’m totally aware of Rule 34. But here’s the thing, Rule 34 is a DIY thing, not marketed by Mattel and trotted out on a pink runway.

  • ElleJai

    I’m not angry, I’m just disappointed that somebody somewhere thought that this would be a good idea. Seriously?!

    I only ever had one Barbie (Belle, from Beauty and the Beast). My son now has “Kenny” and a generic fairy “Barbie”.

    I just don’t see what the point of a kids toy in SI is. What next, a teddy bear? Some blocks? It’s the same thing for me.

  • K.

    I mentioned this to my husband who had a much more neutral reaction. He kind of shrugged and said, “Huh. Well it’s an interesting concept piece for an outmoded cliche.” Granted, he’s an artsy type, but he was just sort of non-plussed.

    I’m not saying I disagree with your reading, Eve, but at the same time, I can sort of understand that to a lot of men (who are the intended audience for the thing), this is sort of a shrug moment–it’s not a magazine for children; it’s not something they’re going to share with their kids or discuss with them; it’s not even a thing that they themselves really think all that hard about. It’s something they’re going to flip through on the toilet and use it to line a birdcage afterwards. Maybe I’m terribly naive, but I honestly don’t know that many adult men who look to get turned on by the SI swimsuit issue–that’s like, for 13 year old boys.

    And I think most grown men are going to be more confused than turned on by an inanimate object “modeling” bikinis.

  • Itpainsmetosay

    I honesty am so confused as to why anyone is on the side of SI it just seams like common sense to not put a CHILD’S TOY in an ADULTS magazine. Come on people this isn’t about slut shaming or any other crap to do with politics and child rearing. It is stupid point blank, all I can think is WHY? WHY? WHY?
    I am getting so mad about people making this about other stuff because its not about anything other than this being wrong.

    • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

      welcome to my world baby hahah

    • Itpainsmetosay

      To tell you the truth I only wrote my comment because Kelly tried to call you a slut shamer and I just couldn’t understand why she would think that when you were so chill and nice. Then I got all ragey because so many of the cementers were missing the point. I can’t imagine how hard it is for you to get abuse from people who just don’t get it and want blame you in a way. Sorry for all the mean stuff people have been saying to you lately.

    • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

      …. you should see my email inbox :D

  • GK Sutto

    You DO know Barbie was based on a Russian sex doll, right?

  • Kaydee Sumalinog

    I understand why’d you’d react(especially to the point of burning the toy) to Barbie, a childhood dress-up doll for kids, being featured in a Men’s magazine. I also think that there could be a thing in having a weird yet possible arousal on a plastic doll.

  • kiwiinoz

    I finally have a daughter after three boys and god is she beautiful!she has short muscular limbs, a light caramel complexion and a short bridgeless widimmed nose. She will never own a barbie because I consider the doll beneath her potential. The focus girls have on be pretty when every mother knows girls. Are born sassy,confident, bright and brave. ..well what a letdown to then spend years socialising our beautiful spirits into vacuous materialistic outer shells. It begins with barbie. if barbie were real shed be the blonde haired blue eyed anorexic with silicon tits who grooorwsjes up to be a pornstar. Or she could be a perfectly nice girl who you have to keep away from your husband because she resembles a porn star. No I won’t be sendingy daughter to bed with barbie. The thing about our society is its so out of balance.I have nothing against porn stars but I don’t want my daughter to think and moreso feel that her beauty is in her appearance and that her sexuality or sensuality is inferior to the dominant paradigm. Its hard to be a woman and it’s not because we are over emotional. Its because we are emotionally abused by everyday life that makes us over sensitive to repeat messages. Never good enough.so throw barbie out till she’s old enough and strong enough to choose whether or rather where the female stereotype of female worth fits into her life. Let her hold the power of arousal rather than have it scripted and controlled by
    low self esteem or plastic surgery.

  • MJ
  • Pingback: Mo'ne Davis Throws Little League World Series Shutout