Barbie 2008-Handcuffs & Anal Beads Not Included
http://www.parentdish.com/2008/07/17/barbie-gets-leather-and-fishnets/?icid=100214839x1205826122x1200311872
Barbie has always provoked strong emotions in some, but with the introduction of Bratz dolls, she seemed downright quaint. Well, she is quaint no more. With Mattel's September release of a doll based on the DC comic superhero Black Canary, Barbie is going to find herself back on the naughty girl list.
Clad in black thigh-high leather boots and gloves, fishnet stockings and a motorcycle jacket, this S&M Barbie is stirring more than little girls' imaginations. A spokesman for the religious group Christian Voice finds this sexed-up plaything to be just too much. "Barbie has always been on the tarty side and this is taking it too far. A children's doll in sexually suggestive clothing is irresponsible - it's filth."
I agree that perhaps this isn't Barbie's best look and wouldn't buy it for my kid. But that won't be a problem because she doesn't want Black Canary. When I showed her this photo and asked for her opinion, she looked aghast. "She's not wearing any pants!" she exclaimed. Good girl.
CHANGE FOR A BUCK?
Um, you are all aware that there's a war in Iraq right? And you're all getting upset over a FUCKING DOLL. Now, as you are most aware, I USED TO BE a huge male feminist, and there's a reason why USED TO BE is in caps. It's because after the last couple weeks, or month or whatever, I've lost SO much respect for women. I used to look at this sort of article and go on a rampage:
"Oh my god, how could they do this sort of thing, it's demeaning, it's sexist, it is SO immoral! Not to mention the fact that it's only going to influence girls to emminate the dolls they buy!"
NOW....I just shrug and go "eh". Some of you are well aware as to my reason for changing. Others may not be, but I'd rather not shed my shell, as that usually ends up with me being nearly emotionally raped. So I'll just go a whole different route with this one. At this point, I think it's the dolls emminating the GIRLS.
Yeah, and let me explain, can you tell me the difference between these two photos?
Yeah. Let me tell ya, before there were barbies, these girls dressed like THIS:
Amazing. I looked up "girls in 1959" (1959 being the year Barbie was invented) in the google search bar, and it came up with a girl on the beach. FULL GROWN WOMAN....IN A ONE PEICE. When's the last time ya saw THAT? Hell, when's the last time ya saw an 8 YEAR OLD in a one piece?! Exactly! I'm starting to think that my theory could be true, about the girls influencing the makers of the dolls. Because look, CSI wouldn't be on the air if they didn't have true stories to base things on, now would they? EXACTLY. Hey, say what you want about Barbie and CSI...or the new Fox animated series BARBIE: CSI (I actually WOULD watch that, ha), all I'm saying is that after all the times of being hurt by women, I'm starting to look at them in a whole new light, and not an entirely kind one at that. Barbie was invented by a woman named Ruth Handler. Hand in her last name. As in HANDjob.
Here's another article on this thing:
http://astrology.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/s-and-m-barbie-211030/;_ylt=AtP9o7u8blXlkAgbNAnyQ9hcbqU5
There's a new Barbie in town, and she's wearing fishnets.
The famously thin and unrealistically proportioned plaything is looking sleazy these days, or at least that's what some people think. In fact, it isn't Barbie exactly, it's Barbie as a comic book character. So the fuss is definitely a little overblown, plus it appeared in The Sun, which is about as sensationalist a paper as it gets. (The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch, AND features actual nude women, so this "story" needs to be taken with a large-ish grain of salt.) Still, with anything geared towards kids, especially girls, its probably fair to apply a dollop of "is this OK?"
Personally, I think it's weird, but is it really offensive? Would you buy one of these for your daughter? Is this sexist, empowering, just a bad choice for a doll?
CHANGE FOR TWO BUCKS?
Wait, people are getting upset over a S&M doll in a paper that features actual nude women?! At least S&M features SOME sort of clothes! My fucking lord! That's insane! What are they thinking, "I don't want my son getting off to some plastic hussy's nip!"
Come ON people. It's fuckin' ridiculous. And BTW....if THIS is bad? Why don't parents attack GI-JOES? They're influencing young men to kill! See, people think men are generally born as assholes, which is true, and that's why nobody attacks it. The whole thing is FUCKIN' stupid, and that's all I gotta say about that. And just for the sake of argument, listen to this song below, by Aqua, who's lyrics are influenced by girls behavior about Barbie.
BARBIE GIRL-AQUA
It's all one big vicious circle.
One big, slutty, vicious circle.
M@RK WIL@ND
Barbie has always provoked strong emotions in some, but with the introduction of Bratz dolls, she seemed downright quaint. Well, she is quaint no more. With Mattel's September release of a doll based on the DC comic superhero Black Canary, Barbie is going to find herself back on the naughty girl list.
Clad in black thigh-high leather boots and gloves, fishnet stockings and a motorcycle jacket, this S&M Barbie is stirring more than little girls' imaginations. A spokesman for the religious group Christian Voice finds this sexed-up plaything to be just too much. "Barbie has always been on the tarty side and this is taking it too far. A children's doll in sexually suggestive clothing is irresponsible - it's filth."
I agree that perhaps this isn't Barbie's best look and wouldn't buy it for my kid. But that won't be a problem because she doesn't want Black Canary. When I showed her this photo and asked for her opinion, she looked aghast. "She's not wearing any pants!" she exclaimed. Good girl.
CHANGE FOR A BUCK?
Um, you are all aware that there's a war in Iraq right? And you're all getting upset over a FUCKING DOLL. Now, as you are most aware, I USED TO BE a huge male feminist, and there's a reason why USED TO BE is in caps. It's because after the last couple weeks, or month or whatever, I've lost SO much respect for women. I used to look at this sort of article and go on a rampage:
"Oh my god, how could they do this sort of thing, it's demeaning, it's sexist, it is SO immoral! Not to mention the fact that it's only going to influence girls to emminate the dolls they buy!"
NOW....I just shrug and go "eh". Some of you are well aware as to my reason for changing. Others may not be, but I'd rather not shed my shell, as that usually ends up with me being nearly emotionally raped. So I'll just go a whole different route with this one. At this point, I think it's the dolls emminating the GIRLS.
Yeah, and let me explain, can you tell me the difference between these two photos?
Yeah. Let me tell ya, before there were barbies, these girls dressed like THIS:
Amazing. I looked up "girls in 1959" (1959 being the year Barbie was invented) in the google search bar, and it came up with a girl on the beach. FULL GROWN WOMAN....IN A ONE PEICE. When's the last time ya saw THAT? Hell, when's the last time ya saw an 8 YEAR OLD in a one piece?! Exactly! I'm starting to think that my theory could be true, about the girls influencing the makers of the dolls. Because look, CSI wouldn't be on the air if they didn't have true stories to base things on, now would they? EXACTLY. Hey, say what you want about Barbie and CSI...or the new Fox animated series BARBIE: CSI (I actually WOULD watch that, ha), all I'm saying is that after all the times of being hurt by women, I'm starting to look at them in a whole new light, and not an entirely kind one at that. Barbie was invented by a woman named Ruth Handler. Hand in her last name. As in HANDjob.
Here's another article on this thing:
http://astrology.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/s-and-m-barbie-211030/;_ylt=AtP9o7u8blXlkAgbNAnyQ9hcbqU5
There's a new Barbie in town, and she's wearing fishnets.
The famously thin and unrealistically proportioned plaything is looking sleazy these days, or at least that's what some people think. In fact, it isn't Barbie exactly, it's Barbie as a comic book character. So the fuss is definitely a little overblown, plus it appeared in The Sun, which is about as sensationalist a paper as it gets. (The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch, AND features actual nude women, so this "story" needs to be taken with a large-ish grain of salt.) Still, with anything geared towards kids, especially girls, its probably fair to apply a dollop of "is this OK?"
Personally, I think it's weird, but is it really offensive? Would you buy one of these for your daughter? Is this sexist, empowering, just a bad choice for a doll?
CHANGE FOR TWO BUCKS?
Wait, people are getting upset over a S&M doll in a paper that features actual nude women?! At least S&M features SOME sort of clothes! My fucking lord! That's insane! What are they thinking, "I don't want my son getting off to some plastic hussy's nip!"
Come ON people. It's fuckin' ridiculous. And BTW....if THIS is bad? Why don't parents attack GI-JOES? They're influencing young men to kill! See, people think men are generally born as assholes, which is true, and that's why nobody attacks it. The whole thing is FUCKIN' stupid, and that's all I gotta say about that. And just for the sake of argument, listen to this song below, by Aqua, who's lyrics are influenced by girls behavior about Barbie.
BARBIE GIRL-AQUA
Click to viewIt's all one big vicious circle.
One big, slutty, vicious circle.
M@RK WIL@ND