Fri Aug 1, 2014, 08:48 AM
Liberal_in_LA (44,397 posts)
mom outraged by anatomically correct baby boy doll. new shipments have warning on package
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/should-dolls-have-anatomically-correct-genitals-this-mom-doesnt-think-so/article19847833/?cmpid=rss1
“I took my daughter to buy a new baby at toys r us. And she was so excited to find a baby boy doll because it was dressed in blue. But when she went to change his diaper, this was the surprise. Why?? These r little girls that don’t need to know the anatomy,” she wrote, according to News 96.5.com, a Florida-based radio station (the original Facebook page is no longer available). Some parents sided with Burgmann. “O WoW!!!,” wrote Betty Grooms Huff in reply to the post. “Packaging should be more specific so parents can make the choice whether or not it’s appropriate for their child. It’s kinda late to take it back now that she’s already been exposed to seeing that. I mean the damage is done and it left you having to explain things sooner than you wanted to.” Another seemed even more shocked than Burgmann. “This is nuts! Figuratively & literally!” wrote Candida DeMasse Krupa. Others, however, not only shrugged it off as no big deal, but said the doll is a valuable tool to educate kids. ----_ mom was shocked to find an anatomically correct male baby doll while playing with her daughter. Outrage resulted when she posted a picture of the doll online. Some parents think the doll is inappropriate for children, others simply ask the manufacture to put a warning on the packaging. "Please note that the current packaging clearly state 'anatomically correct'," says Kathleen Waugh, Vice President of Corporate Communications for Toys"R"Us, Inc. "The earlier shipments last year did not have it noted on the packaging, but the current inventory does." http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/07/31/anatomically-correct-baby-boy-doll-shocks-shoppers
|
56 replies, 5363 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Liberal_in_LA | Aug 2014 | OP |
XemaSab | Aug 2014 | #1 | |
treestar | Aug 2014 | #29 | |
sharp_stick | Aug 2014 | #2 | |
onehandle | Aug 2014 | #3 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #4 | |
Liberal_in_LA | Aug 2014 | #6 | |
Rex | Aug 2014 | #7 | |
RKP5637 | Aug 2014 | #13 | |
gollygee | Aug 2014 | #5 | |
Drale | Aug 2014 | #23 | |
ladjf | Aug 2014 | #35 | |
sinkingfeeling | Aug 2014 | #8 | |
justiceischeap | Aug 2014 | #45 | |
RKP5637 | Aug 2014 | #9 | |
Jackpine Radical | Aug 2014 | #10 | |
Nye Bevan | Aug 2014 | #11 | |
SoCalDem | Aug 2014 | #19 | |
seaglass | Aug 2014 | #12 | |
d_r | Aug 2014 | #27 | |
seaglass | Aug 2014 | #46 | |
closeupready | Aug 2014 | #14 | |
alphafemale | Aug 2014 | #15 | |
seaglass | Aug 2014 | #25 | |
alphafemale | Aug 2014 | #30 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #39 | |
seaglass | Aug 2014 | #43 | |
msanthrope | Aug 2014 | #16 | |
DetlefK | Aug 2014 | #17 | |
msanthrope | Aug 2014 | #18 | |
libodem | Aug 2014 | #21 | |
msanthrope | Aug 2014 | #22 | |
mr blur | Aug 2014 | #20 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #24 | |
pipi_k | Aug 2014 | #26 | |
Mnemosyne | Aug 2014 | #49 | |
JaneyVee | Aug 2014 | #28 | |
LiberalFighter | Aug 2014 | #31 | |
joeybee12 | Aug 2014 | #32 | |
mythology | Aug 2014 | #33 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Aug 2014 | #34 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #40 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #44 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Aug 2014 | #54 | |
MisterP | Aug 2014 | #47 | |
MH1 | Aug 2014 | #36 | |
aint_no_life_nowhere | Aug 2014 | #37 | |
mcar | Aug 2014 | #38 | |
kickitup | Aug 2014 | #51 | |
mcar | Aug 2014 | #53 | |
redqueen | Aug 2014 | #41 | |
opiate69 | Aug 2014 | #42 | |
nolabear | Aug 2014 | #48 | |
uppityperson | Aug 2014 | #50 | |
no_hypocrisy | Aug 2014 | #52 | |
Hekate | Aug 2014 | #55 | |
Arugula Latte | Aug 2014 | #56 |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 08:52 AM
XemaSab (60,212 posts)
1. How many girls are there really
who aren't aware that boys have penises?
Even the most sheltered fundie girls have seen little boys getting their diapers changed. |
Response to XemaSab (Reply #1)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:14 AM
treestar (80,863 posts)
29. My first thought too
This is ridiculous. Why hide that fact from children?
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 08:53 AM
sharp_stick (14,400 posts)
2. Won't somebody please think of the children!!!!
This is obviously the worst thing that's ever happened to children.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 08:53 AM
onehandle (51,122 posts)
3. An anatomically correct doll for right-wing reactionaries wouldn't come with a brain. nt
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 08:55 AM
Rex (65,616 posts)
4. OMGz it's got a penis!!!
Game over man, game over!
|
Response to Rex (Reply #4)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:00 AM
Liberal_in_LA (44,397 posts)
6. "liitle girls should not be shown that on dolls"
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Reply #6)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:03 AM
Rex (65,616 posts)
7. Yeah republicans like to keep their children dumb and ignorant.
Improves the chances of their children voting GOP...
![]() |
Response to Rex (Reply #7)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:10 AM
RKP5637 (64,504 posts)
13. Yep, that's pretty much the republican bottom line ... dumb, ignorant, uneducated,
naive and gullible ... willing to believe the republican authoritarians with no brain involved.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 08:58 AM
gollygee (22,336 posts)
5. This is just plain sad
"It’s kinda late to take it back now that she’s already been exposed to seeing that. I mean the damage is done and it left you having to explain things sooner than you wanted to.” Who thinks seeing a doll that looks like an actual baby boy is "damage?" That's horribly sad. There is nothing sexual about a baby. I can't even wrap my brain around that. |
Response to gollygee (Reply #5)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 10:14 AM
Drale (7,932 posts)
23. To fundamentalists everything is sexual
Sex is all they think about all the time but their god tells them that its wrong and that's why they are angry all the time.
|
Response to Drale (Reply #23)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:36 AM
ladjf (17,320 posts)
35. They may be suffering from the "forbidden fruit " syndrome. nt
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:05 AM
sinkingfeeling (47,238 posts)
8. So when do they demand Matel take the 'boobs' off of Barbie?
Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #8)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 12:26 PM
justiceischeap (14,040 posts)
45. Not real boobs, there are no nipples
so they aren't "sexual."
![]() |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:07 AM
RKP5637 (64,504 posts)
9. Yep, baby boys have no sexual organs, none knows about sex until 18 and after. Everyone is sexless.
Yet another WTF. We would be so much better off as a country if our outrage energy/attention focused more on solutions to the enormous problems facing this country in the coming years than this visceral stuff.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:09 AM
Jackpine Radical (45,274 posts)
10. Why are you assuming the woman is a right-wing nut job fundamentalist?
I mean, other than that she's obviously a right-wing nut job fundamentalist?
What is WRONG with those people? |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:09 AM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
11. Dolls with penises? Appalling.
I don't think dolls should even have buttocks.
|
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #11)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:34 AM
SoCalDem (103,856 posts)
19. Doll's name?......Dick
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:09 AM
seaglass (8,154 posts)
12. The baby girl dolls are not anatomically correct so why should baby boy dolls be?
This is just weird. I think Ken and G.I. Joe should get their penises (penii?) first.
|
Response to seaglass (Reply #12)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:11 AM
d_r (6,862 posts)
27. here, let me google that for you
Response to d_r (Reply #27)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 12:31 PM
seaglass (8,154 posts)
46. Yes, sometimes it is helpful to rely on google rather than past experience.
mea culpa
I edited my post below. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5322228 |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:11 AM
closeupready (29,503 posts)
14. So dogs don't have penises and testicles? Or do they dress their dogs
in doggie pants?
Willful ignorance has plumbed new depths of stupidity. ![]() This is sort of like the mainstream TV networks blurring the bulges in men wearing underwear or speedos while playing the team tasks on Suvivor or Amazing Race while the women have camel toes and boobs bouncing around for days. |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:11 AM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
15. Seeing normal anatomy as obscene is the real obscenity.
I hope she never takes her sheltered spawn to a petting zoo.
Can you imagine putting morality pants on an Alpaca? |
Response to alphafemale (Reply #15)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 10:44 AM
seaglass (8,154 posts)
25. I think it's weird. There is no normal anatomy on baby girl dolls unless a blank piece of plastic
is considered "normal." Boy dolls have penises and girl dolls have nothing?
|
Response to seaglass (Reply #25)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:19 AM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
30. I think that is manufacturing cheapness rather than prudishness.
To claim that a child is harmed by seeing a penis on a doll is beyond stupid.
|
Response to seaglass (Reply #25)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:50 AM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
39. I figured the manufacturer makes anatomically correct dolls of both sexes.
But like closeupready said, male anatomy is not shown nearly as often as female, so perhaps that's why no one has yet freaked out over an anatomically correct baby girl doll. It's not portrayed in media as The Thing Which Must Never Be Shown.
![]() |
Response to redqueen (Reply #39)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 12:08 PM
seaglass (8,154 posts)
43. Most baby dolls are made with no genitalia. Of course I don't think it harms a child for a baby
doll to have anatomically correct genitalia (I am in favor of ALL dolls, male and female having anatomically correct genitalia). But since the majority of baby dolls have no genitalia and the dolls were originally on the market without the label on the packaging that they were anatomically correct - I can see at least a surprised reaction.
I am not in favor of anatomically correct boy baby dolls without anatomically correct girl baby dolls. THAT I would find damaging. Boys have genitalia, girls don't. ![]() On edit: I stand corrected - that's what happens when you have a 25 year old daughter and no little ones in the family interested in baby dolls - had no idea that anatomically correct dolls - both male and female - were so prevalent. I do think it is a good thing, I also think labeling would be good for anyone who objects to genitalia. ![]() |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:12 AM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
16. PENIS!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! nt
Response to msanthrope (Reply #16)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:30 AM
DetlefK (16,327 posts)
17. OH NO!!! IT'S GOING INTO HULK-MODE!!!
Response to DetlefK (Reply #17)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:34 AM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
18. DON'T MAKE IT ANGRY!!! YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE IT ANGRY!!! nt
Response to msanthrope (Reply #16)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:39 AM
libodem (19,288 posts)
21. I'm pretty sure!
It's nearly killed me just thinking about it. I have a set of twin dolls from the 50's or 60's. They are both endowed with parts.
I think the horrified reaction is way more damaging than the wee wee on a doll. Children learn what they live. |
Response to libodem (Reply #21)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:49 AM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
22. Exactly....children learn what they live. nt
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:38 AM
mr blur (7,753 posts)
20. So you think it's cute to buy your kid a doll that pisses itself then cries,
but you're shocked that the kid sees where the piss comes from?
|
Response to mr blur (Reply #20)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 10:41 AM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
24. exactly.
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:08 AM
pipi_k (21,020 posts)
26. Oh, for crissakes!
Why don't these people borrow a neighbor's Dremel tool and grind the whole damned business off?
"I'm sorry, Susie...it was a mistake at the factory but we'll take care of it" BZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT Problem solved. ![]() sigh |
Response to pipi_k (Reply #26)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 12:56 PM
Mnemosyne (21,363 posts)
49. Best answer for thread win!
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:13 AM
JaneyVee (19,877 posts)
28. I've been showering with my 5yr old since he was 3.
Now he knows all about male/female anatomy. Loves to play Human Body app on iPad. Future doctor.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:22 AM
LiberalFighter (45,296 posts)
31. Do all mothers keep their little ones away when changing diapers of babies?
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:22 AM
joeybee12 (56,177 posts)
32. "The damage is done"?????
Says a lot about the uptight attitudes that are far too prevelant.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:30 AM
mythology (9,527 posts)
33. They want the warning label where?
If it's on the package, wouldn't it be too late to not see the dreaded penis of much consternation?
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:36 AM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
34. Boys have wee-wees!!?? What next. Will we discover that girls have nipples!!
So do boys, but on boys they're cute.
|
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #34)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:52 AM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
40. And on girls they're... ?
Response to redqueen (Reply #40)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 12:14 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
44. ... lol ...
good question
![]() |
Response to redqueen (Reply #40)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 01:54 PM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
54. Attractive? Sensual? Naughty? Necessary?
"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock
|
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #34)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 12:36 PM
MisterP (23,730 posts)
47. except on Christopher Lee: then they're a sign of his repression
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:39 AM
MH1 (17,162 posts)
36. I'm kicking and reccing this because everyone needs a laugh, and/or reminder
that there really are people who think like this.
And they vote ... ![]() |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:40 AM
aint_no_life_nowhere (21,925 posts)
37. Wonder if Mom knows her darling little girl has been playing doctor
When was about five, I noticed that little girls were pretty aggressive in wanting to play doctor.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:44 AM
mcar (40,369 posts)
38. She mustn't have sons
Both my boys were little nudists through preschool. They were always running around nekkid.
If the little girl has brothers, she already knows what a penis is. |
Response to mcar (Reply #38)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 01:27 PM
kickitup (355 posts)
51. Mine were nudists too and it drove my mother nuts.
I would let them swim naked in their little pool and they would go to her house expecting to do the same thing. She was horrified, I think, that they didn't even think about covering up. We also had a swing in a big old tree and I would let them swing naked, which I thought must have felt just wonderful.
|
Response to kickitup (Reply #51)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 01:35 PM
mcar (40,369 posts)
53. They must have loved that, kickitup
I was looking at some old photos recently and found a great one of my youngest (now 17, then about 2) running naked through the living room in sheer joy.
|
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:55 AM
redqueen (112,669 posts)
41. She must have been raised by nevernudes
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 12:41 PM
nolabear (40,723 posts)
48. Well Candida better change her name then.
Betcha a dollar she doesn't know what it is.
Seriously, this bs has gone back and forth since the 70s. |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 01:17 PM
uppityperson (115,510 posts)
50. This article blurs out the offending parts. What a silly thing to be upset about.
http://thedailysearch.com/anatomically-correct-male-baby-doll-sparks-controversy-and-support-online/
Why not demystify genitals? |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 01:29 PM
no_hypocrisy (41,856 posts)
52. This is sooooo retro.
The first commercial anatomically correct baby boy was introduced in the Seventies to celebrate the birth of the son of Gloria & Michael Stivic (and Archie Bunker's first grandchild) in "All In The Family". The doll was called the Joey doll, named after the baby.
http://www.momlogic.com/2009/08/top_11_most_controversial_dolls.php#8 https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=806&bih=491&q=the+joey+doll+%2B+stivic&oq=the+joey+doll+%2B+stivic&gs_l=img.3...1734.5785.0.5994.22.11.0.11.11.0.312.1838.0j3j4j1.8.0....0...1ac.1.51.img..14.8.1825.eJpB6nE4Uro |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 02:04 PM
Hekate (81,944 posts)
55. I suppose those moms are planning to hide their boy babies' peenies ...
...and make diaper changing a secretive affair so their girls won't find out?
This is very weird to me. I got my toddler a Mattel Baby Brother doll in 1976 or 77' then produced a real baby brother for her in 1978. I used to bathe them together too. And in my mother's house what was inside baby diapers was no secret as she taught me to help take care of my younger sibs. |
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 02:06 PM
Arugula Latte (50,566 posts)
56. I wish the Puritans' boats had sunk in the middle of the Atlantic.