Bratz Dominated by Barbie

[The Newswire]

A few years back, a number of members of Blue Blood sites started writing in to say someone was making dolls of various Blue Blood hotties. As I recall, Mistress Domiana and

Read the full article

[Lady Alias]

My niece wanted all Bratz stuff for her birthday and Christmas last year.
I was pretty hurrhghghg. The name "Bratz" drives me crazy.

Can you show images of the Bratz dolls you think were based on BB girls?

[Amelia G]

Originally Posted by Lady Alias

My niece wanted all Bratz stuff for her birthday and Christmas last year.
I was pretty hurrhghghg. The name "Bratz" drives me crazy.

Can you show images of the Bratz dolls you think were based on BB girls?

Honestly, people base stuff on my work all the time, so I really didn't pay much attention when members started writing in about someone making clubby gothic Barbies or whatever.

What bothers you about the name?

[Lady Alias]

Are you sure it wasn't just a generic "gothy" look? Or was it really specific?

As for the name, the fact that it implies being a brat is super rad. I don't understand why this title isn't a deterrent to kids, even with the hip "z". Why would I want to be a brat? Granted, I'm not a kid, but when I was, the thought of being a fucker never crossed my mind.

[Amelia G]

Originally Posted by Lady Alias

Are you sure it wasn't just a generic "gothy" look? Or was it really specific?

As for the name, the fact that it implies being a brat is super rad. I don't understand why this title isn't a deterrent to kids, even with the hip "z". Why would I want to be a brat? Granted, I'm not a kid, but when I was, the thought of being a fucker never crossed my mind.

Adults don't want kids to be brats, but I'm not convinced most kids care. As a society, do we really teach that being well-behaved is something to strive for?

A few years back, a number of members of Blue Blood sites started writing in to say someone was making dolls of various Blue Blood hotties. As I recall, Mistress Domiana and Fetus de Milo were two where there were specific dolls folks felt were based on photos Forrest Black and I had shot of them. Maybe there were other girls; it didn’t seem at all significant at the time, and the Bratz have changed enough over time that the Jury in their recent court battle (more on this soon, even though it is not technically a sex trial) asked whether they could find for the plaintiff in the first generation Bratz and against for later ones. To the best of my knowledge, neither I, nor Forrest Black, nor anyone I’ve photographed has ever met any of the brass at MGA Entertainment, the company who launched Bratz as their primary toy line in either 2001 or 2002, depending on who you ask. I guess MGA Entertainment is headquartered in Van Nuys, which is at last geographically close to Hollywood, if not culturally. So who knows.

[VoldtaEngler]

If a doll ever shows up in Walmart sporting tribal tiger striped tat's along the side..then it was definitely based off Voltaire. lol.

[Raza]

We modify barbies sometimes. It's a fun thing to do when you want a quick and lighthearted project inbetween the ones that suck up a lot of thought and time before they start to feel rewarding.

We've got a mintgreen zombie girl with red hair, flies and corset stitches, a mutilated guro barbie with amputated limbs and nails driven through her hanging from a music box by a meathook in her head - it plays a lullaby if you pull it down - and a half finished one that's going to be a kind of succubus, with currently unclad iron wire bat wing frames and rose thorns glued on her body for spikes and horns.

ETA also working on one of those baby girl barbies, which is to be a kind of green fairy. It'll go into a little bird cage I got and made creepy with black paint, curly iron wire bits and green gems. Currently it just has a little plastic skeleton inside, but it won't stay up very well.

[elegant j]

Originally Posted by Amelia G

Adults don't want kids to be brats, but I'm not convinced most kids care. As a society, do we really teach that being well-behaved is something to strive for?
.

I agree, but i also see the portrayal of the dolls generally as high-maintenence 'daddy's little girl' type characters......i guess brats...
and looking at the portrayal of mainstream pop stars, socialites (eg. paris hilton) etc, these personalities are in ways role models of kids...

come to think of it, 'well behaved' is such a gray word...
especially when mum is probably toting a similar handbag and wearing twice the makeup and stealing teenage daughter's clothes, and gabbing on her phone 24/7, i suppose that makes these dolls role models..... :/

[Amelia G]

Originally Posted by elegant j

I agree, but i also see the portrayal of the dolls generally as high-maintenence 'daddy's little girl' type characters......i guess brats...
and looking at the portrayal of mainstream pop stars, socialites (eg. paris hilton) etc, these personalities are in ways role models of kids...

come to think of it, 'well behaved' is such a gray word...
especially when mum is probably toting a similar handbag and wearing twice the makeup and stealing teenage daughter's clothes, and gabbing on her phone 24/7, i suppose that makes these dolls role models..... :/

Are Bratz really any different from Barbie in their existing to please a man in later life?

[Rockwulf]

I could ask the same thing about women

[elegant j]

Originally Posted by Amelia G

Are Bratz really any different from Barbie in their existing to please a man in later life?

lol i dont think Bratz or Barbie would dress as nice if they werent

[LeilaHazlett]

I don't know how any parent can think it's ok to let their kids play such a horrible toy.

[Amelia G]

Originally Posted by LeilaHazlett

I don't know how any parent can think it's ok to let their kids play such a horrible toy.

Why is that?

[LeilaHazlett]

Originally Posted by elegant j

I agree, but i also see the portrayal of the dolls generally as high-maintenence 'daddy's little girl' type characters......i guess brats...
and looking at the portrayal of mainstream pop stars, socialites (eg. paris hilton) etc, these personalities are in ways role models of kids...

come to think of it, 'well behaved' is such a gray word...
especially when mum is probably toting a similar handbag and wearing twice the makeup and stealing teenage daughter's clothes, and gabbing on her phone 24/7, i suppose that makes these dolls role models..... :/

I agree, I really don't like the name either. It reminds me of the "stupid spoiled whore" episode of south park where all the girls want to be annoying sluts just like Paris Hilton and do so in the name of "female empowerment".

[LeilaHazlett]

Originally Posted by Amelia G

Why is that?

They're dressed like hookers. I have no problem with sex and sexuality but young children shouldn't be exposed to such overtly sexual things. It's just not healthy at a young age. The media's obsession with slutty pop icons like Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton send the message that how you look and how much skin you show is more important than having talent or brains. These toys are an extension of the unhealthy view that most people have towards women.

When I first read this article I though it was a cool idea that they might might dolls of some of the BB girls. If they made a doll of one of the girls I really liked I'd probably get one, I just don't think they should be marketed to children.

[Amelia G]

Originally Posted by LeilaHazlett

They're dressed like hookers. I have no problem with sex and sexuality but young children shouldn't be exposed to such overtly sexual things. It's just not healthy at a young age. The media's obsession with slutty pop icons like Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton send the message that how you look and how much skin you show is more important than having talent or brains. These toys are an extension of the unhealthy view that most people have towards women.

When I first read this article I though it was a cool idea that they might might dolls of some of the BB girls. If they made a doll of one of the girls I really liked I'd probably get one, I just don't think they should be marketed to children.

I certainly agree that dolls representing adult concepts should not be marketed to children. Or at least I would not want to be a part of something like that. That would be #1 on my list of reasons why I've never seriously looked into doll merchandising.

But realistically, is Bratz, by today's standards, really sluttier or more whorish than Barbie was, by the standards of when she was introduced?

My Barbies used to go on adventures with my action figures and stuffed animals and I burned my Barbie Dream House to the ground. I was a kid, so I don't think I understood a bunch of the ideas Barbie was supposed to represent, in terms of femininity and materialism.

[Raza]

Oh dear.

Originally Posted by LeilaHazlett

They're dressed like hookers. I have no problem with sex and sexuality but young children shouldn't be exposed to such overtly sexual things. It's just not healthy at a young age. The media's obsession with slutty pop icons like Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton send the message that how you look and how much skin you show is more important than having talent or brains. These toys are an extension of the unhealthy view that most people have towards women.

The human body is not an 'overtly sexual thing' unless you interpret it as such; any children viewing the world without any sexuality in their frame of reference, won't. You are projecting your (learned) interpretation - a rather narrow and negative one, at that - on children that hold no such ideas. Trying to censor a child's world perception to block out sexuality - and what's even sillier, things grown ups associate with sex culturally through associations the child won't share - will teach it that sex is something loaded with a kind of hidden negativity - a feeling that persists detrimentally in most of adult society today.

A young human mind learns from what it sees. A child seeing sexuality in the context it has in society, will learn casually to place it in that context. It pay it attention according to its interests, and assign it significance according to its presence. Filtering its perception places great emphasis on the subject of sexuality without teaching it any real content, other than the generic idea that it is something not to be seen, talked about, or gawd forbid participated in. That is harmful - realistic exposure to sexuality is merely uncomfortable to adult third parties already inflicted with such shame.

Originally Posted by LeilaHazlett

The media's obsession with slutty pop icons like Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton send the message that how you look and how much skin you show is more important than having talent or brains.

Coverage of Britney and Paris focuses on their appearances, but no more demands a comparison to intellectual qualities than coverage of politics tells us that it's ok to be butt-ugly so long as we can lie convincingly. You are volunteering to make the assumption that because they're famous for their looks, they must be lacking in whatever qualities aren't being presented. You're repeating and applying the very message you're condemning the media for.

[LeilaHazlett]

Originally Posted by Raza

Oh dear.



The human body is not an 'overtly sexual thing' unless you interpret it as such; any children viewing the world without any sexuality in their frame of reference, won't. You are projecting your (learned) interpretation - a rather narrow and negative one, at that - on children that hold no such ideas. Trying to censor a child's world perception to block out sexuality - and what's even sillier, things grown ups associate with sex culturally through associations the child won't share - will teach it that sex is something loaded with a kind of hidden negativity - a feeling that persists detrimentally in most of adult society today.

A young human mind learns from what it sees. A child seeing sexuality in the context it has in society, will learn casually to place it in that context. It pay it attention according to its interests, and assign it significance according to its presence. Filtering its perception places great emphasis on the subject of sexuality without teaching it any real content, other than the generic idea that it is something not to be seen, talked about, or gawd forbid participated in. That is harmful - realistic exposure to sexuality is merely uncomfortable to adult third parties already inflicted with such shame.



Coverage of Britney and Paris focuses on their appearances, but no more demands a comparison to intellectual qualities than coverage of politics tells us that it's ok to be butt-ugly so long as we can lie convincingly. You are volunteering to make the assumption that because they're famous for their looks, they must be lacking in whatever qualities aren't being presented. You're repeating and applying the very message you're condemning the media for.

Ugh..this is why I didn't originally go into detail on this topic...sadly I have real essays to write for finals so I don't really feel like writing one here.

Is it so absurd for me to assume that media coverage of a singer might actually have something to do with her musical abilities or concerts or CD's being released instead of her lack of panties?

And you mention "realistic exposure" to sexuality. How is an unproportional plastic doll a realistic exposure to sexuality? My problem with it is that it isn't realistic. No, the naked human body is not an overtly sexual object but are you really telling me you don't see these dolls as overtly sexual? At the very least I don't think we should be encouraging little kids to wear make-up and mini-skirts. Don't get me wrong, I love wearing mini-skirts but I'm also not 12.

Again I don't feel like going into more detail since I really have work I should get to but I still don't think these toys can be considered a good thing for children in anyway. Parents should teach their kids that there is nothing wrong with sex and sexuality but they should be expressing themselves how they want to, not how they think society wants them to.

[LeilaHazlett]

Originally Posted by Amelia G

I certainly agree that dolls representing adult concepts should not be marketed to children. Or at least I would not want to be a part of something like that. That would be #1 on my list of reasons why I've never seriously looked into doll merchandising.

But realistically, is Bratz, by today's standards, really sluttier or more whorish than Barbie was, by the standards of when she was introduced?

My Barbies used to go on adventures with my action figures and stuffed animals and I burned my Barbie Dream House to the ground. I was a kid, so I don't think I understood a bunch of the ideas Barbie was supposed to represent, in terms of femininity and materialism.

Honestly Bratz dolls are probably the same by today's standards as Barbie was back then. I had barbies when I was a kid but I preferred playing with match-box cars. I don't think any kid consciously realizes what things like barbie and bratz are supposed to represent but that doesn't mean it doesn't affect them on a subconscious level. That being said I don't think playing with a doll is going to completely ruin a child's idea of body image and sexuality. As long as parents put things into context and teach kids the difference between reality and fantasy then the images they see in the media shouldn't fuck them up.

And I realize it probably seems odd for someone who makes porn to be bitching about dolls being a bad influence on a kids idea of sexuality. I just don't think toys like bratz are age appropriate. Teaching kids about sex is one thing, my mom is a nurse so I was given a very detailed explanation of sex when I was in 3rd grade. It's important for kids to learn about sex and body image in a healthy and realistic way and to me these toys seem to be the opposite of that.

[Mr Karl]

Bratz aren't that bad......................same goes for polly pocket

[Raza]

Originally Posted by LeilaHazlett

Is it so absurd for me to assume that media coverage of a singer might actually have something to do with her musical abilities or concerts or CD's being released instead of her lack of panties?

Look at the state of popular media on any subject and ask yourself that question. People are stupid and sensationalism is effective enough to be profitable. Sex is a cheap hot topic because it provokes a response. Sexual morality and appeals to outrage are another.

Originally Posted by LeilaHazlett

And you mention "realistic exposure" to sexuality. How is an unproportional plastic doll a realistic exposure to sexuality? My problem with it is that it isn't realistic. No, the naked human body is not an overtly sexual object but are you really telling me you don't see these dolls as overtly sexual? At the very least I don't think we should be encouraging little kids to wear make-up and mini-skirts. Don't get me wrong, I love wearing mini-skirts but I'm also not 12.

It's a realistic exposure because people appreciate how such clothes and makeup look - outside a sexual context - well enough to make dolls out of them, and kids - again outside of a sexual context - like the dolls well enough to want to play with them. You're completely ignoring and devaluating the fact that fashion, makeup and the human body can be and constantly are appreciated aesthetically in a non-sexual fashion, by any viewer that isn't right at that moment being horny. You're telling kids that it's wrong to appreciate how they look or what they can do with that because a sexual appreciation is possible, even if it that's entirely up to the viewer and not at all implied in the individual, or doll, wearing it.

There's a lot more to looking good than sex, and again, I'm very much getting the idea that in this you're applying that very narrowly sex-focused attitude you're worried might spread to children.

Originally Posted by LeilaHazlett

Again I don't feel like going into more detail since I really have work I should get to but I still don't think these toys can be considered a good thing for children in anyway. Parents should teach their kids that there is nothing wrong with sex and sexuality but they should be expressing themselves how they want to, not how they think society wants them to.

Humans pick up appreciations from one another naturally. In many cases, what they want and what they think society wants are going to coincide, without either being forceful or insincere - if your child is of an independent mindset, things will develop from there, without intervention. You can't teach a child to do what they want to while at the same time telling them what not to want.

[LeilaHazlett]

Originally Posted by Raza

Look at the state of popular media on any subject and ask yourself that question. People are stupid and sensationalism is effective enough to be profitable. Sex is a cheap hot topic because it provokes a response. Sexual morality and appeals to outrage are another.

So because everyone else is doing it that makes it ok?

Originally Posted by Raza

It's a realistic exposure because people appreciate how such clothes and makeup look - outside a sexual context - well enough to make dolls out of them, and kids - again outside of a sexual context - like the dolls well enough to want to play with them. You're completely ignoring and devaluating the fact that fashion, makeup and the human body can be and constantly are appreciated aesthetically in a non-sexual fashion, by any viewer that isn't right at that moment being horny. You're telling kids that it's wrong to appreciate how they look or what they can do with that because a sexual appreciation is possible, even if it that's entirely up to the viewer and not at all implied in the individual, or doll, wearing it.

Well maybe I'm just seeing these dollz as sexual because I really, really want to fuck them

I like fashion, its fun. I never got to play dress up as a kid so I do it now via modeling. I just think it's important for parents to put theses things in perspective for children. It's one thing to take pride in your appearance, but it's another to feel pressured to look a certain way to fit in or obsess about it to the point where you can't leave the house unless you hair and make-up are done in a certain way. As I responded before to Amelia G, no I do not think just playing with dolls like these are going to totally destroy a child's sense of body image and sexuality, I just don't think they have anything positive to offer children. Fashion and make-up aren't bad per se, but they are superficial and personally I'd rather see my kid more interested in something with some substance behind it. If my kid wanted to be a fashion designer or make-up artist I certainly wouldn't discourage him/her. I just don't see these dolls as encouraging creativity of any type and would personally never buy them.

[Raza]

Originally Posted by LeilaHazlett

So because everyone else is doing it that makes it ok?

You didn't ask if I approved of it, you asked if I thought it was unrealistic to expect them to act otherwise.

Originally Posted by LeilaHazlett

Well maybe I'm just seeing these dollz as sexual because I really, really want to fuck them

Yah ok, you're redeemed, so I'll stop being an ass now.

[Mindgames]

In case anyone cares, the ruling and subsequent orders (which require MGA to stop everything, recall everything, not pass go, not collect $200 and crawl into a dark corner and die) are online at http://investor.shareholder.com/mattel/

Lots of big numbers involved and a blanket acceptance of similarity = infringement, which a certain girl named Emily may find perturbing.