Curated by: Antonina, Cara, Deanna, and Lilyanna
Sexualized Children’s Toys — L.O.L. Surprise! Dolls
L.O.L. Surprise! Dolls are toys that are typically played with by young children. The dolls themselves look to be a regular toy that kids can enjoy. On October 7, 2020, these toys became a spotlight on social media and news channels for the sexualization of the makeup of these dolls. As seen in the video, when the L.O.L. Surprise! Dolls are submerged in water, their skin begins to form colored outfits representing lingerie and other inappropriate representations, namely for a child’s toy. The parents spoke out about the make of these dolls, as they viewed this as sexualizing an innocent toy. Some of the parents in the video mention that they were surprised to see these markings, but also morally do not approve of the “matureness” this brings to a young child. When we begin to think about how kids play, we can assume they will start to generate questions about what they are seeing. This brings in a topic that is not siding with the innocence of kids, and rather is forcing them to engage in more mature and sexualized topics at this young age. Additionally, this is a beginning stage of desensitizing children to sexualized toys or representations in our culture. Children that grow up seeing this, beginning to understand the articles of clothing depicted, and continue to acknowledge it is “okay”, possibly will grow into a teenager and young adult thinking these representations are not as shocking or not as inappropriate as today’s parents do. While Buckingham argues that sexualizing toys and advertisements can be dated back centuries (Buckingham 2011), this is still a topic of conversation that is not widely accepted in our society, especially by parents.
Sexualized Children Advertisement – – haven for families
“The phenomenon of ‘age compression’ or ‘kids getting older younger’ has recently become a familiar trope among marketers,” (Buckingham, 125) and a specific example of this can be found in the Australian family magazine company haven for families.
In their February edition from 2014, the publication featured a nine-year-old girl with teased hair, wearing a small two-piece ‘circus’ costume with flats, holding a plastic globe, and leaning against a wall. As expected this cover became the topic of conversation due to its controversial nature, a young girl in revealing clothing for the viewing of adult audiences. As Buckingham suggests, advertisements like this “raise the specter of adult’s own unconscious desires for children’s bodies; it transgresses the boundaries that define how adults are supposed to look at children” and “what adults perceive as sexual may not be perceived as such by children” (128). I can only imagine this little girl thinking nothing much of her appearance. I could see her possibly thinking that she looks high-fashion and mature, whereas adults have a much different opinion of her controversial look.
What makes this whole situation sad is that this simple publication for a family magazine unintentionally suggests to young girls that it is okay to dress like this, that this is what models wear. This idea alters young minds’ way on how they perceive themselves and others. “Marketers walk a difficult line between showing girls as ‘attractive’ and presenting them as ‘sexy’” (Buckingham, 126) and this is a perfect example of them crossing that line.
Sexualized Children’s Toys – Midge the Pregnant Barbie
Recently featured in The Barbie Movie (2023) is an often-forgotten companion of Barbie — Midge, the pregnant Barbie. Mattell released Midge as part of the “Happy Family” line. She had a magnetic pregnant belly which had a baby inside, and later, a husband named Allan, and a 3 year-old baby named Ryan. You can read more about the history of Midge here and about the controversy here.
Much of the controversy around Midge was about her unclear age. Some worried this promoted teenage pregnancy. Midge also first appeared without a wedding ring. Even though this was soon corrected, Midge’s reputation was tainted and toy stores pulled the Happy Family line off the shelves. The story of Midge connects with Buckingham’s notion that adults hold a “strange ambivalence about childhood sexuality: it is both denied (because children are deemed to be innocent) and yet seen as a potentially unstoppable force once it is ‘released’ by external corrupting influences.”
Do you think Midge releases a corrupt influence? Does she promote sexuality or motherhood? Is one more “natural” to promote than the other?
Learning to Nurture – How Much is too Much?
If you ever pretended to breastfeed your dolls when you were a child, this could have been the toy for you! A doll sold in Europe in the 2010s, the “bebe Gloton” could breastfeed through the fake flower-shaped nipples included in the child-size bra (it’s a bib, really) that was part of the package. When the product made its way to America, with its commercial including a slogan about the “magic of motherhood”, it was faced with outrage over being “too much too soon”. Some American consumers proposed that this kind of toy would encourage early teen years pregnancies.
While the connection between nurturing childhood play with dolls and reckless teen pregnancy seems difficult to reasonably draw, one may wonder what could be the range of potential impacts of this toy? The positive impacts are obvious, like increased perception of breastfeeding as a normal human function. But are there negatives?
What do you think, does commercializing one way of feeding a baby (breastfeeding) really differ from other forms of pretend baby feeding (bottles)? Is it too much, too soon, or is it just part of reenacting nurturing routines that we see in other types of doll-related play?
Or, as this Slate writer surmises, is toy this “profoundly icky” not because it is related to breastfeeding, but because it indoctrinates children into becoming consumers of massive amounts of baby gear when they become adults?!
References
Buckingham, David. The Material Child : Growing up in Consumer Culture, Polity Press, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/pensu/detail.action?docID=1174276.
Midge(Barbie). (2024). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midge_(Barbie)&oldid=1211151713
Yes, barbie used to have a pregnant bestie named midge. (2023, September 11). Women’s Health. https://www.womenshealthmag.com/life/a44611311/pregnant-barbie-midge/
Great exhibit! I feel that society has become too concerned with childhood toys and the message they are sending. I compare this to toys that I interacted with when I was younger. I was young and the idea of adult concepts in correlation to my barbie dolls and other toys was nonexistent. I understand parental concern but sometimes I think this gets exaggerated in society today. I feel that now society critiques everything and looks for problems that do not always necessarily exist.
Hi Julia,
I am one of the curators of this side exhibition and I agree with you about the critiques being overblown.
Looking back on my own 1980s childhood, I recall thinking that the moral panic over Barbies negative impact on girls’ self perception of their bodies was a weird stance. I never compared my physique to Barbie’s because she was a plastic doll and comparing a plastic doll body to a human body doesn’t make any sense.
Even that long ago, Barbie had pretty lingerie, like this: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/567172146816839439/
It wasn’t scandalous. It’s just pretty underwear!
But that maybe speaks to larger social issues around the female body – are we taught to enjoy wearing beautiful things because we like them or because they make us an object for the male gaze?
If we work from a standpoint of the female body being a product for male consumption, then the doll lingerie is a controversial item.
If we work from a standpoint of teaching girls that they can dress and decorate their bodies as they wish to, for the purpose of their own comfort, pleasure, and self expression, the the doll lingerie is a neutral item.
Thanks for presenting these thoughts and giving me a chance to consider what is sexualizing in the child arena. The L.O.L. Surprise! Dolls changing colors was interesting. The MGA Entertainment response to the backlash sounded like the lingerie versions almost happened accidentally, which is their ridiculous way of trying to backtrack from what they chose to do. I looked up other L.O.L. changing dolls, and the color change was a simple swimsuit. I agree that the lingerie versions are “a beginning stage of desensitizing children to sexualized toys or representations in our culture”. I am not a fan of these types of dolls to begin with. I wouldn’t want my daughter to play with the lingerie version.
Marylynne,
I think adults are the ones who are sexualizing the dolls. The kids probably don’t care at all about what it looks like when they get wet. I will agree elaborate lingerie is strange, but kids don’t care. This reminded me of something that happened when I was a kid. My grandmother started buying me these tiny lingerie nightgowns that were silky, lacey, and flowery when I was about 10 years old. I remember thinking it was so weird, so I asked my mom about it once. She explained that my grandmother grew up during the great depression, and she never had pretty or nice things. Because of that, she bought her daughters and granddaughters elaborate lacy nightgowns, which she always wore as well. So what I thought was something a little too sexy, she thought it was something beautiful that I could enjoy. I never really thought about when silky and lacey nightgowns went from something that defined beauty and social status to something sexy. Are we deciding the LOL dolls are sexual? Do kids just think they look cool? Are we worried our kids will want to wear outfits like that? If so, who would buy them? Thank you for sharing!
Carrie
I remember a controversy about Bratz dolls (coincidentally also made by MGA Entertainment). They wore a lot of makeup, had augmented pouty lips, had unrealistic body shapes, and wore adult-like clothing. There was even concern about the name and whether it prompted young girls to act like “brats.” According to Wikipedia, the American Psychological Association even brought up the sexualized nature of these dolls.
Hi Diane! I remember growing up that Bratz dolls were controversial for my age group. Moms who gave their child the dolls were perceived as “bad parents.” However, these dolls did not seem to be sexualized when I was growing up. I could be wrong but I was a child. Now a days, the way children’s toys are perceived, I can say it is a bit concerning how toys are slowly becoming sexualized. Which then eposes children to this at a younger age (even if they are not properly introduced to these topics) and allows them to be curious. Which their is nothing wrong with being curious, but to me, it appears that they are exposed to this at a younger and younger age. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Wonderful exhibit! Watching the video of the LOL Dolls made me really think about the toys that I played with as a child. A majority of my play involved Polly Pockets, Barbie Dolls, Bratz Dolls, and even just simple baby dolls. I don’t think as a child that I even thought about anything in a sexualized way. Most dolls had boobs and were shown to have large quantities of makeup on, even the Polly Pockets wore undergarments which seemed to represent bras and underwear. But honestly, I don’t think it meant anything to me beyond they were toy dolls that I played with. Which makes me wonder now if kids understand or even are thinking about their toys in a manner outside of simple play?
This was a great exhibit! Now that I think about my childhood, I do not think that the toys I grew up with were marketed with sexualizing in mind. I had Barbie dolls, Polly Pockets, Beanie babies, American girl dolls so, comparing how toys were 10-15 years ago vs now is somewhat mind boggeling. I never thought about it because from a young age I knew that girls had boobs and wore bras. Today, dolls and children’s are being modeled towards nurturing babies, showing off the body, and are becoming more sexualized. I wonder in addition to social media if this is potentially having an impact on young children?
Awesome exhibit! There are several topics you touch on that are so intriguing. Sexualizing children in advertisements is something I wasn’t aware of until becoming an adult. I also admit that it may be more prevalent as I have aged too. It seems that children or tweens are “maturing” in their choice of fashion and beauty at a younger age. While this may not seem detrimental to the child, the fact that marketers are targeting youth as consumers and displaying sexualized expectations of what is attracted is worrisome. This makes me wonder how this impacts our youth mentally. If they are constantly in comparison mode, self evaluating their looks and whether they are good enough, how does this impact their mental health? How does this impact the adult that they will become? How does this affect their perception of what is attractive?
Thank you for sharing!
Great exhibit! I had so many thoughts as I looked through this exhibit. The first was that, as a mother, I can distinctly remember having conversations with my two teenage daughters about dressing modestly. I understand that tweens and teens may not be thinking much about how their outfits make them look sexy, but as parents, we know about the dangers lurking out there for our daughters. My husband and I wanted to teach our daughters to dress modestly to not draw unwanted attention to their bodies from boys and older males. So, we were hyper-sensitive to the marketing messages being sent to our daughters. I distinctly remember thinking that companies like Hollister and Aeropostale “crossed the line” by sexualizing the clothing their models wore.
I also related to the part of the exhibit about toys, especially the Midge Barbie and family. My daughters played with these when they were younger (and we probably still have them somewhere). I never thought about the Midge Barbie being sexualized. If anything the dolls were a way to play with a pretend family. So, in answer to your question, I think the Midge Barbie promoted motherhood rather than sexuality.
I was thinking about Midge the Barbie, as well! I actually didn’t remember Midge from my childhood, but I saw this doll while I was watching the barbie movie. I took Midge to promote motherhood rather than sexuality. But I do think it’s interesting that Mattel didn’t originally make Midge with a wedding ring- I wasn’t aware of that or that they later changed the design. I feel like society does promote motherhood often for girls- think of baby dolls and playing house, etc- so that’s how I see Midge the Barbie. It does speak to this idea that being a mom is a job- which I appreciate! Moms are an important job– just like barbie showed girls being doctors and teachers, etc.
This was an interesting gallery. I think the scholarship of dolls is really fascinating. I know some people who don’t let their children be transgressive with their doll play (cross-dressing, gender switching, etc.) and I think that is really damaging to the kids.
I enjoyed the exhibit on the sexualized L.O.L dolls, but have to disagree on the fact that the ‘Heaven for Families’ or the pregnant Barbie are necessarily sexualized. The former has a girl wearing a 2-piece, there is nothing sexual about that; and the former is simply a pregnant Barbie. Barbie can be anything, right? So why not a mom? Dolls have been a way for kids to play and mimic what they see in the world for millennia, so it’s only logical that there should be a pregnant Barbie doll, too.
Interested to hear if my classmates agree or disagree with me.
As someone who loved the Barbie movie, I was also unaware of the character of Midge previously. I am curious how toys have become so politicized. Why, for example, all the uproar about Midge and her family? There exist all kinds of mothers and families in the US and in the world, so I’m a little sad that her existence – with or without a wedding ring – is so hotly contested. Is this really important enough for adults to worry about?
Hi Antonina, Cara, Deanna, and Lily! What a thought-provoking exhibit! I’ve never imagined dipping a doll in ice-cold water to see what might be revealed. Btw, I just discovered a different version of this in MGA’s Dream Ella … “Dip your doll in a bath to reveal which fairy you got! • Use the soft star-shaped sponge to reveal a cold water color change surprise bodice decoration” (“cold water” and “surprise” in italics, https://dreamella.mgae.com).
For the cover of the Haven for Families Magazine, the plastic globe is intriguing (what exactly is it?) and her pose is quite mature, for sure. This image has me thinking of Higonnet’s discussion about a “knowing child.”
Barbie is such a fascinating brand because of its longevity. I’d love to share a brief excerpt from Donna L. Roberts’s “The Economics of Barbie: Marketing the Evolution of an Icon Through the Generations” (The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 22.7, 2020, pp. 83-88) that provides some background about Midge from a marketing perspective.
“To further counter criticism of Barbie being a sex symbol, Mattel introduced Midge, a friend of Barbie, in 1963. Midge was the epitome of the all-American girl with a freckled face and a tomboy figure. In the late 1960s Mattel began to add new features to Barbie to sustain the interest of young girls. For example, in 1966, Barbie accessories included a ‘magic’ solution that would change the color of Barbie’s hair and clothes. In 1967, Mattel revolutionized the toy industry when it introduced ‘Twist and Turn’ Barbie who was able to move at the waist, bend, grasp, and tilt her head. To popularize Barbie’s new features, Mattel launched ‘Total Go,’ a campaign with a $12 million budget, focusing on the new features of Barbie in both the print and electronic media – press, television, and radio. Before launching any advertisements, Mattel tested them on children and aired only the ads for which the children indicated preference (Lord, 2004; Riddick, 2001; Subhadra, 2003; Westenhouser, 1999)” (84).
ProQuest link: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2465484368/84B2AC2AD8F74CA2PQ/4?accountid=13158&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals
I’ve never seen the “bebe Gloton” doll before! Along the lines of pretend baby care, a doll I had would need to “pee” after being “fed” water. The novelty wore off very quickly!
Thanks for your eye-opening and engaging exhibit!