New lifelike doll for girls: Breast Feeding doll. Does it cross the line? IMO? Yes!

[hippie_hunter]

I don't see how it will hurt anyone and I don't see it oversexualizing anything, but I can understand why parents would get upset over this as opposed to a lot of things that excessively angry parents get annoyed over. And if I had a kid, I wouldn't buy it. Mostly on account that it's weird and creepy.

 

[Shemtov]

I'm not uncomfortable with it if it's a grown woman. But if these dolls are intended for pre-teens, that's probably not something they need to know about yet.

Well, a lot of people forget that the main purpose of the Breast is not to be sexy and attract men, it's too feed babies. Mate Attraction is just a side thing. I think that's where ATP is coming from.

I would like to agree. But one could argue that this is another way of glamorizing pregnancy among young women.

Hmmm....I don't know too much about the subject but does the potential for mass glamorazation of Teen Pregnancy exist?
I always thought that teens don't aim to be preggers but either they
a.are too horny too think they might need BC
b. think that it can't happen too them
or c. depend on ineffective methods of contraception (Standing, *****ing, pre-coital *********ion etc.)

 

[Mace Bloodstone]

How about no babies until you are an adult and can financially take care of them.

 

[Alex The Great]

I'm not uncomfortable with it if it's a grown woman. But if these dolls are intended for pre-teens, that's probably not something they need to know about yet.

Dude. 13 Year Olds are having sex. They oughta know just in casesies.

 

[katie_girl09]

Hmmm....I don't know too much about the subject but does the potential for mass glamorazation of Teen Pregnancy exist?

Yes. You would be surprised at how many teenage girls actually WANT to get pregnant because they think it will be cool/fun/a way to get handouts/whatever.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Dude. 13 Year Olds are having sex. They oughta know just in casesies.

True, but it's still gross. When I was 13, I still had a freaking bedtime

 

[Mike_D202]

This just in: The Prenup Patty doll will be released this summer with voice phrases and a two piece wardrobe consisting of a suit and tie. Now your children can prepare themselves for adulthood!

Disclaimer: Cheating Charlie sold seperately.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

The most offensive thing about the doll is the price. $90? Get the **** out of here!

 

[scifiwolf]

I don't have a problem with educating girls on something that every mammal does. It's part of procreation. It's something they should know about going into puberty. I don't think that learning the specifics of breast feeding, in such earnest as to actually practice, is something that needs to happen until pregnancy, regardless of age.

My only issue with this doll? It's extremely indicative of parents in the 21st century falling short of their responsibilities in raising and educating their offspring. While I commend someone for trying to fill a sociological void, it's depressing that the void exists in the first place.

 

[The Question]

I'm not uncomfortable with it if it's a grown woman. But if these dolls are intended for pre-teens, that's probably not something they need to know about yet.

Why? In what way is it harmful for a person to know what a part of their body does?

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Well, a lot of people forget that the main purpose of the Breast is not to be sexy and attract men, it's too feed babies. Mate Attraction is just a side thing.

Em, I think when God designed it, he had both functions in mind equally, that is why the breast looks so beautiful to the eye in that way.
If people did not have these types of physical attributes to attract mates, there would be no babies in the first place.

 

[The Question]

Em, I think when God designed it, he had both functions in mind equally, that is why the breast looks so beautiful to the eye in that way.
If people did not have these types of physical attributes to attract mates, there would be no babies in the first place.

The reason men (usually) find large, healthy breasts attractive is because of breastfeeding. It's a sign that the woman in question is healthy and is best able to care for potential offspring. So, male attraction is, in that sense, a "side thing."

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

The reason men (usually) find large, healthy breasts attractive is because of breastfeeding. It's a sign that the woman in question is healthy and is best able to care for potential offspring. So, male attraction is, in that sense, a "side thing."

Spoken like a true scientist, but there is more to life than cold hard facts.
Let's put it this way, I have read two opinions on this on this forum, one from from a gay man, who said 'It's a weird unnatural fetish, breasts are for breastfeeding.', well, of course he would say that right? He has never felt sexually aroused by them, and same goes for a hetrosexual woman.
Yourself, I guess you are a hetrosexual male, but you are playing the scientist, and trying to be smart about this, but it goes beyond all that anthropology crap, there is also poetry in the world, what are you going to say about that, that it is just a bunch of words? No, there is something more to it, aesthetic beauty. Not to mention that women can be sexually aroused by having them touched in a certain way by men or women.
It is of equal design for both purposes, sexual pleasure and baby feeding. I mean, I think that is pretty obvious.

 

[The Question]

Spoken like a true scientist, but there is more to life than cold hard facts.
Let's put it this way, I have read two opinions on this on this forum, one from from a gay man, who said 'It's a weird unnatural fetish, breasts are for breastfeeding.', well, of course he would say that right? He has never felt sexually aroused by them, and same goes for a hetrosexual woman.
Yourself, I guess you are a hetrosexual male, but you are playing the scientist, and trying to be smart about this, but it goes beyond all that anthropology crap, there is also poetry in the world, what are you going to say about that, that it is just a bunch of words? No, there is something more to it, aesthetic beauty. Not to mention that women can be sexually aroused by having them touched in a certain way by men or women.
It is of equal design for both purposes, sexual pleasure and baby feeding. I mean, I think that is pretty obvious.

What is this jibber jabber?

I never said anything about poetry or aesthetic beauty or whatever, all I said is that the reason most heterosexual men find breasts attractive is because they're a sign of health and an ability to care for offspring, which is pretty true. I still like Robert Frost as much as the next guy. Ypu're acting like I personally attacked all things good in the world when all I did was say "the reason a lot of people think boobs are awesome is because of this." They're still pretty awesome regardless of that.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

What is this jibber jabber?

I never said anything about poetry or aesthetic beauty or whatever, all I said is that the reason most heterosexual men find breasts attractive is because they're a sign of health and an ability to care for offspring, which is pretty true. I still like Robert Frost as much as the next guy. Ypu're acting like I personally attacked all things good in the world when all I did was say "the reason a lot of people think boobs are awesome is because of this." They're still pretty awesome regardless of that.

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you or anything. Didn't mean to jibber jabber, lol.
I guess what i was getting at is that when some folk always correlate men's attraction to breasts as something to do with breastfeeding babies, they try to make out it is because the guy has 'arrested development' or something, like, he is just looking for a mommy, instead of a partner. That is just a way of insulting a guy you do not like, and trying to besmirch his name.
So, I'm just trying to get past that bs, and establish the fact that they were created in nature equally for pleasure, as much as practicality.
it's no 'side effect' it was created for both purposes equally.

edit: it's like saying, life, the body, exists so we can eat and crap, no, we eat and crap so we have the energy to go on and have pleasurable lifes.

 

[The Question]

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you or anything. Didn't mean to jibber jabber, lol.
I guess what i was getting at is that when some folk always correlate men's attraction to breasts as something to do with breastfeeding babies, they try to make out it is because the guy has 'arrested development' or something, like, he is just looking for a mommy, instead of a partner. That is just a way of insulting a guy you do not like, and trying to besmirch his name.
So, I'm just trying to get past that bs, and establish the fact that they were created in nature equally for pleasure, as much as practicality.
it's no 'side effect' it was created for both purposes equally.

Well, no, it is a side effect. But I'm not talking about an oedipal complex. What I'm saying is that, somewhere in the recesses of our brains, there's this little bit of insticnt going "Ah, this female has large, healthy breasts! Were I to make babies with her, she would feed them heartily and they would grow strong. I shall endevour to make babies with her!" And this little bit of instinct has informed our ideas of what is "sexy" as our culture has developed. There's nothing wrong with that, it's not saying that the guy has mommy issues, it's just saying that our idea of sexy comes from our ancestors' idea of healthy.

 

[Gotham Knight]

Why? In what way is it harmful for a person to know what a part of their body does?

It depends on the age. Dolls are intended for children. What little girl would need to learn about any of this now? I don't think it's going to corrupt someone or ruin a life, but It's just unecessary.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Well, no, it is a side effect. But I'm not talking about an oedipal complex. What I'm saying is that, somewhere in the recesses of our brains, there's this little bit of insticnt going "Ah, this female has large, healthy breasts! Were I to make babies with her, she would feed them heartily and they would grow strong. I shall endevour to make babies with her!" And this little bit of instinct has informed our ideas of what is "sexy" as our culture has developed. There's nothing wrong with that, it's not saying that the guy has mommy issues, it's just saying that our idea of sexy comes from our ancestors' idea of healthy.

But, couldn't you just as easily say, having babies is a side effect of sexual attraction? That we are put here for pleasure primarily, and having babies is a side effect to us taking pleasure in life, so that new people can arrive and take over the pleasure gig once we are pushing up the daisies?
I just think that God, the great design, whatever, when it had the breast on the drawing board, said, ok, this is part baby feeder, part sexual pleasure organ....of equal importance.
I mean, life is difficult, we are always trying to figure it out and whatnot, so we focus on the practicalities of life being the major ones, but maybe one day when we are all living in a utopia of pleasure and peace(or as close to that as we can get), we will see life more as a pleasureable experience, and the practicalities are the side effects.

It is just two ways of looking at things, from opposite angles, so that is why I am saying both functions are of equal importance.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Em, I think when God designed it, he had both functions in mind equally, that is why the breast looks so beautiful to the eye in that way.
If people did not have these types of physical attributes to attract mates, there would be no babies in the first place.

You do realize that this is a cultural thing, right? Many cultures in the world (especially -- surprise, surprise! -- cultures influenced by the Bible) encourage women to cover their breasts, therefore, when a breast is seen, heterosexual men find it sexually appealing. There are tribes in South America and Africa, though, where both women and men walk around in nothing but a loincloth. If you'd grown up in a society like that where you were seeing bare breasts 24/7, including the breasts of elderly women, you would not find them even half as appealing as you do from having been raised in your current culture. It's this same concept that caused the Puritans to find bare legs and ankles sexually appealing, because they covered their women from head to toe with very restricting outfits similar to what modern Amish women wear; if a woman from that culture were to publicly display her bare leg, it was considered just as scandalous as if a modern woman in Western culture publicly bared her breasts.

 

[The Question]

It depends on the age. Dolls are intended for children. What little girl would need to learn about any of this now? I don't think it's going to corrupt someone or ruin a life, but It's just unecessary.

But what's the harm? Why not do it?

But, couldn't you just as easily say, having babies is a side effect of sexual attraction? That we are put here for pleasure primarily, and having babies is a side effect to us taking pleasure in life, so that new people can arrive and take over the pleasure gig once we are pushing up the daisies?
I just think that God, the great design, whatever, when it had the breast on the drawing board, said, ok, this is part baby feeder, part sexual pleasure organ....of equal importance.
I mean, life is difficult, we are always trying to figure it out and whatnot, so we focus on the practicalities of life being the major ones, but maybe one day when we are all living in a utopia of pleasure and peace(or as close to that as we can get), we will see life more as a pleasureable experience, and the practicalities are the side effects.

It is just two ways of looking at things, from opposite angles, so that is why I am saying both functions are of equal importance.

But pleasure is subjective. The breast is not objectively beautiful. It's just a lumb of fat and skin and muscle with a gland inside of it. We are attracted to big healthy ones because that helps the survival of our speices. We then associate that attraction with beauty. We derrive pleasure from sex because that aids the survival of our speices. That doesn't invalidate the feeling of pleasure, it simply explains why we like that particular thing, which as then gone on to become associated with love and beauty and fun as our culture and our ability to appreciate such concepts has developed. This is not to say that beauty does not exist, simply that it is more abstract and subjective than you are saying.

 

[Gotham Knight]

I'll tell you what the harm is when you tell me what the positive is.

 

[The Question]

I'll tell you what the harm is when you tell me what the positive is.

Why don't you just tell me what the harm is, because there being any harm in doing it would be the only reason to not do it. If there's no harm then there should be no problem.

But to answer you attempt to sidestep my question, it teaches girls about their anatomy, about what their body does, and to not be ashamed of basic bodily functions, especially ones that serve absolutely no sexual purpose but in fact are important for child rearing. As a previous poster said, a lot of women are uncomfortable with breastfeeding because that part of their body has always been arbitrarily taboo.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Yeah, of course they are designed to be attractive to those sexually inclined that way, I already covered that aspect.
Anyway, I am not going to talk about such beautiful female forms in a science-y way anymore, thank you for discussing this with me, but this is where the tit talk stops.

edit: Bat-mite: yeah, all those cultures are dumb when it comes to preserving the beauty and surprise of the breast, I once travelled the world and found a long lost village like that , and above the terrain there was a large sign saying 'Breasts(Spoilers)', so i only hung around there for a while y'know, I did not want the whole movie spoiled for me.

 

[Gotham Knight]

Why don't you just tell me what the harm is, because there being any harm in doing it would be the only reason to not do it. If there's no harm then there should be no problem.

But to answer you attempt to sidestep my question, it teaches girls about their anatomy, about what their body does, and to not be ashamed of basic bodily functions, especially ones that serve absolutely no sexual purpose but in fact are important for child rearing. As a previous poster said, a lot of women are uncomfortable with breastfeeding because that part of their body has always been arbitrarily taboo.

I never have to sidestep questions as I always have a valid argument. And that's not really a positive, it's just creepy. And it makes me sort of uncomfortable that you seem to be all for this(assuming you're a he?). I could understand a woman making the argument that you're going with as they would likely be for the whole understanding your whole body thing, but for a dude it comes off as defensive and...... Yeah, you know what? I think bumwhowalks had a great idea. This is getting kind of uncomfortable.

 

[danoyse]

I think that it's an interesting idea, and I'd be curious to see if it actually worked. Kids absorb so much about life at a young age. I think that it's worth a try.

I am well aware that I say this coming from a biased place, but after having a teenager tell me she refused to try breastfeeding because "I don't want nobody suckin' on my chest" well, I'm much more open to crazy ideas

When I was a kid, I had dolls that drank from a bottle and needed their diapers changed (from the water that we just poured out from the toy bottle)...and none of that ever prepared me for actually feeding a real baby or changing their diapers later. Dolls are toys, and the reality is just different.

My friends have babies, they've all gone through the breastfeeding thing, and they all have their war stories about it. Some have stopped because it was just too difficult to do, or because it hurt like hell. Having a doll as a kid wouldn't have changed that because again, the reality is different.

And honestly, a mother doesn't have to breastfeed. It's not going to hurt the baby if the mother decides not to do it.

Odds are, most little kids have some idea what breastfeeding is anyway...they have baby brothers or sisters, or friends who do, and they have some understanding of what that is. There's no need to give them a doll.

Hell just based on that, I'd be worried about my kid deciding to "breastfeed" her doll and pulling up her shirt to in the middle of the mall to do it. Little kids will do something like that. We don't need that going on either.

It's just a dumb idea.