Lingerie Barbies.
October 28, 2002 7:18 AM   Subscribe

Lingerie Barbies. From FAO Schwarz. This is not a spoof.

(Personally, I'll pick black over white any day of the week, but that's another story)
posted by magullo (33 comments total)
Does it vibrate?
posted by ColdChef at 7:27 AM on October 28, 2002

I don't see anything particularly unwholesome about this. This is not the sort of doll you give to your daughter to play with -- not because it's dressed in slightly racy lingerie, but because it's $45 American and is supposed to be a serious collector item. Many people (myself not one of them) make a practice of buying special edition and collector Barbies, some of which are considerably more than $45, and displaying them, like Royal Doulton figurines or plates with pictures of their grandchildren. Okay, maybe it's a bit unwholesome.
posted by kate_fairfax at 7:36 AM on October 28, 2002

The BarbieĀ® Fashion Model Collection unveils its first-ever African-American Silkstone doll,

She doesn't seem all that black to me.
posted by crunchland at 7:38 AM on October 28, 2002

Ken's gonna get some ass tonight.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:38 AM on October 28, 2002

Ken's gonna get some ass tonight.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:38 AM PST on October 28

Or Jim the UPS guy is gonna get a lil' "afternoon delight".
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:41 AM on October 28, 2002

Kate: I don't think $45 is such a high price that Boudoir Barbie would only be bought by adult collectors. When there are all kinds of children's action figures selling for $10 and some as high as $20-$25, what's another $20 bucks for a ready-for-action figure with enhanced play capabilities?
posted by rcade at 7:44 AM on October 28, 2002

Or in my playground, a gang bang with all four ninja turtles and He-Man.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:44 AM on October 28, 2002

Prominently noted as being for ages 14 and up, for chrissakes. It's not like they're trying to push them on eight year-olds. Maybe its a little unwholesome, but then so is the whole misproportioned bust and hips thing anyway.

Oh, and batteries are not required; i.e., they don't vibrate.
posted by yhbc at 7:44 AM on October 28, 2002

kate_fairfax - What you are thinking about is the $180 Barbies (which, BTW, are also marked as 14 and up).

Still, I fail to see how a "heavenly merry widow bustier ensemble accented with intricate lace and matching peekaboo peignoir" is 14-year old material. But then again, I've never been a 14-year old girl.
posted by magullo at 7:51 AM on October 28, 2002

Um, my 1960s Astronaut GI Joe wants to know if there's a Barbie Lingerie Catalog...
posted by argybarple at 7:59 AM on October 28, 2002

A good column about this topic from the Providence (RI) Journal.
posted by beagle at 8:25 AM on October 28, 2002

I was pretty surprised to see the Lingerie Barbies in an FAO Schwarz catalog a few weeks ago. Not into them myself, but to clear up the confusion, here is some information.

According to this article, in 1999 Mattel introduced a new line of "Fashion Model" collectible dolls. The very first dolls were the original Lingerie Barbies (picture here). Despite the relatively low price, these are limited edition collectible dolls.

The odd part is that this line of dolls is made from a special material called Silkstone, which apparently "was developed exclusively for Mattel, and it offers the silky smooth touch and heavy feel of porcelain, but yet the doll has a look much closer to vinyl than the look of actual porcelain..." [article above]

Why am I writing all this about plastic dolls? I just don't know.
posted by ungratefulninja at 8:26 AM on October 28, 2002


Obviously you don't know much about Barbie collecting. Look at the detailing. They have used a classic head mold, which is a big indicator of a collector's doll.

The dolls don't have to be expensive to be collector items. My 1989 Happy Holiday Barbie (retail: $29.99) recently sold for over $500.

A doll like this one won't appreciate as well, it's mostly as a throwback to the dolls adult collectors had as young girls. They also have a full wardrobe sold separately, with outfits fit for Jackie O. It's a nice collection, if you're into it.
posted by Andrea at 8:29 AM on October 28, 2002

Many people (myself not one of them) make a practice of buying special edition and collector Barbies

Like maybe this guy.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:52 AM on October 28, 2002

Well, I'm not a prude, but I agree with beagle's column.

This is FAO Schwarz, a kids' store - so if it is an "adult toy", it should be elsewhere. And show me the 14-year old who play with barbies. And why is this in the 12+ category if it is for 14+?

She is wearing bust-enhancing / show off lingerie with high heels and a garter belt - someone tell me how do you explain what her (otherwise very healthy) intentions are to a child - even a 14 year old child.
posted by magullo at 8:56 AM on October 28, 2002

FAO is not just a "kids store". Adult collectors shop there as well. Surprisingly, some adults like toys.

Is it the responsibility of FAO or Mattel to monitor the type of doll a child is playing with, or is it the parents? My mom didn't let me have a Ken doll until I was 23. I think that might explain why I have so many problems.
posted by Andrea at 9:20 AM on October 28, 2002

Detailed view my ass! Let's see some... er, sorry, wrong forum.
posted by Dick Paris at 9:23 AM on October 28, 2002

I'd just like to point out that when I was 8 or 9 years old I was playing games with my Barbies that were sexual in nature. Games that went far beyond Barbie and Ken going to the movies on a date.

I've talked to other women about this, and every one I've spoken to also played with their Barbies in a similar fashion.

I find it interesting that so far it appears to be men who are condemning this doll, not women.

And the doll in question is clearly marked as 14+, so I really don't see what the problem is. I'm sure there are other items in the FAO Schwarz catalog which aren't made for children. Like all those other collectible Barbies (I bet there are even some collectible toys that men would like). Why bitch about this one particular one because you don't like the way she's dressed?

On preview: I have to agree with Andrea--why should it be FAO Schwarz or Mattel's responsibility to make sure that only adults purchase this toy--shouldn't that be a parental responsibility? I never had a Ken doll. I always had to borrow my sister's. That could be why I have so many problems, too. <g>
posted by eilatan at 9:36 AM on October 28, 2002

Andrea Are you really telling me that some adults like toys?

eilatan If you find interesting that is only the guys that oppose it, maybe you you should seriously reconsider what is the purpose of lingerie.

Or put it another way, by the time you come to appreciate sophisticated lingerie for what it is, you've been around the block several times. Once thing is knowing about sex, another thing is knowing about sex-related accessories. I think a 14 year old should be aware of the sexual nature of humans, I also think a 14 year in lingerie is not appropriate, even if she is sexually active with the full knowledge and consent of her parents. It's more like pathetic.
posted by magullo at 10:09 AM on October 28, 2002


I hate to tell you this, but complaining about Barbie doll underwear lands you squarely in the "prude" category.
posted by MegoSteve at 10:14 AM on October 28, 2002

No one's suggesting the 14 year-old girls dress up like this - that's what the dolls are for. You don't expect 14 year-old boys to dress up in combat fatigues and carry bazookas the size of bathtubs just because their G.I. Joe does, right?
posted by yhbc at 10:20 AM on October 28, 2002

I think everyone knows about lingerie long before 14, magullo. TV and movies feature lingerie-clad women all the time, and even cartoons do the occassional lingerie gag. Kids pick up the concept pretty quickly using context. At least I did.
posted by Nothing at 10:23 AM on October 28, 2002

does this mean that their underwear isnt just a continuation of their skin anymore?
posted by Satapher at 10:45 AM on October 28, 2002

well, rcade, $45 American is $72 Canadian. For that kind of money, I could get nice lingerie for myself.
posted by kate_fairfax at 10:51 AM on October 28, 2002

My vintage GI Joe says Barbie is vain and vacuous. He'll never date another one. He's pushing me to fix him up with someone else.
Come to think of it, if I had a daughter, I'd rather see her playing with a self-respecting, aggressive, assertive action figure (even if it carries a gun), rather than a figure that is a compliant male sexual object. But, as we said, these are toys for adults and collectors...
posted by Shane at 10:54 AM on October 28, 2002

Next Week: Crotchless Panties Barbie with Pleather Riding Crop accessory.
posted by toothgnip at 11:00 AM on October 28, 2002

magullo: I know that I wear lingerie for any number of reasons. The least of which is giving some man an erection. I presume that, in your mind, that is the sole purpose of lingerie. At least that's what I've inferred from your comments in this thread.

That said, I'm pretty sure I didn't say that I thought 14 year olds (of any gender) should be dressing in ways which are inappropriate for their age, nor did I say that they should be sexually active, with or without parental consent. Stop putting words in my mouth. Playing sexually-tinged games with Barbies (lingerie-clad or not) is not the same as being sexually active. At any rate, as a number of people have pointed out, most 14 year olds don't play with Barbies.

Of course, maybe me and all my friends are just a bunch of perverts, too...
posted by eilatan at 11:18 AM on October 28, 2002

Another excuse for collecting, not a toy, only a collection called a toy.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:51 AM on October 28, 2002

On reflection, $45 isn't bad. From FAO Schwarz, I would expect Lingerie Barbie to cost as much as a real woman in lingerie.
posted by Shane at 12:15 PM on October 28, 2002

my girlfriend told me that when she was a little kid, she'd pretend that all her barbies were hookers and gave them names like "trixie". heh.
posted by wrffr at 12:25 PM on October 28, 2002

Every little girl's Barbies were less-than-innocent, whether they came with lingerie or a floor-length ballgown. I mean, look at those tits! Those legs! Does she look like a prude?

That said, my Ken was just as big a sex freak. Barbie never found out that he was cheating on her with my Skipper doll...until Skipper got pregnant. Oh, it was a scandal!
posted by katieinshoes at 1:19 PM on October 28, 2002

Barbie just wants to be loved. And have her feet chewed on.
posted by hot soup girl at 8:45 PM on October 28, 2002

And I can't forget about the unspeakable things I saw my GI Joes doing when my little sister abducted them for her Barbie Dungeon of Pleasure.
posted by geekhorde at 9:33 PM on October 28, 2002

« Older   |   Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments