seems to be a duplicate posting...

[MommyHawk]

seems to be a duplicate posting...

[zinemama]

Huh? Who are these people who don't think kids should understand about their own bodies?

Not a thing wrong with age-appropriate, honest responses to questions.

I wouldn't buy the dolls because personally I think they are quite ugly and rather creepy looking in a Frankenstein-corpselike way (not talking about their anatomically correct features, just the faces and limbs). And also, my kids aren't very interested in dolls and they have their very own anotomical selves to explore - which they certainly do...

I like the book It's So Amazing, myself.

[Baha'iMama]

Honestly, yes, I think Barbie should have nipples on her breasts. They don't need to be perfectly detailed, just a hint, like her hint of a bellybutton.

But as for genitalia... I don't see the need. I mean, it's a doll, for little kids to play with. It's for fantasy, not reality. Children don't see people the way adults do. If you look at kids' drawings, you'll notice that they start out drawing faces. Then later on, torsos and faces. Then they add rudimentary limbs. Later, hair and bellybuttons. Much later come things like breasts, and perhaps a penis sometimes for a man; but the addition of genitals in a child's depiction of a human being is pretty rare. They're just not focused on those kinds of details. Dolls are made to fit what a young child sees: stylized, non-detailed bodies and big, bright, bold faces with interesting features. I think putting anatomical genital details on a child's doll is really unnecessary. Bad touch can still be taught with a normal doll, using the same general region of anatomy.

That said, I must clarify my point by saying I think there should be a stylized penis on male dolls. Kids DO know that girls are "tucked in" between their legs, adequately depicted by a creased flat area such as that between Barbie's legs, but boys are "dangly", so should have SOMETHING protruding a bit. Like my daughter's baby doll, a little boy, has a little plastic penis and testacles molded on his body (not separate). That is perfectly fine for a child's level of awareness.

[sebarnes]

Well, we don't have any anatomically correct dolls, cause they're just not something we can afford right now, but we have very frank, age appropriate discussions with our children. Mainly, dd, cause ds isn't quite 2 yet, but they both know the correct names of the various parts of their bodies, where breastmilk comes from and where a baby comes out of, and dd knows she'll have pubic hair when she gets older. Studies have shown that children who know the correct names of body parts are less likely to be sexually abused, and I intend to help my children have the best chances possible of avoiding abuse in all forms, as well has having a healthy respect for their marvelous bodies.

[rockportmama]

For us, we try to keep it simple and accurate. We don't have any dolls, but I have been known to pull out my anatomy book to answer questions. We've told DS he'll grow up to be a Papa, but no discussion of sexually mature physical traits yet (he's 3.5 & hasn't asked).

We started with the terms penis & scrotum. I added testicles after he'd clearly found 'em in there. "'What'cha got there, son?' Quizzical look from son. 'That's your testicle, son. How many testicles do you have?' Looking amazed, he says '2!'"

I taught DS that milk was made in the "milks" and comes through the nipples like a straw to get to baby. This was to explain why men have nipples but don't make milk. I'm starting to use the term breasts for milks on occasion now. Otherwise I've used chest for male & female.

HTH!

[readytobedone]

well, your friends would absolutely FLIP over DD

she's just 2 and completely obsessed with "daddy's mooks" (e.g. nipples)--and puzzled about why he has them, since they don't make milk! ("daddy's mooks no make mook, mama!")

so we've told her that men's nipples don't make milk, but women's do when they have a baby, and hers will some day if she ever has a baby. so she squeezes her "mooks" and talks about them, too! ("my mooks for baby!")

she's taken to looking for the cat's "mooks" too, since DH told her that kitties are mammals and nurse babies, so they have mooks!

and i told her what pubic hair was because she pointed and asked me "what's that on mommy's pee-pee?"

honestly, i think all this is fine--more than fine, really. if she asks me what something is, i'm going to tell her

[Aubergine68]

Originally Posted by Baha'iMama

But as for genitalia... I don't see the need. I mean, it's a doll, for little kids to play with. It's for fantasy, not reality. Children don't see people the way adults do. If you look at kids' drawings, you'll notice that they start out drawing faces. Then later on, torsos and faces. Then they add rudimentary limbs. Later, hair and bellybuttons. Much later come things like breasts, and perhaps a penis sometimes for a man; but the addition of genitals in a child's depiction of a human being is pretty rare. They're just not focused on those kinds of details.

My dd, a very healthy, normal kid, imo, went through a phase of drawing vulvas on pictures of people and animals when she was about 4. This was around the time she realized that mommy and she both had vulvas and daddy didn't.

I don't think she's ever drawn nipples in her artwork, or belly buttons, for that matter.

We were always matter-of-fact about these things, used correct anatomical names for body parts, etc.

OP, I think those dolls are fine and am surprised at your family's reaction.