posted
Do they exist anymore? Is there any evidence to this effect? I'm doing a paper on disney princesses and I wanted to compare them to barbie, but I can't find any information on her being anatomically incorrect. I know it's out there, I just don't know how to find it. If you could help me out I'd really appreciate it. Thank you!
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait ... aren't all Barbies anatomically incorrect? Has something changed in recent years that I missed?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Physical characteristics Barbie's height and exaggerated hourglass figure drew criticism from parents and anorexia nervosa groups. If scaled into real life proportions, she would be 5 feet, 9 inches, (1.75 m) measuring 36-18-33. According to research by the University Central Hospital in Helsinki, Finland, she would lack the requisite 17 to 22 percent of body fat required to menstruate. [1]
According to research the by Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders, a healthy woman would have to have her neck elongated by 3.2 in. (Int J Eat Disord. 1995 Nov;18(3):295-8) to match Barbie's proportions.
posted
A baby would have to be pretty ugly to look like a Cabbage Patch doll, too. And think of the unrealistic cuteness standards that Pound Puppies set for young dogs!
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have anatomically accurate (in pretty much all particulars) dolls that my mother bought while we lived in Germany. They would set them in the shop windows with their diapers open so you could tell what gender the little Aryan Cherubs were.
I think it's kind of weird that childrens' toys have to be neutered and idealized. In RL, barbie would never pass the pencil test. *smug*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Related plug: my column this week will be on the top ten most dangerous toys of 2005. Missle-launchers and easily-swallowed toys will not be considered hazardous. Instead I'll be focusing on more dangerous toys such as those that enforce misleading, consumer-driven, impossibly idealized standards of beauty that stand on their tiptoes all day.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Related plug: my column this week will be on the top ten most dangerous toys of 2005. Missle-launchers and easily-swallowed toys will not be considered hazardous. Instead I'll be focusing on more dangerous toys such as those that enforce misleading, consumer-driven, impossibly idealized standards of beauty that stand on their tiptoes all day.
posted
I've always found it interesting that boys action figures are not held up to the same ridicule that Barbie and girls' dolls are. Boys are presented with same unrealistic and overblown images of themselves as girls are but it never seems to be an issue. I've read many many articles about the damage being done to girls, but nnot much about the boys. Could be an interesting idea for Chris to look at as well? Just a thought...
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean DK. Why, I'm the spitting image of one of those manly man dolls. Would you believe I have the same exact dimensions as Superman?
Would you believe Batman?
The Incredible Hulk?
OK. Ok. The Incredible Bulk. But that's not important right now....
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Male dolls, or 'action figures' are mostly very, very ugly, and even my G.I. Joe was not terribly muscular.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even she isn't that bad, she's only 5'6, where I read Barbie would have to be much taller. Also, this woman got married in 1959!!!
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Those pictures are just crazy. Thanks everyone for your help. I'm actually having a lot of fun, because I'm writing a paper about how the disney movies are completely different than the original fairytale, and what is lost during the retelling. I get to watch Disney movies and everything. Good times.
Edit to add that I can't spell
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: According to research by the University Central Hospital in Helsinki, Finland, she would lack the requisite 17 to 22 percent of body fat required to menstruate.
Wow. That's all I have to say about that.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh i know high school runners that are below that body fat percentage too, and they don't menstruate often, if at all.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Awww romanylass, that's just gross, put a totally disfigured freaky ugly warning on a post like that.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you think Barbie is messed up what about poor Ken?!?!? That guy has some major issues with his anatomy if they want to say that every man should look like him I'm HAPPY that I don't...
PS by the way I was talking about his hair helmet honest... Posts: 17 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a pencil can be placed under a pendulant breast without falling, then the person should rely on some engineered assistance or support when dressing to appear in public.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Place a pencil underneath your breast, flat against your abdomen. If your breast holds the pencil in place, you fail.
Used as a yardstick to tell if a bra is required (not effectively: bras may be necessary or advised even if you pass) and by people joking/bragging about their own breast "perkiness."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Used as a yardstick
When I started to read that sentence I thought you were going to talk about people who use a yardstick instead of a pencil. The mental images were not good.
posted
As far as the body fat goes, my sister is trying to get her body fat down to 11% by next summer, for a competition. I think it's disgusting. She thinks she'll look better, but I don't.
Posts: 180 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wear a bra only when I feel like it now because lately I have been loosing weight and they are just starting to become an ornament rather than a useful undergarment.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by R. Ann Dryden: As far as the body fat goes, my sister is trying to get her body fat down to 11% by next summer, for a competition. I think it's disgusting. She thinks she'll look better, but I don't.
Not only disgusting, but dangerously unhealthy. Isn't 10% or so needed just to cushion the brain? Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: Yes, KoM. The wearing of a bra in public is now optional for you. Congratulations!
Hey, this is America, where lots of men ought to wear bras, or bros, as the case might be. I'll take your congratulations with pride.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I could hold a pencil with tape. This is not a brag, just a way I feel a wee bit better about my Skipper-ish figure. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Glares at own rack* Yeah, uhm, anyone got a dozen or so? *looks away* Oh, to have a choice about wearing bras! What fun! *runs from thread*
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That . . . that . . . that link is HIDEOUS!
It suddenly brings into proportion the awfulness of the small waist sizes in Gone With the Wind.
On the other hand, I pass the pencil test, even if my waist is far bigger than the 20 inches it was at age 18. *twinkles*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In "Angus, Thongs, and Full Frontal Snogging" (a ya book), the girl says her mother could hold a whole pencil case, and she barely passes the pencil test. I grabbed a small pencil case and yeah, I failed.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
*smug*
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
at Olivet
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
