A disturbing doll has launched a titillating debate that swells between those hungry to teach children in a no-nonsense manner about their anatomy and those who'd rather bottle the subject until a more appropriate age.
Berjuan Toys'
The Breast Milk Baby encourages young children to explore the miracle of motherhood with a tiny machine, in the form of a doll, that is activated to pretend to eat by a mechanism the child wears to simulate nipples over their own shirt, a cloth halter top or vest with tasteful flowers or stars over the parts. "Two flowers on the halter are appropriately positioned,"
Business News Daily awkwardly explains ,"and when the doll’s mouth is brought close to the flowers’ embedded sensors, the baby makes suckling sounds." Perfectly natural!
According to
USA Today, psychologist Susan Bartell, a contributor tobabycenter.com, is "uncomfortable" with the interactive toy because children in its 3- to 6- year-old target age "are not developmentally at a point where they think about their bodies in terms of nurturing a baby. This isn't really something they should have to think about."
While author Sally Wendkos Olds, The Complete Book of Breastfeeding, sees the doll as "a lovely way to introduce the topic to little girls who are interested and curious." Our society "has eroticized the breasts to such an extent that their true purpose has been forgotten," she lamented.
What about little boys who are curious about breast feeding? Shall they don the smock to experiment but with care to explain the true nature of their bodies which does not permit them to nurture infants? Do we instead direct them toward the true purpose of their penis-- to procreate? No need to manufacture that type of doll-- it's available in a different kind of "toy" store entirely! Stock up before the Christmas rush, now, run to the local porn shop to get your little boy the Procreation Doll! When he puts his penis in the dolls vagina it....oh, dear. You can teach children about something without actually simulating it, can't you?
The breast-feeding doll is not perverse because we're puritanical zealots who find our bodies' functions filthy nor because it contributes to “contributes to the sexualization of children and it makes them targets of assailants,” as
Fox News contributor Kieth Ablow suggested, quickly adding, “I assure you I’m not a pedophile at all.” Oh, man.
It's gross because they're children and they don't need to dabble too heavily in the world of grown-ups. Their innocent, fresh imaginations provide limitless beautiful ideas and concepts, perhaps even that of day-dreaming about what it's like to be a mommy or daddy, with the dolls they already own and the body they already have. A tiny purse meant to mock Mommy's doesn't come complete with condoms and the pool boy's Speedo, under-eye wrinkle cream and a good psychologists' business card. Why apply other adult functions and responsibilities in such a heavy-handed manner? I believe the phrase, usually applied to breasts in a different way entirely is, "Leave a little to the imagination."
If we're introducing raw reality head-on for the eventual betterment of society's children, I propose we create a wrinkled up elderly person doll. It calls the child by the wrong name, wanders away and gets lost, causing the child immeasurable panic, shits its pants, needs its false teeth soaked each night and criticizes her career choices and the way she dresses. It's a fact of life, after all, even more certain than child-rearing. A child of today may or may not become a parent tomorrow, but except in the case of unfortunate events, we all have parents and will have to address caring for them some day.
Do you find that the breast-feeding doll is sexually suggestive toward little girls, perhaps much too strikingly grown-up concept for a small child to grasp, or a great way to introduce future moms to the functions of their bodies?
Larry King
March Madness
Natasha Fame Leslie
Ryan Seacrest
Sanu Dellafiore
John Armstrong
Fred Hanna
Georgia Hester
