Hasbro discontinues controversial Trolls doll

[Water Lily]

If it's meant to be triggered by sitting why does it shriek or say oops? Like it's not usual to shriek when you sit down

Kinda what I was thinking too. I wasn't aware it was unadvertised! I thought it was just one button. Somebody needs to loose their job over this because its really just gross.

[caseysealia]

They said that that feature was "not meant to be there." yet proceeds to say it was supposed to be triggered when she sits. Which is it Hasbro??

[Wardah]

The lol dolls being color changed in water when that was heavily advertised

I think the issue with L.O.L. was/is more about their skimpy and sexy clothes. Sometimes kids are given these as presents and parents can't control and research everything. Toy companies could just not produce baby dolls in adult human lingerie in case of L.O.L.
Should parents not voice their concerns about these designs?
I mean, it's perfectly possible these things are bad for girls without there being a conspiracy. Little girls are way too early exposed to crazy body image and sexualized clothes via their toys just because toy makers these days want to tap into the secondary market of adult collectors. But I gotta ask myself: what adult enjoys babies in bralets and lacy panties? I can only think of people who enjoy crap like Toddlers and Tiaras. Sorry to anyone who enjoys the L.O.L. dolls that are not dressed like Lolitas

And "it's just plastic, it's not a real girl" is no excuse for me either. After all, these are deliberately made to look like cutesy female babies and not art toys like Kidrobot's Munny.
They have a grown up version of L.O.L. which bothers me less. Except for their hard nipples. Of course MGAE had to put something like that on the dolls. They seem to love scandal. Does a girl really need to play with her doll's erect nips? Doubt it. And dolls don't need genitalia either. It's all just uselessly sexing up a toy for a kid just so adults can get a kick out of it (doll collectors loved the nips, obviously). We're weird and sometimes I think we have almost as much entitlement as Bronies when it comes to fashion dolls. Some companies are pandering more to us than to parents.

I personally don't see them as babies. I am not usually a fan of baby dolls, I find them creepy. But I see LOLs as just being short adults like the Munchkins from Wizard of Oz. That might be why I still don't have any OMG dolls. The idea of them having big sisters ruins the effect of them being fully grown tiny people.

But oh I hear you about the entitlement of doll collectors. Ever since Monster High if a doll doesn't have full articulation it's trash. Despite growing up with limited articulation dolls like Bratz and pre Fashionistas Barbie and articulated dolls were usually a rare gimmick.

If it's meant to be triggered by sitting why does it shriek or say oops? Like it's not usual to shriek when you sit down

Kinda what I was thinking too. I wasn't aware it was unadvertised! I thought it was just one button. Somebody needs to loose their job over this because its really just gross.

Funny thing is I'm pretty sure they showed this at Toy Fair and nobody there noticed then either.

[Leave a Whisper]

If it's meant to be triggered by sitting why does it shriek or say oops? Like it's not usual to shriek when you sit down

Maybe if you stick a toy bee under her butt. 

[Nemesis]

On the subject of L.O.L.: I feel like nipples and such are just natural parts of the human body... why must they be associated only with sexualization? I would rather we move into an era of more body positivity, where we stop seeing every aspect of the human form as something scandalous that needs to be censored.

The clothes are a different matter, and I can see why people might feel put off by the... more grown-up looking outfits. That said, the gimmick of the series is that it’s a town (or civilization? ) run entirely by babies, so dressing them like mini adults is sort of the theme? I collect the small dolls very casually, but I’ve never encountered anything that a Bratz doll wouldn’t wear.

Doll articulation entitlement: YES. So much yes. I get that having poseability is great and all, but there are SO many collectors who hate on and leave negative reviews for every doll that doesn’t have 100+ points of articulation. It’s really absurd, given how rare even knee articulation was just ten years ago.

[Ponyfan]

I've never been a big fan of L.O.L's.  They just aren't for me but I've seen a lot of children playing with them and enjoying them.



Ponyfan

[Carrehz]

Oh don't even get me started on the articulation thing. That drives me up the wall. Yes, articulation's great, but it doesn't/shouldn't make-or-break a doll!!! If someone wants to only collect articulated dolls, that's fine and I fully support them - but quit trashing other dolls just cause they don't meet your absurdly high standards! The amount of times I've seen people throw Enchantimals under the bus simply because "not enough articulation"...

[Zapper]

On the subject of L.O.L.: I feel like nipples and such are just natural parts of the human body... why must they be associated only with sexualization? I would rather we move into an era of more body positivity, where we stop seeing every aspect of the human form as something scandalous that needs to be censored.

Because it's weird, imo, to mold erect nipples onto a female doll when there is no reason. The dolls have these crazy cartoon faces and then they have these nips. Just doesn't look like "natural" was the inspiration here.
A happy medium is doll boobs without molded on bras but without sculpted or painted on nipples, either. Barbie didn't even have a belly button for ages. She didn't even have toes even tho she had heeled sandals, of course.

And for that matter, I don't appreciate doll junk, either. It's kids toys, not mannequins for biology class. After all, what are kids supposed to reenact with doll private bits? It's much more important to sculpt holding hands for interaction with accessories because that's part of the play.

As for "body positivity", again it's a plaything. A plaything with Kim Kardashian's proportions, saucer eyes, barely a nose, face full of Drag-up and wearing crippling heels (the human body wasn't meant to walk like this, that's a fact). I don't think anything about these dolls is "body positive" except for the wide range of skin tones, which is somezhing MGAE spearheaded and that's nice.
O.M.G. is very obviously not here to ease girls into being okay with their looks, it's a pop culture-esque, pun-filled glam fashion line based on L.O.L. characters. It's supposed to be loud and glitzi and over the top. If I wanted to give a child a doll that helps them with their self-image I'd go for these American girl types or even a Barbie Fashionista.

Now a pregnant doll should definitely have nips to feed her baby with, but that's the irony: these kind of dolls only come with bottles and people are mad when the doll doesn't have a wedding ring Kids don't even notice that because these days, mom and dad are not even wearing their rings 24/7.

And before fans get mad, no I do not think it is an outraaaage or conspiracy or whatever to give O.M.G.s this feature. But they are based on L.O.L.s which are already sexualized at times, so I am all "mhhhh, is this meant to draw in adult collectors"? And given how popular these are with adults who wax poetically about the boobs and lingerie, I'd say, yes, this is MGAE trying to get a secondary market 

[Nemesis]

When Barbie was first released in 1959, there were parents who were outraged that the doll had breasts at all. Barbie’s creator argued that “women have breasts” and therefore Barbie ought to have them too, rather than being shapeless like the porcelain-type dolls (even the ones representing adults) that came before. For that matter... women have nipples—and they’re never totally smooth or colorless. For that matter, EVERYONE has nipples (which are not smooth/colorless either). As a kid, I was frankly confused as to why Barbie didn’t.

As for genitalia, I’d argue the same... Especially since the dolls in question are mini baby dolls that often have a peeing gimmick (none of the adult dolls are anatomically correct in that department). So as for what they’re supposed to reenact... I’d say changing a diaper? That’s something any kid with younger siblings is probably familiar with.

There are people out there who even complain about Breyer horses being “anatomically correct”, but again... that’s just how real horses look. Why turn it into a problem?

In the body positivity department, I was more talking about body acceptance in general, rather than weight or beauty standards. If body parts like nipples are censored out of dolls (or Breyer horses, for that matter), that just feels kind of... shaming, to me. Like we’re saying those parts are so unspeakable that they can’t even be represented on a piece of plastic. How a person feels about that issue probably varies widely based on personal experience, cultural influence, etc., but over the course of my growing up, I personally felt quite bothered by that kind of censorship/shaming. I felt uncomfortable in my skin. I think having a doll/s that at least had all body parts accounted for would have been a positive thing.

[Leave a Whisper]

On the subject of L.O.L.: I feel like nipples and such are just natural parts of the human body... why must they be associated only with sexualization? I would rather we move into an era of more body positivity, where we stop seeing every aspect of the human form as something scandalous that needs to be censored.

Because it's weird, imo, to mold erect nipples onto a female doll when there is no reason. The dolls have these crazy cartoon faces and then they have these nips. Just doesn't look like "natural" was the inspiration here.
A happy medium is doll boobs without molded on bras but without sculpted or painted on nipples, either. Barbie didn't even have a belly button for ages. She didn't even have toes even tho she had heeled sandals, of course.

And for that matter, I don't appreciate doll junk, either. It's kids toys, not mannequins for biology class. After all, what are kids supposed to reenact with doll private bits? It's much more important to sculpt holding hands for interaction with accessories because that's part of the play.

As for "body positivity", again it's a plaything. A plaything with Kim Kardashian's proportions, saucer eyes, barely a nose, face full of Drag-up and wearing crippling heels (the human body wasn't meant to walk like this, that's a fact). I don't think anything about these dolls is "body positive" except for the wide range of skin tones, which is somezhing MGAE spearheaded and that's nice.
O.M.G. is very obviously not here to ease girls into being okay with their looks, it's a pop culture-esque, pun-filled glam fashion line based on L.O.L. characters. It's supposed to be loud and glitzi and over the top. If I wanted to give a child a doll that helps them with their self-image I'd go for these American girl types or even a Barbie Fashionista.

Now a pregnant doll should definitely have nips to feed her baby with, but that's the irony: these kind of dolls only come with bottles and people are mad when the doll doesn't have a wedding ring Kids don't even notice that because these days, mom and dad are not even wearing their rings 24/7.

And before fans get mad, no I do not think it is an outraaaage or conspiracy or whatever to give O.M.G.s this feature. But they are based on L.O.L.s which are already sexualized at times, so I am all "mhhhh, is this meant to draw in adult collectors"? And given how popular these are with adults who wax poetically about the boobs and lingerie, I'd say, yes, this is MGAE trying to get a secondary market 

I'm not a prude, but that bothers me. Like can't kids have one innocent thing for themselves?

[otocolobus_manul]

I’m all for body positivity and the de-stigmatization of “taboo” parts of the body, but I know some people are going to like more anatomically correct dolls for all the wrong reasons. Non-sexual nudity is kind of ruined by a flood of comments talking about how hot and sexy it is, imo, and that’s what I see whenever anything features artistic nudity online, especially if it’s nude females. It’s not just a matter of prudism, sadly - the people prudes use as strawmen do very much exist, and are very vocal. I get not wanting to act like the human body is ~zOmG oBsCeNe ThInK oF tHe ChIlDrEn~ but I think it’s naive to think that everyone is respectful or mature enough to handle such things. (This post isn’t inappropriate, right? I’m trying to be as vague as possible while still getting the point across.)

[Nemesis]

That’s fair. Sadly, I think we’re all familiar with the kind of people you’re talking about. At the same time, I have seen... “those people”... sexualize many, many things that offer absolutely no hint of sexuality and/or anatomical correctness whatsoever.

I’m just not sure what the answer is. Letting people like that dictate how we feel about representation of the human body seems... not right, to me. On the other hand, I can understand why some might be concerned about “that crowd” being drawn to the brand. I still feel that when the human body ceases to be “taboo”, the situation will improve. Artistic nudity draws a lot of negative attention in part because the human body is largely treated as though it were obscene, IMHO.

[Wardah]

That’s fair. Sadly, I think we’re all familiar with the kind of people you’re talking about. At the same time, I have seen... “those people”... sexualize many, many things that offer absolutely no hint of sexuality and/or anatomical correctness whatsoever.

Like ponies?

[LadyMoondancer]

Tbh I think the Troll doll is much ado about nothing. It's like complaining that the Secret Surprise ponies are encouraging kids to turn to murder because you stab something in the pony's chest and then keep your treasures in their hollowed out body.  Toys aren't real people / animals and kids understand that.

[Nemesis]

That’s fair. Sadly, I think we’re all familiar with the kind of people you’re talking about. At the same time, I have seen... “those people”... sexualize many, many things that offer absolutely no hint of sexuality and/or anatomical correctness whatsoever.

Like ponies?

Exactly. :/

Tbh I think the Troll doll is much ado about nothing. It's like complaining that the Secret Surprise ponies are encouraging kids to turn to murder because you stab something in the pony's chest and then keep your treasures in their hollowed out body.  Toys aren't real people / animals and kids understand that.

I’m inclined to agree. People love a scandal, though. They’ll create one wherever any opportunity arises.

It’s a really dumb toy design, no denying. I still can’t believe no one raised an eyebrow before it hit production. However, there are people out there saying they’re going to boycott Hasbro over this, and raging all over the internet. Umm... seriously? <_<;