Its come to my attention that I own two rather controversial barbies. The first is the lovely Black Canary (also known as “dominatrix barbie” or “S & M barbie”). My boyfriend bought me this doll when I went back to collecting:
I can completely see why this doll might upset some people, but far worse (and far less stylish) exists thanks to a certain kind of OOAK artist. And after all she actually is based on a comic character (nobody complained about Wonderwoman Barbie’s itsy bitsy swimsuit, did they?) I love her face, and was a little bit disappointed when I found out that in order to re-dress her without cutting the outfit I would have to rebody her, a practice that I find a little bit scary.
The second is Butterfly Art Barbie, who comes with a stomach tattoo:
Apparently when mint in the box (mine wasn’t, and she was also missing her tiny rather slutty denim skirt) she also came with a packet of little temporary tattoos which could be put onto other dolls or onto people. According to some, this Barbie might encourage little girls to want tattoos. It seems a bit of a fuss about nothing to me – temporary tattoos have been sold to little girls since the 80s, when only the very daring or very drunk would risk a rose on the ankle or a heart on the bum cheek. God knows what the people who complained would make of the Hard Rock Dolls. I know these aren’t marketed towards children like Butterfly Art Barbie was, but this didn’t stop people complaining about Barbie Basics 001 model 10, also not marketed towards children, whose little black dress had a plunging neckline. Sigh. As if children – all children, everywhere – weren’t perfectly familiar with those famous plastic boobs …