|
Post by spaniel on Jun 18, 2009 0:05:55 GMT -5
That's odd. I found little Samael plushies, books on how to draw the mark of Samael, plastic incubi, sorcery colouring books, and anatomically correct "My Boy Toy" dolls all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by doomie 22 on Jun 18, 2009 1:46:58 GMT -5
I'm no child rearing expert but I'm pretty sure stifling a kid's imagination could be considered unhealthy. And on the subject of old ugly toys we used to have, mine was a little stuffed dog with gray fur. I called him woofy. I had him ever since I was two and didn't put him away until I was eleven. We were astronauts, knights, cowboys, pirates, you name it. I think I still have him around somewhere... in fact... woofy, in all his glory.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 18, 2009 5:28:39 GMT -5
But on the same token, they won’t allow their daughters to buy Barbie dolls because those place an emphasis on unattainable standards of beauty rather than concentrating on the inner person of the heart. I doubt they'd have that much of a problem with the "unattainable standards of beauty" issue. Rather, they probably would ban Barbie because she's an example of a girl's capability to become an astronaut, a teacher, a businesswoman, a veterinarian, or any other thing she might want to be besides a wife and mother. ~David D.G. Their post specifies the reason they have banned Barbie is because Paul commands women not to put on outward adornments but instead to make their adornments inward, like being submissive and sweet. While they probably have no problem with the *unattainable* beauty idea specifically, they said very explicitly that the reason they are keeping it away is to keep their daughters from "practicing" the pursuit of physical beauty, attainable or not. Though I would guess they also have a problem with the astronaut, teacher, etc. issue if they have thought that far into it.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 18, 2009 5:41:26 GMT -5
Actually, if Barbie were scaled up to human proportions, she would be 6'3" tall, 42DD-24-34. That is in no way a realistic or healthy woman. No. Barbie is 11.5" If that translates to 6'3" it gives her (in the original, non-rescaled form) a proportion of about 1:6.52. As such, it would give her measurements of 39-20-36. That's a bra size of 36D, 34D or 34DDD, etc. The waist size is insanely small, and that figure is probably unattainable without a corset, but your actual numbers are wrong. (Feel free to buy one at a thrift store for a dollar and check my measurements.) Generally Barbie is considered a 1:6 scale doll, making her 5'9", 36-18-33. Again, the waist size is not going to occur in nature, but your actual numbers are wrong. Wikipedia has the same numbers I came up with. Wikipedia also tells me Barbie was remodeled in the early 2000s to have a wider waist (but I think the other proportions are the same?) which would probably bring the proportions into existing-in-nature but unusual territory. I'm not a Barbie fan myself, but if you're going to dislike something, don't do so on the basis of misinformation.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Jun 18, 2009 8:24:40 GMT -5
Actually, if Barbie were scaled up to human proportions, she would be 6'3" tall, 42DD-24-34. That is in no way a realistic or healthy woman. No. Barbie is 11.5" If that translates to 6'3" it gives her (in the original, non-rescaled form) a proportion of about 1:6.52. As such, it would give her measurements of 39-20-36. That's a bra size of 36D, 34D or 34DDD, etc. The waist size is insanely small, and that figure is probably unattainable without a corset, but your actual numbers are wrong. (Feel free to buy one at a thrift store for a dollar and check my measurements.) Generally Barbie is considered a 1:6 scale doll, making her 5'9", 36-18-33. Again, the waist size is not going to occur in nature, but your actual numbers are wrong. Wikipedia has the same numbers I came up with. Wikipedia also tells me Barbie was remodeled in the early 2000s to have a wider waist (but I think the other proportions are the same?) which would probably bring the proportions into existing-in-nature but unusual territory. I'm not a Barbie fan myself, but if you're going to dislike something, don't do so on the basis of misinformation. I don't dislike Barbie. Being an old man I have no feelings whatsoever about Barbie. The numbers I was quoting came from a textbook on my shelf on Teen Psychological development. I have never personally checked the specifics, and it is entirely possible those numbers are inaccurate, although I had no reason to doubt them at the time.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 18, 2009 13:50:41 GMT -5
No. Barbie is 11.5" If that translates to 6'3" it gives her (in the original, non-rescaled form) a proportion of about 1:6.52. As such, it would give her measurements of 39-20-36. That's a bra size of 36D, 34D or 34DDD, etc. The waist size is insanely small, and that figure is probably unattainable without a corset, but your actual numbers are wrong. (Feel free to buy one at a thrift store for a dollar and check my measurements.) Generally Barbie is considered a 1:6 scale doll, making her 5'9", 36-18-33. Again, the waist size is not going to occur in nature, but your actual numbers are wrong. Wikipedia has the same numbers I came up with. Wikipedia also tells me Barbie was remodeled in the early 2000s to have a wider waist (but I think the other proportions are the same?) which would probably bring the proportions into existing-in-nature but unusual territory. I'm not a Barbie fan myself, but if you're going to dislike something, don't do so on the basis of misinformation. I don't dislike Barbie. Being an old man I have no feelings whatsoever about Barbie. In what way does being an old man prevent you from having feelings about Barbie, but not about finding facts about Barbie to be relevant information? I find it appalling that a textbook of any sort would have such terrible information about something that is so very easily checked for factual accuracy. It is of course reasonable for a person on a forum to think what they read in a textbook is accurate. A textbook author randomly hearing something somewhere and putting it into a textbook when the correct number could be ascertained with about 10 minutes of work by a remedial math student makes me want to punch someone. (This is quite independent of the nature of the fact in question, other than that fact be readily determinable by anyone at all.)
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Jun 18, 2009 16:13:30 GMT -5
I don't dislike Barbie. Being an old man I have no feelings whatsoever about Barbie. In what way does being an old man prevent you from having feelings about Barbie, but not about finding facts about Barbie to be relevant information? I find it appalling that a textbook of any sort would have such terrible information about something that is so very easily checked for factual accuracy. It is of course reasonable for a person on a forum to think what they read in a textbook is accurate. A textbook author randomly hearing something somewhere and putting it into a textbook when the correct number could be ascertained with about 10 minutes of work by a remedial math student makes me want to punch someone. (This is quite independent of the nature of the fact in question, other than that fact be readily determinable by anyone at all.) No need to make a federal case out of it. I simply dropped what I thought was an interesting factoid into a relevant conversation. You corrected it. No need to get yourself worked up.
|
|
|
Post by Radiation on Jun 18, 2009 17:31:54 GMT -5
I have a very vivid and active imagination even at 29 years old. I think that is one of the good traits of Asperger's Syndrome. I can believe that there are parents out there that would actively suppress their kids' imaginations as it would retard their ability for decision making, problem making and other mental development capabilities.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 19, 2009 1:05:13 GMT -5
In what way does being an old man prevent you from having feelings about Barbie, but not about finding facts about Barbie to be relevant information? I find it appalling that a textbook of any sort would have such terrible information about something that is so very easily checked for factual accuracy. It is of course reasonable for a person on a forum to think what they read in a textbook is accurate. A textbook author randomly hearing something somewhere and putting it into a textbook when the correct number could be ascertained with about 10 minutes of work by a remedial math student makes me want to punch someone. (This is quite independent of the nature of the fact in question, other than that fact be readily determinable by anyone at all.) No need to make a federal case out of it. I simply dropped what I thought was an interesting factoid into a relevant conversation. You corrected it. No need to get yourself worked up. I apologize if my getting worked up seemed to be targeted at you. I *do* get worked up about bad information presented as facts (no matter how trivial the content) in textbooks. And I won't likely stop getting worked up about that anytime soon. But I'm sorry that I came across as snapping at you.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jun 19, 2009 1:13:30 GMT -5
Childhood would have been boring without imagination.
I WANT MINE BACK!
|
|
|
Post by Maryland Bear on Jun 19, 2009 7:11:27 GMT -5
Childhood would have been boring without imagination. I WANT MINE BACK! Adulthood has its advantages. You have the money do things you could only imagine before, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Jun 19, 2009 9:24:06 GMT -5
You lost your imagination as an adult? I feel sorry for you, dude.
|
|
|
Post by Maryland Bear on Jun 19, 2009 11:03:33 GMT -5
You lost your imagination as an adult? I feel sorry for you, dude. No, not at all. I might imagine different things than when I was young, though. Ask my boyfriend. ;D
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Jun 19, 2009 17:08:02 GMT -5
How about not?
|
|