Friday, March 11, 2011

It's not your imagination...Tinkerbell's turned hoochy.

We were shopping a while back, not in Paonia,thank you, but in a big box store that shall remain nameless but its initials are Walmart. (to my CA friends, I'm sorry. I said I would never set foot in an evil Walmarket, but I gave in. I was weak, and lazy, and I didn't want to drive 30 additional miles to the next town in order to have a choice of Target, JC Penney, or an even larger Walmart. Shopping here is the best reason to shop online.) Anyway...there we were, plowing through the foreign territory that is Walmart; acres and acres of cheap, tempting crap displayed for our buying pleasure, when I found my husband staring at an circle rack of little girl's T-shirts. He seemed kind of disturbed as he grabbed a pink size 6x tee, emblazoned with a Disney fairy.

"When did Tinkerbell get so slutty?" he demanded to know, waving the shirt in my face.

This is what he was referring to...

This is not the Tinkerbell we remember. Sure...Peter Pan even referred to Tink as 'a common girl' in the 1960 TV movie, but the animators have re-vamped her into an entity that looks like she'd be more comfortable serving cocktails in a strip club by the airport than flitting through a kid's movie.

Given that our fading memories often can't be trusted...(were Hostess Cupcakes really that much better in 1964, or were our taste buds less sophisticated?) I google-searched for an original drawing of Tinkerbell, and found this is what she used to look like...

OK...check her out. She's basically got the same hair, same outfit, those eyebrows that would make the producers of a 'Lifestyle Lift' testimonial proud.
But old, original Tink's arms lack definition, as if she hardly spent anytime at all at the gym. Her bust hasn't been enhanced, and new Tinkerbell has obviously had a chin implant, and probably some rhinoplasty. Original Tink looks like she could be a distant relative of Wilma Flintstone. New Tink looks like she could be a distant relative of Jenna Jameson.
None of this should matter at all, except that if you spend more than 5 minutes in the toy aisle you can't help but notice how blatantly sexual toys for girls have become. Bratz, Monster High Dolls, Struts (I'm not making this crap up-these are horses with high heels) even Trolls have been revamped so they're wearing short skirts and look really slutty. I wonder if Charlie Sheen had any input on this one...
I know I sound like a giant prude, but these toys are really skeevy. It's like they've been designed by pedophiles, because this is pretty simple stuff. Children should not be sexualized. It doesn't matter if you want to paint up three-year-olds and put them in beauty contests, or buy them dolls that emulate streetwalkers. Let children be children. Keep the slutty stuff where it belongs. In sleazy bars by the airport.

No comments:

Post a Comment