I'm personally wishing it was for all the right reasons, e.g. because Bratz dolls are major sluts and it's just wrong to have a five-year-old dressing up a little doll that looks like a tranny prostitute. The moment Bratz came onto the scene, you know teenage pregnancy was going to go into an upswing. If our generation was shocked at how big Barbie's tits were and how small her waist was, and what this could potentially do to the future of society, she was nothing compared to these dolls. Barbie was simply the suggestion of sexiness. Bratz are sex incarnate. Not just sex incarnate, they're anorexic, self-involved, trashtastic sex objects that look like they're all ready to drop it like its hot and show their stuff on the pole. And this is what we're letting the kids play with these days.
But no, it's all about corporate greed once again. Maybe copyrights were infringed, but it just smacks of jealousy and sour-graping to me.
1 comments:
with the name "bratz" alone, being the negative term that it is, parents should not want their kids playing with these. luckily these corporate crap helps get rid of these things, as moral grounds would be a bit too vague to get them to stop production and stuff.
Post a Comment