Boobs are a No-go on LEGO CUUSOO

[Holly-Wood]

Hi,

will there ever be female minifigs worth this name? Highly unlikely!

Read here what happend to the 3D Female Minifigs project I tried submitting to LEGO CUUSOO.

By, w.

[RaincloudDustbin]

I can see why they rejected it although I do find it slightly sexist...

[TheLegoDr]

Well, TLG would have to design a whole new mold for torsos and then have to have a new machine to print on that part (or maybe China has one already?). So even if TLG didn't want to promote breasts to little children, they'd have a heck of a time implementing it.

Although, I can completely understand why they didn't do it since the target audience probably doesn't have breasts yet themselves. For the most part, I would imagine it is pre-pubescent kids playing with this toy. And if they want boobs, they can play with Barbie.

But I bet there will be a third party seller willing to create these for AFOLs, similar to the more cut-out torso for females to make them curvier.

[Rook]

Thank goodness! Everyone would have tons of minifigs with the decals partially rubbed off. XD

Edited January 15, 2013 by Rook

[Hrw-Amen]

Well I have to say that reading the guidelines they have quoted none of them seem to fit with your female torso. They cannot claim that they depict sex as they are fully clothes and simply represent a female body which whilst i accept most kids of the target age will not themselves have they will certainly be familiar with it in the form of their mothers and other adults around in the general world as a whole. So not sure on what grounds they are saying it does not fit with the guidelines really?

[AndyC]

I suspect it's the female minifig in (what appears to be) just her underwear that is the principle concern, although quite so much obvious cleavage on show probably also doesn't help (the Friends figs are much more conservatively dressed, for example). That said though, I doubt the project can succeed on Cuusoo anyway, the team have repeatedly said they're geared around single sets that only use existing (albeit possibly re-coloured) parts, so pretty much any project based solely around new pieces is borderline anyway. Combine the two and it's hardly surprising they rejected it straight off.

[Holly-Wood]

I suspect it's the female minifig in (what appears to be) just her underwear that is the principle concern

Well, compared to the 2013 mermaid

you could call my girls fully dressed.

the team have repeatedly said they're geared around single sets that only use existing (albeit possibly re-coloured) parts, so pretty much any project based solely around new pieces is borderline anyway.

If this is true the team doesn't read its own guidelines:

"You will receive credit and compensation for your original ideas. We recognize three types of ideas, as follows:

Original Part Ideas. You will receive a one-time flat fee as remuneration for a part idea that is produced, to be determined by the LEGO Group."

and none of these parts would be allowed at Cuusoo.

w.

[Kez]

@Holly-Wood I like your ideas for the female figures and I wouldn't mind having a few of them in my figure collection but I don't too many problems on why it got rejected, compared to Princess Leia from here http://www.brickset.com/minifigs/?m=sw085 I'm surprised that figure was even allowed, maybe it was ok for it to be like that back then, after all I suppose lego cuusoo have to follow rules from lego too, also lego cuusoo could find it slightly sexist so that is probably why it got taken off, unlucky

(I wonder what a lego Barbie figure would look like, maybe like one of your designs).

[Vindicare]

I can see why they rejected it although I do find it slightly sexist...

I'm not really sure how it's sexist? Girls have boobs. Sure, the one in her unmentionables are too much for kids. I can't help but chuckle a bit when looking at your figs. Not in a bad way, just funny to see them. I don't see the harm in them. It's not much different to having a boob print, sometimes even with cleavage.

[Faefrost]

I can understand why TLG would reject these. But they certainly weren't very clear as to their reasoning.

Best guess goes something like this, and why it does revolve around sex, but not in a wink wink nudge nudge naughty sort of way. You see Matel can get away with breasts on Barbie, because Barbie has always had breasts. Lego Minifigs however have not. The day little junior pops open a new set and finds that all of his Minifigs have suddenly hit puberty! Well some questions are gonna be asked. And let's just say that that would not be the sort of educational experience parents were hoping for from Lego toys. The fact that all the figs shown in the demo seem to be standing around in lingerie really doesn't help. And let's be frank, as soon as Lego stumbled across the project idea of "Minifigs! But with BOOBS" their brains kind of shut down at that point. It might have been a brilliant idea. But it has already been carefully placed in the nut job filing cabinet, and a brief phone call made to the local FBI equivalents department of deviant weirdo's. as soon as the subject of putting "more realistic female breasts on minifigures" is brought up, it's all over.

[J.V.D.]

Well, first of all: I am not in favour of this new design. Not for the "moral" or guideline reasons that were used to reject this project, but rather because they wouldn't blend in well with the existing minifigs. Or the new, or the old female figs would look strange if you combine them. And female figs already are "rare"... this would limit the availability even more if you have to restrict yourself to one of both types in a moc.

(on the other hand, it could be a smart move marketingwise; a lot of AFOLs would feel obliged to replace their complet female minifig collection... or at least the torsos ... and who wouldnt want an update of the CMF lifeguard so she realy looks like baywatch Pamela.. )

But what strikes me each time I read about CUUSOO rejections is the way they seem to change on every ocasion the guidelines or follow different interpretations of them.

Also the way Lego on one hand tries to follow some strict rules when it comes to violence, morals, ethics etc.. (a lot stricter then other toy companies as e,g, playmobile) but on the other hand crosses their bounderies the whole time when producing sets for licensed themes, makes me scratch my head..

Besides: Lego is bringing out this one this year :

http://www.brickset.com/minifigs/?m=frnd039

After the SW Leia as slave, and the shell covered mermaid from the pirates line, the first bikini I guess... and these friends minidolls aren't flatchested neither..

A bit confusing...

As others already mentioned, I guess the rejection was mainly based on the examples of clothes / prints you included in your submission. If it had only been a proposition for a new torso mold (and represented in a neutral color), maybe things had turned out different.

Since I never did see your submision on CUUSOO, I dont know what wording you used in your presentation.. but maybe that had its influence too.

[Rook]

I find the double standard in almost every part of their reply with examples of "violations" to those standards within their own products. So basically they're really saying, "We're not going to change our product today but we may in the future and if we do it's not related to this and we won't give you credit. Thanks TLG" XD

[Meatman]

This is the best Cuusoo idea ever.

[Lyichir]

I think the "sexism" they're rejecting it for is the implicit suggestion that the current unisex torso is not good enough. People can draw their own conclusions as to whether that's enough justification, but personally it doesn't bother me that this project was rejected; it's trying to eliminate a problem that is really hardly a problem, with a solution that flies in the face of the economy of design in the structure of the classic minifigure. The breasts on these are the most detailed part of the entire figure, and the only parts which eschew basic geometry, which has its own unfortunate implications.

[kibosh]

I just don't see the need for this at all. is it really that important for people to have their creations populated with minifigures with breasts? What's the point?

[TheLegoDr]

And if you think about the current Modular line. They have some printing on the torsos, but normal smiley faces meaning by changing a haircut you can alter what gender a minifigure is. There really isn't a need for physical changes to the minifigure to make that happen. Plus, kids use their imagination.

[BrickG]

All the reasoning against blocky lego boobs (IMO they should be more blocky than in those concepts :P) are really, really thin. Besides the one that Cuusoo doesn't like new molds and the fact that most people don't care and the unisex molds are working fine.

Seriously, they're boobs. There's nothing inappropriate about them no matter what you say. Yes, Lego hasn't had them except in print. Doesn't matter. Boobs are boobs. It's not like the Lego boobs would have real world boob physics or anything. IF their reasoning was "shaped boobs no" then they're wrong. But it doesn't seem to be... I think they're more against a new mold and are perfectly content with the unisex molds that rely on printing to convey boobs. Which I think is reasonable.

I wouldn't mind seeing boob lego chests. But I don't think it's really necessary. I would be all for it. But I'm not going to campaign for it, and don't care if they don't.

EDIT:

While procrastinating on REAL work I quicky put together a mock. I think if Lego every did this, which they won't :P, the breasts would be more minifigure-ish and kind of be like small slope pieces and not rounded.

Here's a quicky, too small, poorly made mockup featuring the basic shape, a random print and then Princess Leia before (bottom) and after (top). I think it looks good :P. Though I know a lot of people here are old fashioned when it comes to Lego and hate change. ;)

Edited January 17, 2013 by BrickG

[davee123]

Seriously, they're boobs. There's nothing inappropriate about them no matter what you say.

I think one problem is that you're saying that as if it's objective, and it's not. The inappropriateness of breasts will vary quite a bit depending on who you ask and how you frame it. LEGO has to consider that even though SOME people will view them as perfectly reasonable, others will view them as overtly sexual. And it's the same reason LEGO doesn't want to get into making religious symbols, violence, political views, or other things. They genearlly want to avoid contentious issues.

Also, the focus of this idea is entirely centered on breasts, so there's no surrounding context to lessen the weight of "hey, boobs!" If, instead, this were an idea for making "more realistic minifigs", and featured tapered legs, bending elbows, contoured faces, etc., then you're not putting them right in someone's face (so to speak). The focus would be on making the figures realistic, and it'd be more likely to be deemed "appropriate".

DaveE

Edited January 17, 2013 by davee123

[TheRedGuy]

Why would anyone need boobs on their minifigs anyways?

Edit: Point ninja'd again.

Edited January 17, 2013 by TheRedGuy

[BrickG]

I think one problem is that you're saying that as if it's objective, and it's not. The inappropriateness of breasts will vary quite a bit depending on who you ask and how you frame it. LEGO has to consider that even though SOME people will view them as perfectly reasonable, others will view them as overtly sexual. And it's the same reason LEGO doesn't want to get into making religious symbols, violence, political views, or other things. They genearlly want to avoid contentious issues.

Also, the focus of this idea is entirely centered on breasts, so there's no surrounding context to lessen the weight of "hey, boobs!" If, instead, this were an idea for making "more realistic minifigs", and featured tapered legs, bending elbows, contoured faces, etc., then you're not putting them right in someone's face (so to speak). The focus would be on making the figures realistic, and it'd be more likely to be deemed "appropriate".

DaveE

Honestly, I'm sick of being politically correct, so I don't do it as much anymore.

Some views are wrong. This is one of 'em. I don't care about wrong viewpoints. Yes, maybe from a business perspective that's unwise. But I lack caring.

(I'm specifically talking about boobs being inappropriate, not actively trying to get lego to add them)

Edited January 17, 2013 by BrickG

[Holly-Wood]

Reading trough your comments I'd like to say it's not about the question if female torsos would add something to a set/layout and if we really need them (who needed 1x1 cheese slopes before they were marketed).

You cannot see any benefit, no problem, don't vote for it. It might have reached the 10000 or not - who knows. If it would have gone into review LEGO still would have had all the chances to say NO: not doable, to complicated, not what we are looking for, not on target.

Instead they blocked right from the start with more than questionable reasoning - when looking at their own products. It's the way they reacted that disturbs me.

w.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Holly-Wood

[BrickG]

Reading trough your comments I'd like to say it's not about the question if female torsos would add something to a set/layout and if we really need them (how needed 1x1 cheese slopes before they were marketed).

You cannot see any benefit, no problem, don't vote for it. It might have reached the 10000 or not - how knows. If it would have gone into review LEGO still would have had all the chances to say NO: not doable, to complicated, not what we are looking for, not on target.

Instead they blocked right from the start with more than questionable reasoning - when looking at their own products. It's the way they reacted that disturbs me.

w.

Yeah.

These must be inappropriate. Lego Friends must be cancelled.

[paanjang16]

While I would like the idea of a new female mould, I feel it will limit the use of some of the armor accessories which is placed onto the torso. Eris' torso from the Chima line comes to mind. Another would be the female charactor from Agents in the Aerial Defence unit set; she wears an armor to help her rappel down from the helicopter.

Friends is different since it is a brand new minifigure and there has not been an armor accessory yet. Even if there is it would be a new one and would consider space for the boobs.

[BrickG]

While I would like the idea of a new female mould, I feel it will limit the use of some of the armor accessories which is placed onto the torso. Eris' torso from the Chima line comes to mind. Another would be the female charactor from Agents in the Aerial Defence unit set; she wears an armor to help her rappel down from the helicopter.

Which is a perfectly good reason. It's probably the BEST reason. Can't use chest armor! In fact I didn't think of that, and I'm sold.

But that's not what Lego said. They said it was inappropriate. :P

Edited January 18, 2013 by BrickG

[RaincloudDustbin]

I'm not really sure how it's sexist? Girls have boobs. Sure, the one in her unmentionables are too much for kids. I can't help but chuckle a bit when looking at your figs. Not in a bad way, just funny to see them. I don't see the harm in them. It's not much different to having a boob print, sometimes even with cleavage.

No, It's sexist that they turned it down.