Boobs are a No-go on LEGO CUUSOO

[RodimusMike]

For me I wouldn't care if Cuusoo had minifigs with boobs or not,and even if they did do that its not something that I think would change my opinion about Lego's.And finally about those Friends I haven't bought any of those and don't plan on to either but not because the minifigs are curvaceous and appealing but because those are more targeted for girls so thats why.

[davee123]

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

Wouldn't "sexist" imply that if the genders were reversed, that LEGO wouldn't have acted as they did? I don't think it's appropriate to call what they did "sexist". You could label it "unnecessary censure" or something, but I don't think it's sexist. You could argue that it's "anti-sex", I suppose.

All in all, though, I don't see the big deal. There's no way that LEGO would have approved it, unlikely that it would've gotten sponsored to 10k votes, and LEGO judged it as slightly too sexual to appear on their CUUSOO site. They sent a generic form letter in response, without giving an in-depth explanation, but hey, I'm pretty sure we all understand WHY they did it. Whether or not you agree with the decision is the only point of contention.

DaveE

[Mr Copperhead]

Why don't you make some male figures with cod pieces and see what response you get? I wonder if it would be different or not?

[Sir Walter Maugham]

As others have said, this new mold would be way too restrictive when it comes to armor and such. And it would make the old female torsos look very strange as well.

But Lego's response is quite odd. They didn't need to give such a silly reason for axing this project.

Why don't you make some male figures with cod pieces and see what response you get? I wonder if it would be different or not?

Cod pieces? What do you mean? If you're alluding to what I think you might be, there really is no comparison.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Sir Walter Maugham

[RaincloudDustbin]

Wouldn't "sexist" imply that if the genders were reversed, that LEGO wouldn't have acted as they did? I don't think it's appropriate to call what they did "sexist". You could label it "unnecessary censure" or something, but I don't think it's sexist. You could argue that it's "anti-sex", I suppose.

All in all, though, I don't see the big deal. There's no way that LEGO would have approved it, unlikely that it would've gotten sponsored to 10k votes, and LEGO judged it as slightly too sexual to appear on their CUUSOO site. They sent a generic form letter in response, without giving an in-depth explanation, but hey, I'm pretty sure we all understand WHY they did it. Whether or not you agree with the decision is the only point of contention.

DaveE

You put it perfectly.

[Mister Phes]

If they're going to have molded breasts, they might as well have molded noses and ears too...

Otherwise, why emphasis one particular feature and not another?

[BrickG]

If they're going to have molded breasts, they might as well have molded noses and ears too...

Otherwise, why emphasis one particular feature and not another?

Because it's the single most noticeable feature that most commonly marks the differences between genders. I mean, give a man boobs and he might look like a woman. Give them ears and that doesn't do much to distinguish and by that I mean it does nothing to distinguish the genders.

[fred67]

Well, I don't want to rattle any cages in this sure-to-be-locked thread, but boobs on minifigs is no more sexist that boobs in real life - it's sexist and dumb to try to pretend they don't exist.

Boobs on the minifigures don't really bother me... if I was going to need armor, I'd just use another torso (the same way you might have a hat/helmet AND hair for a figure, and just use the appropriate one where needed).

Secondly, this is another case of TLG hypocritically rejecting ideas (as shown by the Friends picture). It's not the first time they rejected something using reasoning they didn't apply to themselves.

I wouldn't support this - might even groan a bit about it if it were implemented, but it comes down to the way it was rejected, not just that it was rejected, and I agree with the whines about how it was rejected, and whine with you, my fellow whiners.

[Faefrost]

Because it's the single most noticeable feature that most commonly marks the differences between genders. I mean, give a man boobs and he might look like a woman. Give them ears and that doesn't do much to distinguish and by that I mean it does nothing to distinguish the genders.

It's the single most distinguishing fact for an ADULT male. The children who play with this stuff distinguish via style of dress and hair.

[Bobsy]

Here's a problem: there's this assumption that the people who approve/don't approve Cuusoo projects are the same people who dictate LEGO policy from the very top. It's not like that. The Cuusoo site is a very small portion of a very large organisation, and the people who decide which projects pass initial review are probably only one or two in number. Additionally. they very probably do this task as only part of a wider job role.

What I'm saying is it's wrong to condemn all of LEGO for hypocracy based on what came down to one person's judgement. If you posed the same project to the senior designer who developed the Friends minidolls they would almost certainly approve it. Companies do not think with a single megabrain, and sometimes employees make decisions which aren't exactly in line with what their senior management would do. It's hard to be right 100% of the time.

And from the individual project review person's point of view, can you not understand why they might default to turning the project down? Rightly or wrongly, this sort of thing has the habit of attracting hysteria and hyperbole from the moral guardians who might percieve it as oversexualising a children's toy. It's not the sort of PR that a company like LEGO (which has a very carefully maintained hyper-positive PR image around the world) needs. I have already heard on national radio a stand up comedian bring up the notion of Friends minidolls having boobs on them with utter disbelief.

So yeah. While we might not like it or appreciate it, the decision to not approve it is probably for the best, from Cuusoo's point of view.

[AndyC]

Secondly, this is another case of TLG hypocritically rejecting ideas (as shown by the Friends picture). It's not the first time they rejected something using reasoning they didn't apply to themselves.

I don't agree. Look at the Friends figures, which have a very slight breast and then these proposed minifig molds which have honking great DDs. Then look at how the Friends figures are dressed, very much covered up, whereas the proposal is full of bikini/underwear clad minifig images. If you can't honestly see the difference, I'm genuinely stunned.

[BrickG]

It's the single most distinguishing fact for an ADULT male. The children who play with this stuff distinguish via style of dress and hair.

Confusing statement. You seem to think children are boob blind. As far back as I could remember I associated boobs with older females. It wasn't sexual or anything. It's not exclusive to Adults or Males.

Most aged women simply have boobs. And it's a bit absurd to think children don't notice and take that into account when deciding if someone is a certain gender. Often it's the biggest help because men can wear girl clothes and girl hair, women can look like men. Boobs are a bit harder to duplicate.

[Haltiamieli]

It is probably partly due to different perceptions of minifigure design and aesthetics and partly just because of the angle of the pic, but I can understand the rejection decision rather well – because to me the figures in the picture don't appear to be just with molded instead of printed breasts (except the greyhaired one on the left and of course the one who has his back turned to the viewer), but with quite provocatively revealing clothes too. The woman on the right seems to be missing the upper half of the cups from her bra/bikini (and likewise the woman with a top beside her) and the lady in dark blue dress seems to have a very low and wide neckline.

[Mister Phes]

Because it's the single most noticeable feature that most commonly marks the differences between genders.

I disagree, the feminine form in its entirety is what marks the difference between gender, but that statement is a digression.

Because hasn't this difference been achieved sufficiently in minifigures through hair pieces, facial features, torso designs and dress pieces?

[Brickington]

I disagree, the feminine form in its entirety is what marks the difference between gender, but that statement is a digression.

Because hasn't this difference been achieved sufficiently in minifigures through hair pieces, facial features, torso designs and dress pieces?

I agree with Mister. If you have breasts, why can't you have noses etc? I think this is a rather pathetic topic. No mom wants to go buy their young child a LEGO set with girls who have boobs. Frankly, as mentioned before, every thing would change, like armor and other gear. I don't see any reason TLG would do this.

[Mister Phes]

I think this is a rather pathetic topic. No mom wants to go buy their young child a LEGO set with girls who have boobs.

I'm not against minifigures having breasts, but physically altering their chest seems unnecessary to make them appear more feminine.

Under the current logic, shouldn't a male minifigure like a lifeguard for example, have an enlarged groin to represent his phallus? Seems a bit sexist only modifying the female minifigures.

[BrickG]

I agree with Mister. If you have breasts, why can't you have noses etc? I think this is a rather pathetic topic. No mom wants to go buy their young child a LEGO set with girls who have boobs. Frankly, as mentioned before, every thing would change, like armor and other gear. I don't see any reason TLG would do this.

Now I'm wondering why a mom wouldn't buy their kid a lego set just because boobs are shaped out (albeit less than the example here :P) instead of drawn. Boobs aren't x-rated. Do those same moms never let their child watch TV or go outside because some people have shaped out non-drawn boobs? :o

[SpiderSpaceman]

Agreeing with posts 39-41 (but I gotta mention, Mr. Phes: I think the particular term you picked almost exclusively refers to a certain temporary state rather than the part itself...)

[Hrw-Amen]

Maybe if female mini-figs were made that way to begin with by now no-one would mind or care and they would have breasts because they always had breasts. But I guess they were not so changing them now would require a lot of updating for existing figures which would be expensive for us all to have to buy these bits.

[LEGO Guy Bri]

No mom wants to go buy their young child a LEGO set with girls who have boobs.

I don't know if parents would really take notice, unless it was otherwise pointed out to them, that there was a change in minifig design. Seems like many have forgotten Barbie (same basic body since '59), Bratz, and I'm sure other girls toys from Mattel®. Both are wildly successful young girl toys. Besides everyone who has seen a Barbie know she has other assets.

Even the artwork on the friends box seems emphasizes the minidoll's torso a bit. I think the traditional minifig is different. Altering it in any place other than the head, hair would seem wrong. Not because of it being inappropriate or "sexist", but because it would change what I believe originally defined a minifig. Personally, I can't really understand why so many are referring to a minifig w/ breasts as sexist... All women have them, they serve a very important purpose... men do too, just not always as pronounced. It isn't any more sexist than a torso with breasts printed on it. Either way, it is seen and understood, this is a female torso. But if you feel that way, that is ok. I am though, quite content with the printings and undefined torsos as they are. Just my 2¢

[Brickington]

Now I'm wondering why a mom wouldn't buy their kid a lego set just because boobs are shaped out (albeit less than the example here :P) instead of drawn. Boobs aren't x-rated. Do those same moms never let their child watch TV or go outside because some people have shaped out non-drawn boobs? :o

I am talking about the type of mom that would buy their kid a LEGO set. I would know because I have two sisters who are moms and I have discussed topics like this with them.

[Sir Walter Maugham]

I am talking about the type of mom that would buy their kid a LEGO set. I would know because I have two sisters who are moms and I have discussed topics like this with them.

Do you really believe your two sisters share the exact same mindset of all other mothers who have ever bought a Lego set?

[Graysmith]

You're not pitching a set but an idea for a part. CUUSOO is for pitching one-off sets (like a Delorean from Back to the Future), not themes or parts or anything else. Even if you'd have gotten by their rejection, and managed to get 10,000 votes they'd simply turn it down because of that fact. Use CUUSOO for what it's for.

As for the actual part, I honestly don't see a single benefit with having torsos like this. Yes, it'd be more "realistic" but a minifigure is not a realistic depiction of a human in any way, really. All this'd do is make a lot of existing parts incompatible, so it'd simply be bad for business for LEGO to even consider it.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Graysmith

[SpiderSpaceman]

You're not pitching a set but an idea for a part. CUUSOO is for pitching one-off sets (like a Delorean from Back to the Future), not themes or parts or anything else. Even if you'd have gotten by their rejection, and managed to get 10,000 votes they'd simply turn it down because of that fact. Use CUUSOO for what it's for.

As for the actual part, I honestly don't see a single benefit with having torsos like this. Yes, it'd be more "realistic" but a minifigure is not a realistic depiction of a human in any way, really. All this'd do is make a lot of existing parts incompatible, so it'd simply be bad for business for LEGO to even consider it.

Breaking this down by paragraph:

1.) False.

http://legocuusoo.po...ms-of-service-a

Projects We Allow

Here are some details on the types of projects that are welcome on LEGO CUUSOO:

• Original Projects – If you submit an original idea that you conceived yourself, it reaches 10,000 supporters, and we opt to produce it, you will receive the standard 1% royalty.
  
• Projects Based on Third-Party Intellectual Property – We welcome projects based on third party intellectual property (such as movies or games). If one of these projects reaches 10,000 supporters, we will handle the necessary licensing arrangements (so don't worry about that). Like any LEGO CUUSOO project, you must provide your own original model and cannot use anyone else’s work. If we produce a product based on your project and original model, you will still receive the 1% royalty.
  
• Theme-Based Projects – You are welcome to create projects to introduce a new LEGO theme or product line. (Note: We initially restricted these projects with the new Guidelines update, intending that such a rule would improve project quality by making projects more focused. However, we recognize the effort you are putting into projects like these and will instead work to help increase quality by offering our own tips and suggestions that will encourage others to support).
  
• New Part or Element Projects – It is difficult to quantify up-front how many kits in which a part will be sold, and over how many years. We’ve decided it makes more sense to compensate part designs with a one-time flat fee that we determine. That fee could vary, which is why we don’t define it up-front, but it will be fair and proportionate to what the royalty would be for a LEGO set project.
  

2.) Agreed. However, I do think there could stand to be a few new archetypal body types, to somewhat standardize those figures that don't fit the standard form - take gollum for example. I played around with making a new construction for him that grants the look of a true minifig, keeps his posture, and leaves him as much articulation as a regular fig, and could also be repurposed as yoda or any similarly statured/postured wizened old person. It's all about matching the aesthetic, and actually on the grounds of my cooking up alternate body types, I probably can't really dismiss the boobs torso without being a hypocrite...

On the flipside, these would only be used where the body would become a one time nonstandardized mold, and as you say, they've been making female figs the same body type for years and it works fine. it doesn't require a new body type to get the point across (even if printed waistlines are really freakin silly.)

[Mister Phes]

Agreeing with posts 39-41 (but I gotta mention, Mr. Phes: I think the particular term you picked almost exclusively refers to a certain temporary state rather than the part itself...)

According to Dictionary.com the definition of a "phallus" is as follows:

1. an image of the male reproductive organ, especially that carried in procession in ancient festivals of Dionysus, or Bacchus, symbolizing the generative power in nature.

2. Anatomy . the penis, the clitoris, or the sexually undifferentiated embryonic organ out of which either of these develops.

TheFreeDictionary, Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Cambridge Dictionary Online also do not implicate an erect state as a prerequisite for a phallus.

Only Wikipedia mentions an erect state in its definitions, however the author(s) fail to cite sources for that part of the article and therefore its credibility is in conjecture. It could be very well the author is under the misconception an erect state is necessary, but clearly this is not the case.