You want a nipple for that drink?
Oh . . . You do.
Plastic model kits of NASCARs did not come with the “Winston Cup” decal, nor the “Busch” decal, as these small logos, that are on the real car, could corrupt our youts. The cars that were actually primarily sponsored by “adult products” had alternate logos, such as Pontiac for Miller, and Pfizer for Viagra.
Someone is thinking of the children!
What I thought was funny about this when I saw the story on the news the other night, was that they had the three kids’ faces on the front of the box blurred, yet the kid’s face on the side of the box was perfectly visible.
Shoot, they sell dolls that burp, poop and cry, toys to pretend to clean house, play workshops, no wonder the tykes need a (pretend) brewski!
Dammit, I would’ve loved something like this as a kid.
That was my (misunderstood) point above: While the toymakers are scrupulous and ethical enough not to put beer and ciggie ads on the race cars, and a “play saloon” or bar is a believable joke… it’s okay to let them play at being McDonald’s workers and customers, brand name and all.
Wadda countree.
Yes, because McDonalds is just as bad as drinking and smoking. Uh huh. :rolleyes:
Im not sure you are befuddled as you are making out to be, but in case you are: yes, there are categorical differences between things that prohibited to children and things that are, perhaps not aspirational, but not prohibited.
Who wouldn’t rather hang out at a Fisher Price bar than some lame tea party? I know I would.
As a drinker/smoker I find being compared to McDonalds downright insulting.
Anyone remember Squeeze-its? They were juice drinks that came in soft plastic bottles. My friends and I use to play bar with those all the time. We would slide it across the counter in my house after ordering “the usual”.
I just figured this toy was a better version of that!
When I was 8 or 9 years old, my parents had just finished building a finished basement in our house, which, it being the Midwest, in the 1970s, of course had a bar.
My cousin and I, being a couple of kids who liked to build things that we could use in make-believe play, wound up using some of the scrap material from the building of the bar (mostly the adhesive-backed felt-covered tiles that covered the front of the bar), along with a cardboard box, to build a little “portable bar”.
Our parents had a lot of little single-server liquor bottles (souvenirs from airline travel, no doubt, as both my uncle and my father flew a lot for their jobs), and they gave us some of those (empty, of course) to use in our “bar”. We’d fill the bottles with water, and put in a few drops of food coloring, for our “drinks”. We’d act as bartenders, asking people what they wanted to drink, and then “serving” them.
I look back at it with amusement, but I have a hard time picturing many parents today who’d let their 8 year olds have a “play bar”; it’s just a different era.
And you turned out okay?
Why mess around with a pretend bar when you can have an inflatable pub!
It’s possible the categories are too different to compare meaningfully, but given the choice of a child’s toy that replicates a ‘real thing’ (NASCAR racer) with replica beer and tobacco brands, and one that replicates the fun experience of being a bottom-end wage slave serving unhealthy food… I’d rather see the former.
If a kid is into NASCAR, he’s going to see beaucoup brand markers that are “prohibited” anyway; faking them out on the toys is just silly. But I find it disturbing to sell not just “play restaurants” but kiddie-focused and branded ones, adding to the pressure to both eat there and (arguable, I suppose) conditioning to work in that field.
You can not like it (and for valid reasons) and yet see the difference between marketing items that are prohibited to children (kids can’t buy beer or cigarettes) from items that are not. I don’t think it’s a distinction that is too subtle.
Plus, a McD type job for a HS or college student is a perfectly reasonable choice, so it’s not inherently bad.
You miss my distinction between “a type” and a branded play experience. A generic play restaurant would be just fine, completely appropriate.
A saturated brand product whose (unhealthy) products are targeted at kids such as McD’s, Pizza Hut etc. is something else altogether. I can’t imagine a situation where playing McDonald’s all day wouldn’t lead to more pressure on parents to go there soon.
Branded toys of almost all types should be banned; absolutely so for those that sell questionable products to children.
I don’t like pushing commercial branding on kids like that either, but it’s hardly unusual or necessarily problematic. Reality is, a trip McD’s is often a big deal and a treat to lots of kids. It’s fantasy play- for kids to insert themselves in experiences they live. However, I’m really surprised you don’t see a categorical difference between something that is a questionable idea marketed to kids, and one that is illegal to be marketed to kids and for kids to purchase on their own.
Ah, well. I probably can’t explain it better. The fault is mine.
Well, Duh! You don’t do cocaine in a bar. You do it off a hooker’s tits.