First of all, its just weird to see porn-like images with no nipples. How can you have porn without nipples! And if Barbies were supposed to be idealized woman-figures what does it say about conceptions of ideal women that the dolls didn't have nipples? Of course feminists have been deconstructing Barbie for a long time now so here are my initial reactions to this specific video:

First: a memory from my own childhood. I remember vividly playing Barbies with my friend Brianne. We might have been 8 or 9. We both knew the technical plumbing part of sex, but neither of us really understood boy bodies. Ken was not helpful. I remember how we used to try to imagine the mechanics of intercourse using Barbie and Ken, and how in our preadolescent minds an erection was imagined to stick out at a 90 degree angle from Ken's body. We could not figure out how on earth such a thing could do anything other than just rub between Barbie's legs. Of course we figured it out later...

Second, I immediately rolled my eyes and thought "oh how cliche" about the milky "money shot" in the video ... until, that is, Ken and Barbie emerge from wtihin a pool of the same milky stuff. I would love to see a porn producer take that on in porn for a straight male audience: submerging a man and a woman just done with a sex scene in a pool of milky stuff intended to play on the idea that the guy in the scene ejaculated a flood. Do guys fantasize about being submerged in their own semen? Is there straight male oriented porn that plays on that fantasy? Just curious!

...because public space really matters!

Elizabeth