= new reply since forum marked as read
Improves the chances of their children voting GOP... 
so they aren't "sexual." 
in doggie pants?
Willful ignorance has plumbed new depths of stupidity. 
This is sort of like the mainstream TV networks blurring the bulges in men wearing underwear or speedos while playing the team tasks on Suvivor or Amazing Race while the women have camel toes and boobs bouncing around for days.
But like closeupready said, male anatomy is not shown nearly as often as female, so perhaps that's why no one has yet freaked out over an anatomically correct baby girl doll. It's not portrayed in media as The Thing Which Must Never Be Shown.
doll to have anatomically correct genitalia (I am in favor of ALL dolls, male and female having anatomically correct genitalia). But since the majority of baby dolls have no genitalia and the dolls were originally on the market without the label on the packaging that they were anatomically correct - I can see at least a surprised reaction.
I am not in favor of anatomically correct boy baby dolls without anatomically correct girl baby dolls. THAT I would find damaging. Boys have genitalia, girls don't. 
On edit: I stand corrected - that's what happens when you have a 25 year old daughter and no little ones in the family interested in baby dolls - had no idea that anatomically correct dolls - both male and female - were so prevalent. I do think it is a good thing, I also think labeling would be good for anyone who objects to genitalia. 
Why don't these people borrow a neighbor's Dremel tool and grind the whole damned business off?
"I'm sorry, Susie...it was a mistake at the factory but we'll take care of it" BZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT
Problem solved.
sigh
good question
that there really are people who think like this.
And they vote ...
