In the early 1990s, mega toy company Mattel struggled to sell Ken dolls and searched for a solution. They began with a focus group of Barbie’s target demographic, young girls, who were asked if they thought Barbie and Ken should break up. The consensus was that the Barbie fans still liked Ken, but they wished he was cooler. Mattel then began researching fashion trends of the time, turning to popular media hubs like MTV. Then, in May 1993, Mattel introduced Earring Magic Ken, a fashionably reimagined Ken doll included in the Barbie Earring Magic line. This new Ken was sporting the hallmark 90s highlights, a purple mesh shirt, a pleather vest, one earring, and … a cock ring.
In a 1993 article about the new Ken doll, queer journalist Dan Savage explains that silver cock rings were ubiquitous in queer fashion in the 80s and 90s – even lesbians were wearing them. Cock rings became a form of coded communication in the queer community, helping people quietly communicate their interests and preferences in public. The secrecy of the cock ring was key, though, because while the queer community was slowly entering the mainstream, being outwardly gay was still not safe. The AIDS crisis was still rampant, which brought about the Reagan-era homophobia, and hate crimes were an unfortunately common result. Symbols became widespread in the queer community at this time, and accessories like the cock ring or an earring on the “gay ear” helped queer people safely find each other. Thus, there is no separating the cock ring fashion trend from the gay community. When Mattel unintentionally released a Ken doll in undeniably queer clothing, he naturally became a gay icon.
When confronted about the obvious cock ring around the neck of their new doll, Mattel’s marketing manager at the time, Lisa McKendall, denied every allegation. Instead, the company claimed it was a charm necklace. A harmless charm necklace that just happened to look exactly like a sex toy fashion accessory. Dan Savage further explains that in an interview he conducted with Lisa McKendall, she claimed that “‘Ken and Barbie both reflect mainstream society, reflect what little girls […] see their dads, brothers, and uncles wearing, they want Ken to wear.’” Savage refutes McKendall’s argument by reiterating that bright colors, scantily-cut pieces, and cock rings were not everyday fashion in the 90s. Little girls weren’t likely getting picked up from school by their dads wearing purple mesh shirts. Hopefully, no five-year-old Barbie fans knew what cock rings were. No – each element of Earring Magic Ken’s outfit was seen in popular gay culture, namely Madonna’s dancers on MTV, making Earring Magic Ken undeniably queer.
After six months of excitement in the queer community and record sales, Mattel canceled Earring Magic Ken. No part of the Earring Magic line is sold or supported by Mattel anymore, and most people wouldn’t likely know of this doll’s existence unless they were alive to see its heyday. This Ken doll is a case study of art crime because it is the highest-selling Ken doll in Mattel’s history, to this day, and they still canceled it. Mattel couldn’t deny the claims any longer, no matter how much they tried to suppress Earring Magic Ken’s queerness, and they decided to sacrifice the doll’s sales to erase an intrinsically queer image. Parents argued that Ken’s sex toy accessory was wildly inappropriate for the young demographic of Barbie dolls, but unless told otherwise, that’s still just a charm necklace to a child. The popularity of this doll amongst the queer community was important, and Mattel’s cancellation of the doll reinforces the idea that being queer is only acceptable when it’s palatable, even today.
I was incredibly intrigued by the title, and I was incredibly intrigued by the ending as well. The censorship of gay culture through the cancellation of magic earring ken is quite evident from the ways that Mattel shut it down. Despite the doll making a huge amount of money, it just proves to us that the image of a company is more important to them than the consumers that they’re selling their product to. Their target audience, sadly, is not the queer community, but to socially conservative families in the suburbs with children who need toys. The only reason presented for them seeming to take them off the shelves is the idea of their representation to those groups. It’s another instance of suppressing the the cultural representation of a group of people for another groups comfort. “Reinforcing the idea that being queer is only acceptable when it’s palatable” is incredibly true within our society, and I look forward to a future where that isn’t the case. Thanks for bringing this bittersweet example of queer representation through ken dolls.
Hey Olivia!
A fun topic and a deep political critique, making for a great article. As an artwork, Earring Magic Ken represents everything about how the queer community was perceived in the 90s: they were cool only as long as the mainstream didn’t know who they were. The dichotomy between the queer communities’ influence in fashion and art and their open rejection as a minority is openly challenged and critiqued by cock ring Ken in a way that could only happen unintentionally. A masterpiece is defined as a work that encapsulates a movement or era, and this Ken comes hilariously close.
Hi Olivia, I truly enjoyed reading your article, not only due to your insanely compelling title, but the way you wrote this article was quite inspiring. After watching the Barbie movie a few years ago, this article made me realize that for some reason Mattel always ends up in some sort of controversy. From misogynistic toys to selling sex toys to children, they just continue to do wrong. I really like how this article focused on the ideology that this “sex toy” was just seen as a charm necklace to a child because a child really would not know any better. Also, I like how you sort of took the unpopular, controversial take on this argument regarding how innocent this item was and how cock rings in general were simply a fashion statement for the queer community. I honestly did not expect to read the argument you made, but I feel as though you crafted it so undoubtedly well!
Before reading this article, I never would have imagined that a Ken doll was once on sell at markets with a cock ring! I find it interesting how Mattel would do anything besides admit that the Ken doll was in obvious queer attire with a cock ring. I think this is an excellent example of what companies can get away with considering these were children’s toys. Simply stating that the necklace was a ‘charm’ was a technicality that cannot be disproven because technically the necklace can be considered a charm even though the specific design is blatantly referring something else. It is ultimately unfortunate how an icon important to the queer community was not a big enough factor to prevent Mattel from canceling that Ken series.