# What do y'all think about the Balenciaga SS23 & Adidas collab "teddy" controversy?



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## MooMooVT

I don't want the conversation to go sideways, but this seems worthy of discussion.

Balenciaga's instagram is wiped clean and the bears from this (SS23) and the Adidas collab are gone from the (US) website.

Here's a quick recap twitter feed: Quickie NY Post Article with the broad strokes or Long Twitter Thread with more details/accusations

I hope this is ok to post. Balenciaga has been in the headlines a bit lately and generally not in a positive way - but they've always been a bit edgier than a lot of other brands. While I don't really know what to think and look forward to others opinions, I really didn't like Balenciaga's response: _“We take this matter very seriously and are taking legal action against the parties responsible for creating the set and including unapproved items for our Spring 23 campaign photoshoot."_ I can't imagine how many executives approved these campaigns before hitting the public. To "take legal action against the parties involved" is laughable.


----------



## SRKitty

The fact that this whole campaign somehow went under the radar of executives is unfathomable. TBH I've never really been interested in Balenciaga but I definitely don't want anything of theirs now.


----------



## ccbaggirl89

It's all over newsfeeds so it's news. I wasn't familiar w/what the images were representing but I was a fool and went and looked it up -- it's very very triggering and I was really disgusted by it. It must have gone through several layers of approval before being used so tptb passing the buck looks worse. I would never support them after this so my Kering group days are over and I'll just enjoy what I have from Bal and Gucci. Other brands have made marketing mistakes too, but this seems worse somehow.


----------



## jellyv

I just don't understand how this was approved. Maybe they assess their clientele to be dark web types? They are not okay.


----------



## jeepers13

Won’t buy again


----------



## MooMooVT

Balenciaga is doulbing down. They've filed a $25M lawsuit against the set designer and production company. But again, how many Balenciaga corporate eyeballs were on this campaign before it was released? A dozen, at minimum. And at high levels. I'm sure there was at least one but likely multiple Balenciaga employees at the photo shoot itself. It's just not a good look.


----------



## BagsRGreat

I think that if I had a Balenciaga bag or a collection of them, which I thankfully do not, I would throw all of them in the trash can after dumping the grease from my Thanksgiving turkey onto them. I am livid about this brand thinking it is okay to do this kind of depraved advertising with hidden symbols of the sexual abuse of children in multiple ads. Disgusting. What an appalling company.


----------



## MooMooVT

BagsRGreat said:


> I think that if I had a Balenciaga bag or a collection of them, which I thankfully do not, I would throw all of them in the trash can after dumping the grease from my Thanksgiving turkey onto them. I am livid about this brand thinking it is okay to do this kind of depraved advertising with hidden symbols of the sexual abuse of children in multiple ads. Disgusting. What an appalling company.


Same. I was just in Italy and considered picking up a Balenciaga but nothing of theirs has every really spoken to me. I bought a Gucci instead. I'm glad now that one of their bags isn't my reminder of my wonderful trip.


----------



## PurseUOut

Absolutely appalling, unfathomable and disgusting.

The teddy bear is one thing, the bondage is one thing, the court docket referencing child porn case is one thing, but to see those babies pictured with panda eyes (a clinically recognized indicator of traumatic abuse) in the context of all of this is so incredibly infuriating and gut-wrenching there is absolutely no turning back or apology that would warrant this okay. I don't own anything and will never buy balenciaga and would not be sad if this sub-forum was shut down.


----------



## muchstuff

PurseUOut said:


> Absolutely appalling, unfathomable and disgusting.
> 
> The teddy bear is one thing, the bondage is one thing, the court docket referencing child porn case is one thing, but to see those babies pictured with panda eyes (a clinically recognized indicator of traumatic abuse) in the context of all of this is so incredibly infuriating and gut-wrenching there is absolutely no turning back or apology that would warrant this okay. I don't own anything and will never buy balenciaga and would not be sad if this sub-forum was shut down.


Keep in mind this is “new” Balenciaga. To kill the sub-forum wouldn’t be fair to lovers of the old era.
Kering owns many brands as well.


----------



## muchstuff

MooMooVT said:


> Same. I was just in Italy and considered picking up a Balenciaga but nothing of theirs has every really spoken to me. I bought a Gucci instead. I'm glad now that one of their bags isn't my reminder of my wonderful trip.


A global Luxury group, Kering manages the development of a series of renowned Houses in Fashion, Leather Goods and Jewelry: Gucci, Saint Laurent, Bottega Veneta, Balenciaga, Alexander McQueen, Brioni, Boucheron, Pomellato, DoDo, Qeelin, as well as Kering Eyewear.  

They have a long reach.


----------



## MooMooVT

muchstuff said:


> A global Luxury group, Kering manages the development of a series of renowned Houses in Fashion, Leather Goods and Jewelry: Gucci, Saint Laurent, Bottega Veneta, Balenciaga, Alexander McQueen, Brioni, Boucheron, Pomellato, DoDo, Qeelin, as well as Kering Eyewear.
> 
> They have a long reach.


This is a good point. I would want to know if these campaigns would be cleared with Kering and get a statement from them. I'm not ready to give up on all their brands at this point.


----------



## muchstuff

MooMooVT said:


> This is a good point. I would want to know if these campaigns would be cleared with Kering and get a statement from them. I'm not ready to give up on all their brands at this point.


Fair point.


----------



## Greentea

It’s disgusting and I won’t be carrying my bag anymore


----------



## Yhte123

MooMooVT said:


> This is a good point. I would want to know if these campaigns would be cleared with Kering and get a statement from them. I'm not ready to give up on all their brands at this point.


Balenciaga’s headquarters is in Kering. They share staff too.

So I will be giving up my Balenciaga and Gucci bags and avoiding other Kering brands from now on, but thank god I only have three Gucci bags and one Bal moto (that are going to be sent to the realreal soon after this).

Honestly, this situation has reminded me of the racism of Gucci (the black face sweater??) and how they stood behind their creative director and staff instead of reprimanding and firing them. Not to mention the rumors of racism of the staff at Bottega and YSL too.

Also notice how quiet Kering is right now to avoid blowback affecting their other brands?? They have to problem injecting themselves in when something good is happening to one of their brands. Absolutely Despicable.

I’m side-eyeing any person I see supporting Balenciaga and any other Kering brands.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Dmurphy1

muchstuff said:


> Keep in mind this is “new” Balenciaga. To kill the sub-forum wouldn’t be fair to lovers of the old era.
> Kering owns many brands as well.


Exactly. The new Balenciaga of which I am not a fan. They need to get it together. No excuse for this kind of trash. I absolutely can't justify buying any more Balenciaga. ART ??!! I don't think so.


----------



## Allisonfaye

MooMooVT said:


> Balenciaga is doulbing down. They've filed a $25M lawsuit against the set designer and production company. But again, how many Balenciaga corporate eyeballs were on this campaign before it was released? A dozen, at minimum. And at high levels. I'm sure there was at least one but likely multiple Balenciaga employees at the photo shoot itself. It's just not a good look.


Balenciaga is blaming the photographer and the photographer is claiming she was doing what she was told.


----------



## MooMooVT

Allisonfaye said:


> Balenciaga is blaming the photographer and the photographer is claiming she was doing what she was told.


(I'm ranting aloud - not toward you!) The photographer was DEFINITELY doing what she was told. No one would take liberties like that and no high fashion house is likely to allow that. And anywhere from 6-12 Bal employees had to approve this campaign before it hit the streets - including Demna. Balenciaga needs to hire a crisis PR team, STAT. Kering as well. It's such a bad look to blame others and not take direct responsibility.


----------



## MooMooVT

muchstuff said:


> Keep in mind this is “new” Balenciaga. To kill the sub-forum wouldn’t be fair to lovers of the old era.
> Kering owns many brands as well.


I agree with this. I'm also not willing to lump all Kering brands in with Bal's horrible choices and lack of accountability. I really don't think Kering would have been in the loop. That said, I'm disappointed we haven't gotten a statement from them. 

This story has been in the "news" for a couple of days - but it seems to be getting more traction in the past couple of days in the wider media. I hope this is the reckoning Bal needs to realize they're 100% wrong here - no grey area. They need to own it and hold each and every eyeball that approved - actively or tacitly - these campaigns.

High fashion (and all art) has always pushed the envelope for a variety of reasons including just making a splash. I'm more than willing to give them a wide berth until it involves children being exploited - sexually or otherwise.


----------



## JessicaF90

..only on balenciaga.com and at the Madison Avenue, New York Balenciaga store immediately following the show... https://www.balenciaga.com/en-us/spring-23


----------



## TraceySH

MooMooVT said:


> I agree with this. I'm also not willing to lump all Kering brands in with Bal's horrible choices and lack of accountability. I really don't think Kering would have been in the loop. That said, I'm disappointed we haven't gotten a statement from them.


I was thinking last night that it was odd that right when this whole debacle got air was also when Gucci announced the departure of AM ("effective immediately"). I am sure they're not related, but strange nonetheless.


----------



## Jen Meyers

MooMooVT said:


> I agree with this. I'm also not willing to lump all Kering brands in with Bal's horrible choices and lack of accountability. I really don't think Kering would have been in the loop. That said, I'm disappointed we haven't gotten a statement from them.
> 
> This story has been in the "news" for a couple of days - but it seems to be getting more traction in the past couple of days in the wider media. I hope this is the reckoning Bal needs to realize they're 100% wrong here - no grey area. They need to own it and hold each and every eyeball that approved - actively or tacitly - these campaigns.
> 
> High fashion (and all art) has always pushed the envelope for a variety of reasons including just making a splash. I'm more than willing to give them a wide berth until it involves children being exploited - sexually or otherwise.


What are you talking about? They already apologized twice (taking accountability) with an instagram story that is now part of their highlights so you can check and see.

They’re also taking legal action against the ad agency they outsourced the campaign to with a $25 MILLION lawsuit https://nypost.com/2022/11/25/balenciaga-files-25m-suit-against-bdsm-teddy-bear-ad-producers/amp/


----------



## PurseUOut

Jen Meyers said:


> What are you talking about? They already apologized twice (taking accountability) with an instagram story that is now part of their highlights so you can check and see.
> 
> They’re also taking legal action against the ad agency they outsourced the campaign to with a $25 MILLION lawsuit https://nypost.com/2022/11/25/balenciaga-files-25m-suit-against-bdsm-teddy-bear-ad-producers/amp/



The lawsuit is for the one picture of the Supreme Court case document referencing child porn. 

The photos of toddlers holding bondage-cladded teddy bears surrounded by "heart/love" pillows were on their online site. Impossible the major stakeholders at Balenciaga did not approve the ad campaign.


----------



## Stella03

Won’t buy anymore.


----------



## MooMooVT

Jen Meyers said:


> What are you talking about? They already apologized twice (taking accountability) with an instagram story that is now part of their highlights so you can check and see.
> 
> They’re also taking legal action against the ad agency they outsourced the campaign to with a $25 MILLION lawsuit https://nypost.com/2022/11/25/balenciaga-files-25m-suit-against-bdsm-teddy-bear-ad-producers/amp/


They didn't even remotely take accountabilty. They filed a lawsuit against the set designer and production company and blamed others for the content. There's ZERO chance all images weren't approved by Demna and at least 2-10 other executives. I'd put all I have on there being Balenciaga employees at the photo shoots when these photos were taken. This is deflection 101.


----------



## Yhte123

muchstuff said:


> Keep in mind this is “new” Balenciaga. To kill the sub-forum wouldn’t be fair to lovers of the old era.
> Kering owns many brands as well.



The Alexander wang era? The man has been shown to grope, drug, and sexually harass models, literally sexual misconduct .

just imo not directed towards anyone, the Moto bag is iconic and most people familiar with fashion will immediately know it’s Balenciaga. Wearing these bags is normalizing the brand and keeps them in the culture. Almost as disgusting as the company. It’s like people who listen to RKelly’s music after what has happened. 

Not to mention supporting Kering’s other brands is indirectly supporting Balenciaga since Kering will gladly funnel money from Gucci or Bottega to rescue Balenciaga 



Jen Meyers said:


> What are you talking about? They already apologized twice (taking accountability) with an instagram story that is now part of their highlights so you can check and see.
> 
> They’re also taking legal action against the ad agency they outsourced the campaign to with a $25 MILLION lawsuit https://nypost.com/2022/11/25/balenciaga-files-25m-suit-against-bdsm-teddy-bear-ad-producers/amp/


They’re lying and I don’t believe it. There’s just too much that I don’t think it was a coincidence or the producers fault. They should just close doors. The name is tainted now.


----------



## MooMooVT

Yhte123 said:


> Not to mention supporting Kering’s other brands is indirectly supporting Balenciaga since Kering will gladly funnel money from Gucci or Bottega to rescue Balenciaga


I agree with all but this... for now. I'm willing to give Kering's other brands a pass until we know more. But I'd like a statement from Kering at a minimum, if not their brands.


----------



## jellyv

Yhte123 said:


> The Alexander wang era? The man has [x]
> 
> The name is tainted now.



No, the Ghesquiere era. The *vast majority *of Balenciaga bags owned by members here, and the ones with the highest esteem artistically and culturally, were from years before AW and Demna..

Taint can be shorter term with decent crisis management and proper public relations. Missteps and other variations of moral rot haven't always sunk a legacy brand. What they do in response makes the difference.

I find it ludicrous to suggest that consumers should excommunicate their bags from 2001--Fall 2022 on this basis...what the hell.


----------



## Yhte123

jellyv said:


> No, the Ghesquiere era. The *vast majority *of Balenciaga bags owned by members here, and the ones with the highest esteem artistically and culturally, were from years before AW and Demna..
> 
> Taint can be shorter term with decent crisis management and proper public relations. Missteps and other variations of moral rot haven't always sunk a legacy brand. What they do in response makes the difference.
> 
> I find it ludicrous to suggest that consumers should excommunicate their bags from 2001--Fall 2022 on this basis...what the hell.


I know that the moto bag is from the Ghesquiere era.

The brand is literally trying to distance their involvement with this and suing anyone to get people off their backs. “We’re sorry for any offense”? The whole apology was so insincere and patronizing. They have done nothing at all and been silent. I’m not surprised they left twitter given their ties! The brand is tainted. If they fire the creative director it’s be an empty gesture since they still maintain the rest of the staff that green lit this campaign.

I didn’t know not supporting a brand even through their old designs because they implicitly advocated for pedophilia is ludicrous. Interesting!

Sorry not sorry. But at the end of the day, wearing anything recognizably Balenciaga is tacit apathy towards their inhuman behavior. It’s saying I’m fine with not giving them my money from now on, but absolutely fine keeping them relevant. Wearing their designs will allow them to maintain their popularity. It doesn’t matter what era of the brand it is from.


----------



## muchstuff

Yhte123 said:


> I know that the moto bag is from the Ghesquiere era.
> 
> The brand is literally trying to distance their involvement with this and suing anyone to get people off their backs. “We’re sorry for any offense”? The whole apology was so insincere and patronizing. They have done nothing at all and been silent. I’m not surprised they left twitter given their ties! The brand is tainted. If they fire the creative director it’s be an empty gesture since they still maintain the rest of the staff that green lit this campaign.
> 
> I didn’t know not supporting a brand even through their old designs because they implicitly advocated for pedophilia is ludicrous. Interesting!
> 
> Sorry not sorry. But at the end of the day, wearing anything recognizably Balenciaga is tacit apathy towards their inhuman behavior. It’s saying I’m fine with not giving them my money from now on, but absolutely fine keeping them relevant. Wearing their designs will allow them to maintain their popularity. It doesn’t matter what era of the brand it is from.


If that’s the case then no one should wear Chanel.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Yhte123

muchstuff said:


> If that’s the case then no one should wear Chanel.


That’s a false, misleading equivalency given the founder is dead, unable to profit from the brand, the brand is owned by two people whom their grandfather(?) she tried to hijack the brand from, the designs are completely different from her vision, they have earnestly addressed how they do not support her political values.

And in recent times did Chanel  do anything remotely as disgusting as pedophilia? Nope.

Balenciaga allegedly had Nazi ties too (being a couturier for the wives of Nazi’s) , but that isn’t something I’m holding against the brand either. 

Please don’t misdirect the situation.


----------



## jellyv

Yhte123 said:


> *Wearing their designs will allow them to maintain their popularity. It doesn’t matter what era of the brand it is from.*


So: keeping older Bal bags is corruptly keeping the brand popular, but *you selling off your Gucci and Bal to TRR* *and thereby keeping them circulating in the marketplace* (as you stated you will)  is a higher, ethical stance against pedophilia?  This logic is...badly broken.


----------



## muchstuff

Yhte123 said:


> That’s a false, misleading equivalency given the founder is dead, unable to profit from the brand, the brand is owned by two people whom their grandfather(?) she tried to hijack the brand from, the designs are completely different from her vision, they have earnestly addressed how they do not support her political values.
> 
> And in recent times did Chanel  do anything remotely as disgusting as pedophilia? Nope.


Fair enough. I still don’t see a problem with wearing the early era bags. I won’t purchase anything new but will continue to wear my oldies. I don’t see wearing an 05 Day bag as something that would even be associated with the current stock so don’t adhere to the theory that it would help perpetuate the brand.


----------



## Yhte123

jellyv said:


> So: keeping older Bal bags is corruptly keeping the brand popular, but *you selling off your Gucci and Bal to TRR* *and thereby keeping them circulating in the marketplace* (as you stated you will)  is a higher, ethical stance against pedophilia?  This logic is...badly broken.


You’re absolutely right. I actually had a talk with a friend about my intentions yesterday and she told me that I would just be indirectly perpetuating their brand.

Unfortunately by the time I went to fix my post to remove that portion, I wasn’t allowed to edit anymore. And I didn’t feel I was that important to let people know about my change in action?

So I’m currently thinking of ways to not contribute to the circulation of my bags, but not harming the environment by destroying them. My friend suggested disassembling the bags and using the pieces to repair any stuff I have. But I’m not sure about that either…. still thinking of more options.


----------



## LookGood_FeelGood

*On the heels of Bal controversy,...*
Kanye West says he's selling Balenciaga, Adidas, and Gap hoodies for $20

He showed 100 cut-up hoodies from Balenciaga, Adidas, and Gap, which he will sell for $20, so the luxury products (re-branded) are accessible to all.
The clothes are left over from when the companies cut ties with Ye after his antisemitic comments.
*Nicole Kidman is still supporting them:*


----------



## papertiger

I think the teddies would have been controversial enough on their own. Why even involve children? 

I am at a loss for words actually (not my usual problem)


----------



## BagsRGreat

PurseUOut said:


> The lawsuit is for the one picture of the Supreme Court case document referencing child porn.
> 
> The photos of toddlers holding bondage-cladded teddy bears surrounded by "heart/love" pillows were on their online site. Impossible the major stakeholders at Balenciaga did not approve the ad campaign.


@PurseUOut - And there are flying demons depicted on the wall behind one of the little girls holding a teddy bear bag, and occult moon symbols on the pink headboard of the bed she is standing upon. What kind of sick messaging is that?  This Balenciaga ad goes indecently beyond anything I have ever seen in any other ad from a designer house on so very many levels. Way beyond. Promoting/supporting/wearing this brand condones the brand's overtly depraved messaging. What a terrible and uncomfortable position in which they have placed their customers, who have spent so much money on their items.


----------



## xpixi

I am glad I never bought from this disgusting greedy luxury brand and never will. And I will judge whoever wears Balenciaga from now on idgaf


----------



## MooMooVT

papertiger said:


> I think the teddies would have been controversial enough on their own. Why even involve children?
> 
> I am at a loss for words actually (not my usual problem)


And why reference a Supreme Court ruling on child se*ual exploitation? Now that folks are starting to see what Balenciaga has been doing, many are doing a deeper dive into other images - and it's getting even more disturbing. It's one thing to push the envelope with adults, but not with children.


----------



## A1aGypsy

I adore my moto bags. I mean, truly. But this is so mind boggling. How they could think any of this was even remotely appropriate. It’s bonkers. 

I just don’t think I can carry them in good conscience right now. 

Also, where are the parents?


----------



## dangerouscurves

This is not a mistake. It's a subliminal message and its disgusting. I hope they'd fire Demna. It's impossible that he didn't know nor didn't approve it.


----------



## RitaLA

I don't even know how to start this post.  Maybe we should all ask, "Why isn't the celebrities talking about this?" They have an opinion about everything.  Isn't child pedophilia big enough to be spoken against? If you have a child, and someone commits a crime against your child, either sexual abuse or anything pedophilia related, are you going to be quiet about it, waiting for the perpetrator to issue an apology? These celebrities are not speaking up because we know who owns them. Kim Kardashian has been quiet about this and she has children. She is one of Balenciaga's biggest supporters. There are large groups of elites who have been running child trafficking and child sexual abuse rings for years. Why now?? They have been able to get away with their symbolism for many years, but they got too comfortable knowing that people were blind to it. They are being bold about their symbols and were expecting people to get on the pedophilia bandwagon. But this time, it didn't work. People are waking up and what do they do? "Oops ... we apologize if this was offensive to you."  OMG ... these companies have a lot of resources to work on their brands, from analysts to psychologists, to anything you can imagine that will work on specific themes to brainwash people and make them hooked on their products. We do not know because we are not in the know. All we know is that we are addicted to these brands and we sit here waiting for them to release a statement so they can redeem themselves and we go on with our "tea room" lives as if nothing happened. We need to wake up and stop allowing these elites to take advantage of young women, children or anyone that they can use to profit from. Balenciaga has been in this pdophilia business for many years. Who ever heard of Rachel Chandler?? She was a big attendee at Epstein Island. She has a model agency that would "recruit" children and under age girls to shoot for Balenciaga and other brands. Where did Rachel get these girls from? She had pictures of Epstein house cameras. If you go to ther agency IG, you can't comment on anything. They are trying to shut us down. We need to stop being complacent and stop giving these people our hard earned money. This is not about teddy bears and bondage clothing. Look at how the theme of child sexualization was perfectly aligned throughout the pictures. Open your eyes and stand for what is right


----------



## Kevinaxx

A1aGypsy said:


> Also, where are the parents?


This. Did they know how the ad was going to turn out or was it a “your child will be in a fashion house campaign!”.

Personally I think they wanted to do something controversial so yea, they knew what they were doing because any press is free press that keeps them relevant. It blew up more in their faces then they originally thought it would.

The brand was already faltering imho, this just set the trash on fire. Whether they come out of it like a phoenix or stay dusted, remains to be seen.


----------



## RitaLA

This is not about being edgy or controversial! This is about the sexualization of children. Are our consciousness and ethics so seared that we are incapable of seeing the gravity of this? Do we really think a brand would expose itself to a child sexualization/pedophilia theme for the sake of being relevant or controversial?  Think about the thought process that goes behind a plan to actually get court documents on child pornography and place behind a bag. Did you see the paintings of Michael Boressman that was placed behind the model on the desk? He promotes child violence. Guys, wake up


----------



## Kevinaxx

Before 2016, I would say a brand or people would know better. But after 2016, (at least as a US citizen) I would say anything is possible. People can be that stupid for the sake of controversy.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## jellyv

MooMooVT said:


> And why reference a Supreme Court ruling on child se*ual exploitation?


I'd like to see verification on this other than NY Post, a tabloid. Has any credible media confirmed this?


----------



## QuelleFromage

Allisonfaye said:


> Balenciaga is blaming the photographer and the photographer is claiming she was doing what she was told.





MooMooVT said:


> (I'm ranting aloud - not toward you!) The photographer was DEFINITELY doing what she was told. No one would take liberties like that and no high fashion house is likely to allow that. And anywhere from 6-12 Bal employees had to approve this campaign before it hit the streets - including Demna. Balenciaga needs to hire a crisis PR team, STAT. Kering as well. It's such a bad look to blame others and not take direct responsibility.


Just a quick note, the photographer is a male.


----------



## HAZE MAT

I think that we tend to blow things out of proportion. The so called bondage gear is no different than looking at works by Tom of Finland.

Honestly I really found the campaign a brilliant social commentary particularly about us.

Often art speaks more about us than the artist themselves. Similar flap over the Mapplethorpe stuff back in the 1980s.


----------



## RitaLA

Children in bondage gear are not art. Children's sexualization IS NOT ART. That is why this country is going down morally. People are completely numb and desensitized to child sexual abuse. As a psychologist, I can say THIS IS NOT ART. The message was loud and clear. People should start spending time in psychiatric hospitals and volunteer at shelters to see the ramifications and consequences of child abuse. The victims are loud and clear about what they experienced. If you think what they did is normal, you need therapy


----------



## RitaLA

jellyv said:


> I'd like to see verification on this other than NY Post, a tabloid. Has any credible media confirmed this?


what is "credible?" CNN, Fox news, MSN?  Mainstream media is a propaganda machine for the elites. Look at the paperwork and do research for yourself. The court paperwork is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (which is a trade association for the adult-entertainment industry) People keep waiting for the mainstream media to deliver information on a silver platter so they can form opinions. If you rely on MSM to think for you, you will be deceived for the rest of your life.


----------



## RitaLA

MooMooVT said:


> They didn't even remotely take accountabilty. They filed a lawsuit against the set designer and production company and blamed others for the content. There's ZERO chance all images weren't approved by Demna and at least 2-10 other executives. I'd put all I have on there being Balenciaga employees at the photo shoots when these photos were taken. This is deflection 101.


Exactly!!!!!  How would people feel if someone is sexualizing their children?  Lawsuits are not an expression of accountability. They are playing their narcissistic games and projecting onto others what they did themselves. They are anti-social (read the meaning of Anti-social personality disorder in the DSM5). Being anti-social is not being shy. Someone with an anti-social personality disorder doesn't have any morals or ethics. They victimize themselves. They are sociopaths. It's everyone else's fault, but theirs.


----------



## jellyv

RitaLA said:


> what is "credible?" CNN, Fox news, MSN?  Mainstream media is a propaganda machine for the elites. Look at the paperwork and do research for yourself. The court paperwork


Yeah, the "do your own research" business...LOL. Point me to _your_ source, and mainstream ones, too. The NY Post didn't cite a source.


----------



## QuelleFromage

jellyv said:


> I'd like to see verification on this other than NY Post, a tabloid. Has any credible media confirmed this?


Fact-checking shows that the image with the Supreme Court document is from an entirely separate campaign, photo shoot, and photographer than the "bear bags" campaign - so we definitely do need continued examination of the issue, because the initial story was that this was all one campaign.


----------



## jellyv

QuelleFromage said:


> Fact-checking shows that *the image with the Supreme Court document is from an entirely separate campaign, photo shoot, and photographer than the "bear bags" campaign - *so we definitely do need continued examination of the issue, because the initial story was that this was all one campaign.


Thank you for an actual answer and substantive comment.


----------



## RitaLA

jellyv said:


> Yeah, the "do your own research" crowd...well. Go ahead and point me to your source on this. It can't be NY Post, which is itself devoid of a citation on it.


LOL  are your neurons working?  So get them to join hands and work for you. Nobody here is your admin.  The paperwork is clear and the court papers are on the web for anyone to see.


----------



## xpixi

RitaLA said:


> I don't even know how to start this post.  Maybe we should all ask, "Why isn't the celebrities talking about this?" They have an opinion about everything.  Isn't child pedophilia big enough to be spoken against? If you have a child, and someone commits a crime against your child, either sexual abuse or anything pedophilia related, are you going to be quiet about it, waiting for the perpetrator to issue an apology? These celebrities are not speaking up because we know who owns them. Kim Kardashian has been quiet about this and she has children. She is one of Balenciaga's biggest supporters. There are large groups of elites who have been running child trafficking and child sexual abuse rings for years. Why now?? They have been able to get away with their symbolism for many years, but they got too comfortable knowing that people were blind to it. They are being bold about their symbols and were expecting people to get on the pedophilia bandwagon. But this time, it didn't work. People are waking up and what do they do? "Oops ... we apologize if this was offensive to you."  OMG ... these companies have a lot of resources to work on their brands, from analysts to psychologists, to anything you can imagine that will work on specific themes to brainwash people and make them hooked on their products. We do not know because we are not in the know. All we know is that we are addicted to these brands and we sit here waiting for them to release a statement so they can redeem themselves and we go on with our "tea room" lives as if nothing happened. We need to wake up and stop allowing these elites to take advantage of young women, children or anyone that they can use to profit from. Balenciaga has been in this pdophilia business for many years. Who ever heard of Rachel Chandler?? She was a big attendee at Epstein Island. She has a model agency that would "recruit" children and under age girls to shoot for Balenciaga and other brands. Where did Rachel get these girls from? She had pictures of Epstein house cameras. If you go to ther agency IG, you can't comment on anything. They are trying to shut us down. We need to stop being complacent and stop giving these people our hard earned money. This is not about teddy bears and bondage clothing. Look at how the theme of child sexualization was perfectly aligned throughout the pictures. Open your eyes and stand for what is right


I can here to say exactly this and you summed it up perfectly


----------



## xpixi

QuelleFromage said:


> Fact-checking shows that the image with the Supreme Court document is from an entirely separate campaign, photo shoot, and photographer than the "bear bags" campaign - so we definitely do need continued examination of the issue, because the initial story was that this was all one campaign.


Which just shows they were on this p*do bandwagon for a long time, and saw how much they got away with it until it blew in their faces with this teddy photoshoot because they kept getting bolder. This was planned to the most finest detail, mark my words.


----------



## RitaLA

xpixi said:


> Which just shows they were on this p*do bandwagon for a long time, and saw how much they got away with it until it blew in their faces with this teddy photoshoot because they kept getting bolder. This was planned to the most finest detail, mark my words.


Nailed it! It was and it has been. Because people haven't been following their footsteps for a while, can't believe it. They think it was one photoshoot. They think it is one instance. "Oh, we will wait for a statement and we will forgive them." This has been happening for a long time. Research Rachel Chandler. People have been asleep. Some come with this excuse "show me proof." Oh come on ... this is as old as the 1500's. They canceled Kanye for a tweet. But nobody is canceling them or the main company who owns Balenciaga. Why? Why did Balenciaga cancel their Twitter account? Why did they remove all their IG posts?  Why is Kim Kardashian quiet? Why is Hollywood quiet? They throw stones at everyone for any little thing but they don't want to talk about this. They are all involved and their ties are very very deep.


----------



## RitaLA

Look at Oli-London TV - Look him up on Twitter @OliLondonTV


----------



## Norm.Core

The need to keep pushing the envelope and edgy has not only alienated a lot of Balenciaga fans and now we’ve come to a point that people are talking about canceling this brand. A total shame. Demna went too far.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## ccbaggirl89

xpixi said:


> Which just shows they were on this p*do bandwagon for a long time, and saw how much they got away with it until it blew in their faces with this teddy photoshoot because they kept getting bolder. This was planned to the most finest detail, mark my words.


Agree, it went through too many levels to have escaped notice and not have been completely planned and approved. It just makes me wonder who the Bal target audience is-- if this is what they wanted and planned, was it just for exposure/controversy or do they truly think this campaign speaks to their customers and will be ok with them?


----------



## 880

jellyv said:


> int can be shorter term with decent crisis management and proper public relations. Missteps and other variations of moral rot haven't always sunk a legacy brand. What they do in response makes the difference.
> 
> I find it ludicrous to suggest that consumers should excommunicate their bags from 2001--Fall 2022 on this basis...what the hell.



Agree 100%

Also agree with @muchstuff re chanel, and in principle with @HAZE MAT re art, though the use of children is over the pale.


----------



## RitaLA

ccbaggirl89 said:


> Agree, it went through too many levels to have escaped notice and not have been completely planned and approved. It just makes me wonder who the Bal target audience is-- if this is what they wanted and planned, was it just for exposure/controversy or do they truly think this campaign speaks to their customers and will be ok with them?


There is a bigger narrative here, which is desensitizing people culturally to issues of child sexual abuse. Culture doesn't change overnight. There has to be a narrative that follows a theme over and over and over again. AKA brainwashing. The more people are exposed to it, the more they become accustomed to it and desensitized so they don't question it anymore. The goal is not just to push "the envelope once." There are several different brands, entities, and individuals involved in this cultural narrative to promote a certain message so it becomes normalized. It's not as easy and simple as one might think. Some people changed the name to "child-attracted person."  So, they start changing language, exposing people to images, and in your brain's neuroplasticity, society starts getting used to it. Suddenly, a sense of right and wrong is gone and we don't even know how we got there. Think about this: "child-attracted person?" What in the world happened to decency in this country?


----------



## millivanilli

The pictures that showed a toddler holding a bdsm bear in front of whine glasses?

As a kink-positive, bdsm practicing person I find that DIS-GUS-TING! I am really taken aback. As a strict antialcoholic person I am annoyed. But that BDSM element... beyond. Simply beyond.

As I read in the Twitter link the question if this teddy bear outfit would be "80ies punk": nope. this is clearly BDSM language. I remember the 80ies pretty well, too.



RitaLA said:


> There is a bigger narrative here, which is desensitizing people culturally to issues of child sexual abuse. Culture doesn't change overnight. There has to be a narrative that follows a theme over and over and over again. AKA brainwashing. The more people are exposed to it, the more they become accustomed to it and desensitized so they don't question it anymore. The goal is not just to push "the envelope once." There are several different brands, entities, and individuals involved in this cultural narrative to promote a certain message so it becomes normalized. It's not as easy and simple as one might think. Some people changed the name to "child-attracted person."  So, they start changing language, exposing people to images, and in your brain's neuroplasticity, society starts getting used to it. Suddenly, a sense of right and wrong is gone and we don't even know how we got there. Think about this: "child-attracted person?" What in the world happened to decency in this country?


sadly enough I agree.

I want to add: we are getting used to children as soldiers and weapons. Just watch the newest Thor movie, the last scenes. I wanted to vomitt. Sadly, husband and me were the only ones recognizing that there is a shift in the narrative. Really don't know what's going on. REALLY NOT. But it is terrifying 

(I am speaking about that scene:


----------



## millivanilli

German press is writing about it, too.

Here's the link
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/stil/mo.../f25a46e8-6ccd-11ed-a257-52d1e0-18488545.html
And here's a screenshot:




the headlines translates as following:

Balenciaga in a crisis.Children with Bondage Teddybears

I let deppl translate the text:

Balenciaga apologizes for an ad campaign depicting children with fetish bags. Was this a deliberately staged scandal by the Parisian luxury brand?
Demna was lucky again. When a ****storm threatened to descend on fashion brand Balenciaga and its chief designer this week - not much happened, except for a bit of excitement on Twitter. For too much news came in between in public: the debate about the World Cup, for example, and for fashion fans then also the surprising departure of Alessandro Michele from Gucci.
Discussions about Demna, who in his role as designer does without his last name Gvasalia, are certainly scandalous. A Balenciaga Christmas campaign features young children in homey settings, with teddy bears wearing a fetish leather harness of the kind used in sadomasochistic bondage practices. Children in such a context? "I understand that a big part of Balenciaga's marketing is the shock factor," wrote one Twitter user, "but this is just disgusting."

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

and I found this intel.




I will never ever buy from them again. NEVER.


----------



## millivanilli

HAZE MAT said:


> I think that we tend to blow things out of proportion. The so called bondage gear is no different than looking at works by Tom of Finland.
> 
> Honestly I really found the campaign a brilliant social commentary particularly about us.
> 
> Often art speaks more about us than the artist themselves. Similar flap over the Mapplethorpe stuff back in the 1980s.


no it is not. Believe an active kinkster. IT IS NOT! If you know the hidden signs you see them in the pictures. It is dog whistle policy in a picture, and not a good one.


----------



## millivanilli

xpixi said:


> Which just shows they were on this p*do bandwagon for a long time, and saw how much they got away with it until it blew in their faces with this teddy photoshoot because they kept getting bolder. This was planned to the most finest detail, mark my words.


correct. And this is even worse.

Here is my opinion about the pictures. I'm already long enough in the BDSM scene to be able to read the visual language of the pictures - what I already wrote on the subject " dog whistle in pictures".
The problem is not only the teddy, which is already disturbing enough, but in the structure of the image.
The picture on the bed shows a setup of a bed as it is defined as "appealing" in the BDSM context - everything is lying straight next to each other, a leash is ready (nobody has seen it, right? well, leashes take place in BDSM ), the items are lined up neatly and straight. The mat reminds of a pad, the towels also remind of a BDSM session. That alone is enough to make a reference to BDSM. It gets really scary when you look at the posture of the children. In the BDSM field there are different currents, one enjoys great popularity among particularly "delightful contemporaries" (which I reject by the way, but is another topic) and one of the poses is definitely a slave posture. Yes, the word is nasty, but in the BDSM context many people carry this title with pride, so no discussion here about this topic please, because BDSM is primarily consensual and categorically rejects any contact with children and also with uninvolved third parties.
So when I say that the picture has a clear reference to BDSM, then you can assume that people like me can "read" these pictures very well. And this is such frightening, disgusting, outrageous, unbearable and indiscussable that I really can't say anything more about it except: GO TO ****ING HELL!

That said, I am happy to report that the IG account of B. (won't write that name anymore) is: empty. Let's keep it that way. (and you can't comment on the Kering account, which is sad bc I wanted to let them know how I feel about them).


----------



## Allisonfaye

They are also on the list of companies who were supposedly pulling ads from Twitter for allowing free speech on both sides of the spectrum.


----------



## Yhte123

xpixi said:


> I am glad I never bought from this disgusting greedy luxury brand and never will. And I will judge whoever wears Balenciaga from now on idgaf


Right? Like thank god I’m not the only one that feels this way


Allisonfaye said:


> They are also on the list of companies who were supposedly pulling ads from Twitter for allowing free speech on both sides of the spectrum.


That person didn’t allow free speech by recently banning multiple accounts for no reason, or ones that criticized him, and not allowing (Alex) everyone back. Very tyrannical. Makes me worried for free speech. Not very free speechy of him for me!

Also Chanel and Lvmh brands have also pulled as well. Not going to hold it against Bal bc of this!


----------



## alikat33

I just saw this news on Twitter, so looked it up. Shocking, to say the least.  What’s even worse is all the people (Balenciaga execs, the photographer, the dad of one of the child models) not taking responsibility.  All these people looking the other way.  Not my problem. 
sorry, honey, you ARE the problem.


----------



## Allisonfaye

And it wasn't just kiddie stuff. There was a woman made up to look like she had a black eye, glorifying domestic abuse?


----------



## Yhte123

millivanilli said:


> correct. And this is even worse.
> 
> Here is my opinion about the pictures. I'm already long enough in the BDSM scene to be able to read the visual language of the pictures - what I already wrote on the subject " dog whistle in pictures".
> The problem is not only the teddy, which is already disturbing enough, but in the structure of the image.
> The picture on the bed shows a setup of a bed as it is defined as "appealing" in the BDSM context - everything is lying straight next to each other, a leash is ready (nobody has seen it, right? well, leashes take place in BDSM ), the items are lined up neatly and straight. The mat reminds of a pad, the towels also remind of a BDSM session. That alone is enough to make a reference to BDSM. It gets really scary when you look at the posture of the children. In the BDSM field there are different currents, one enjoys great popularity among particularly "delightful contemporaries" (which I reject by the way, but is another topic) and one of the poses is definitely a slave posture. Yes, the word is nasty, but in the BDSM context many people carry this title with pride, so no discussion here about this topic please, because BDSM is primarily consensual and categorically rejects any contact with children and also with uninvolved third parties.
> So when I say that the picture has a clear reference to BDSM, then you can assume that people like me can "read" these pictures very well. And this is such frightening, disgusting, outrageous, unbearable and indiscussable that I really can't say anything more about it except: GO TO ****ING HELL!
> 
> That said, I am happy to report that the IG account of B. (won't write that name anymore) is: empty. Let's keep it that way. (and you can't comment on the Kering account, which is sad bc I wanted to let them know how I feel about them).
> 
> View attachment 5660580


Look at how quiet Kering is about this Bal situation but willing to issue press comments/releases about the Gucci news

T H E Y  D O  N O T  C A R E

I’ve stopped giving them benefit of the doubt .. it’s sad when gucci/ysl/bottega etc had good designs but it’s clear this degenerate behavior runs deep in their company. like I said Kering and balenciaga have the same staff and located in the same headquarters. Kering 10000% knew about and green lit this campaign too. I bet you my entire wardrobe!


----------



## Yhte123

Allisonfaye said:


> And it wasn't just kiddie stuff. There was a woman made up to look like she had a black eye, glorifying domestic abuse?


Omg where?! I didn’t see it! Another disgusting thing to add to this endless list


----------



## HAZE MAT

HAZE MAT said:


> I think that we tend to blow things out of proportion. The so called bondage gear is no different than looking at works by Tom of Finland.
> 
> Honestly I really found the campaign a brilliant social commentary particularly about us.
> 
> Often art speaks more about us than the artist themselves. Similar flap over the Mapplethorpe stuff back in the 1980s.



A solid article on how much the news just like to make mountains out of molehills. https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/balenciaga-child-ad-conspiracy-theory/


----------



## dangerouscurves

HAZE MAT said:


> I think that we tend to blow things out of proportion. The so called bondage gear is no different than looking at works by Tom of Finland.
> 
> Honestly I really found the campaign a brilliant social commentary particularly about us.
> 
> Often art speaks more about us than the artist themselves. Similar flap over the Mapplethorpe stuff back in the 1980s



Bondage gear on CHILDREN. Da heck?!?!


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## HAZE MAT

dangerouscurves said:


> Bondage gear on CHILDREN. Da heck?!?!


On the teddy bear not the kids. But whether or not it’s bondage gear is subject to debate.


----------



## ccbaggirl89

millivanilli said:


> correct. And this is even worse.
> 
> Here is my opinion about the pictures. I'm already long enough in the BDSM scene to be able to read the visual language of the pictures - what I already wrote on the subject " dog whistle in pictures".
> The problem is not only the teddy, which is already disturbing enough, but in the structure of the image.
> The picture on the bed shows a setup of a bed as it is defined as "appealing" in the BDSM context - everything is lying straight next to each other, a leash is ready (nobody has seen it, right? well, leashes take place in BDSM ), the items are lined up neatly and straight. The mat reminds of a pad, the towels also remind of a BDSM session. That alone is enough to make a reference to BDSM. It gets really scary when you look at the posture of the children. In the BDSM field there are different currents, one enjoys great popularity among particularly "delightful contemporaries" (which I reject by the way, but is another topic) and one of the poses is definitely a slave posture. Yes, the word is nasty, but in the BDSM context many people carry this title with pride, so no discussion here about this topic please, because BDSM is primarily consensual and categorically rejects any contact with children and also with uninvolved third parties.
> So when I say that the picture has a clear reference to BDSM, then you can assume that people like me can "read" these pictures very well. And this is such frightening, disgusting, outrageous, unbearable and indiscussable that I really can't say anything more about it except: GO TO ****ING HELL!
> 
> That said, I am happy to report that the IG account of B. (won't write that name anymore) is: empty. Let's keep it that way. (and you can't comment on the Kering account, which is sad bc I wanted to let them know how I feel about them).
> 
> View attachment 5660580


Didn't see the leash (or other meaningful symbolism) until you mentioned it... so not good. 
For someone completely ignorant of the lifestyle the bears with the panda eyes was more than enough. This is a whole other level of unacceptable. 
I know other brands are 'bad' too, and have bad execs and bad campaigns, but you want to feel somewhat proud of what you carry and what you support and this kills the brand for me, and Kering in general. It'd be hard for me to enjoy my Kering bags now.


----------



## xpixi

And I will also be boycotting adidas, since as far as I know, they collabed with Balenciaga on this. I am glad I didnt buy something from them in a long time. I wanted a pair of adidas sneakers for black friday, and changed my mind last minute. I am really grateful for that.


----------



## Yhte123

HAZE MAT said:


> A solid article on how much the news just like to make mountains out of molehills. https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/balenciaga-child-ad-conspiracy-theory/


That website has been known to support balenciaga many times and part of their PR payroll.

This is a cheap and desperate attempt on balenciaga to downplay the severity of their actions. 

Fox News and Tucker have shown more tha enough proof of Balenciaga’s depraved actions.


----------



## Allisonfaye

Yhte123 said:


> Omg where?! I didn’t see it! Another disgusting thing to add to this endless list











						Balenciaga's Attempted Damage Control: $25 Million Suit Filed Against Producers of Child Sexualization Ad Campaign
					

There's no way Balenciaga didn't realize how this sexualized very young children.




					redstate.com


----------



## Yhte123

xpixi said:


> And I will also be boycotting adidas, since as far as I know, they collabed with Balenciaga on this. I am glad I didnt buy something from them in a long time. I wanted a pair of adidas sneakers for black friday, and changed my mind last minute. I am really grateful for that.


I didn’t even think of this! Didn’t they collaborate with Gucci and Prada too? Balenciaga even collabed with Gucci

This stuff runs deep. This situation really opened my eyes.

Much better sportswear brands out there for sure.


----------



## Allisonfaye

HAZE MAT said:


> A solid article on how much the news just like to make mountains out of molehills. https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/balenciaga-child-ad-conspiracy-theory/


Interesting that you using the same phrase that the article uses. I noticed you didn't quote it though.


----------



## xpixi

I think the media and the celebs are really gaslighting us by being silent about this. They're like ''see its not big deal and youre just overreacting''. I feel like they're hoping for this to die down soon enough and people to forget about it. They all must be in some kind of cult or something or really their designer bags and clothes matter more than their morals and protecting innocent children.


----------



## xpixi

Yhte123 said:


> I didn’t even think of this! Didn’t they collaborate with Gucci and Prada too? Balenciaga even collabed with Gucci
> 
> This stuff runs deep. This situation really opened my eyes.
> 
> Much better sportswear brands out there for sure.


This is the adidas collab. Same photoshoot where they included those cp documents on the table.


----------



## Yhte123

xpixi said:


> I think the media and the celebs are really gaslighting us by being silent about this. They're like ''see its not big deal and youre just overreacting''. I feel like they're hoping for this to die down soon enough and people to forget about it. They all must be in some kind of cult or something or really their designer bags and clothes matter more than their morals and protecting innocent children.



For sure the cult. Kidman is part of the campaign and she is part of Scientology too. Not surprised if she has participated in Scientology harming children 

now she’s quietly showing support for this behavior by collaborating with them.

Hollywood is literally evil . I have said it but people don’t believe me. Look at how quiet the celebs part of the campaigns are. Either they have been victims of grooming and think this is okay or are groomers themselves. Bella Hadid, Kanye, Kim, Alexa, etc.

Thank god Kanye broke free.


----------



## Yhte123

xpixi said:


> This is the adidas collab. Same photoshoot where they included those cp documents on the table.



Yes. Adidas was 100% part of the campaign and greenlit this too. That says all I need I know about them. I will be boycotting Prada by extension too after this.


----------



## acrowcounted

Yhte123 said:


> For sure the cult. Kidman is part of the campaign and she is part of Scientology too. Not surprised if she has participated in Scientology harming children
> 
> now she’s quietly showing support for this behavior by collaborating with them.
> 
> Hollywood is literally evil . I have said it but people don’t believe me. Look at how quiet the celebs part of the campaigns are. Either they have been victims of grooming and think this is okay or are groomers themselves. Bella Hadid, Kanye, Kim, Alexa, etc.
> 
> Thank god Kanye broke free.


“Thank god Kanye broke free” ????


----------



## addiCCted

If “edgy” means putting children in sexually suggestive / debatable context, I don’t want to know what’s beyond the edge. 

How is that even remotely “edgy”? Child sex slaves and pedophilia is as old as time. Child brides are a historical thing. There is nothing edgy about it. If anything it’s regressive. Protecting children and preserving their innocence is a relatively modern idea that should be preserved. 

Throughout history, great civilizations (Ancient Greece, Rome) have always collapsed when they reached a level of  decadence that morals and social rules don’t matter any more. Nothing separates civilized human from animals other than our ability to control our impulses ie following laws and moral codes. The order of the animal world is inherently a violent one. Whilst some may think laws and morals are old fashioned, it prevents society from turning into chaos where everything goes. 

Call me old fashioned. YMMV


----------



## Roie55

Yhte123 said:


> For sure the cult. Kidman is part of the campaign and* she is part of Scientology too. *Not surprised if she has participated in Scientology harming children
> 
> now she’s quietly showing support for this behavior by collaborating with them.
> 
> Hollywood is literally evil . I have said it but people don’t believe me. Look at how quiet the celebs part of the campaigns are. Either they have been victims of grooming and think this is okay or are groomers themselves. Bella Hadid, Kanye, Kim, Alexa, etc.
> 
> Thank god Kanye broke free.


incorrect - she left scientology when she escaped from Tom, she has nothing to do with that cult.


----------



## ChampagneandChakras

Allisonfaye said:


> Balenciaga is blaming the photographer and the photographer is claiming she was doing what she was told.


I’m with the photographer‘s account; however, she’s repulsive too IMO. Don’t get me started on the parents . Do these children have parents?


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Yhte123

Roie55 said:


> incorrect - she left scientology when she escaped from Tom, she has nothing to do with that cult.


Spare me the MSM media pr she has done to spin this to keep her career.  Look at how quiet she is. She hasn’t removed the photos, she hasn’t even spoken out.

Neither has Kim Kardashian, Neither has Alexa Demie, Bella Hadid, only Kanye hmm very interesting!

I think the people here trying to invalidate or the very least downplay the severity of the situation really showed their true colors today about pedophilia and child exploitation.


----------



## ChampagneandChakras

RitaLA said:


> I don't even know how to start this post.  Maybe we should all ask, "Why isn't the celebrities talking about this?" They have an opinion about everything.  Isn't child pedophilia big enough to be spoken against? If you have a child, and someone commits a crime against your child, either sexual abuse or anything pedophilia related, are you going to be quiet about it, waiting for the perpetrator to issue an apology? These celebrities are not speaking up because we know who owns them. Kim Kardashian has been quiet about this and she has children. She is one of Balenciaga's biggest supporters. There are large groups of elites who have been running child trafficking and child sexual abuse rings for years. Why now?? They have been able to get away with their symbolism for many years, but they got too comfortable knowing that people were blind to it. They are being bold about their symbols and were expecting people to get on the pedophilia bandwagon. But this time, it didn't work. People are waking up and what do they do? "Oops ... we apologize if this was offensive to you."  OMG ... these companies have a lot of resources to work on their brands, from analysts to psychologists, to anything you can imagine that will work on specific themes to brainwash people and make them hooked on their products. We do not know because we are not in the know. All we know is that we are addicted to these brands and we sit here waiting for them to release a statement so they can redeem themselves and we go on with our "tea room" lives as if nothing happened. We need to wake up and stop allowing these elites to take advantage of young women, children or anyone that they can use to profit from. Balenciaga has been in this pdophilia business for many years. Who ever heard of Rachel Chandler?? She was a big attendee at Epstein Island. She has a model agency that would "recruit" children and under age girls to shoot for Balenciaga and other brands. Where did Rachel get these girls from? She had pictures of Epstein house cameras. If you go to ther agency IG, you can't comment on anything. They are trying to shut us down. We need to stop being complacent and stop giving these people our hard earned money. This is not about teddy bears and bondage clothing. Look at how the theme of child sexualization was perfectly aligned throughout the pictures. Open your eyes and stand for what is right


AMEN!


----------



## Meta

I'm just going to park this here: (click to read in detail)


----------



## A1aGypsy

Yhte123 said:


> Right? Like thank god I’m not the only one that feels this way
> 
> That person didn’t allow free speech by recently banning multiple accounts for no reason, or ones that criticized him, and not allowing (Alex) everyone back. Very tyrannical. Makes me worried for free speech. Not very free speechy of him for me!
> 
> Also Chanel and Lvmh brands have also pulled as well. Not going to hold it against Bal bc of this!


Alex? Alex Jones should be allowed back on Twitter? Is that who you are referring to? 

Weird position to take if you are concerned about children.


----------



## PurseUOut

RitaLA said:


> *There are large groups of elites who have been running child trafficking and child sexual abuse rings for years. Why now?? They have been able to get away with their symbolism for many years, but they got too comfortable knowing that people were blind to it. They are being bold about their symbols and were expecting people to get on the pedophilia bandwagon. But this time, it didn't work.*



I am starting to wonder if there was something to "pizzagate".


----------



## Roie55

Yhte123 said:


> Spare me the MSM media pr she has done to spin this to keep her career.  Look at how quiet she is. She hasn’t removed the photos, she hasn’t even spoken out.
> 
> Neither has Kim Kardashian, Neither has Alexa Demie, Bella Hadid, only Kanye hmm very interesting!
> 
> I think the people here trying to invalidate or the very least downplay the severity of the situation really showed their true colors today about pedophilia and child exploitation.


Sorry but I didn't mention her involvement in this Bal disaster. So i will not "spare you' I corrected the mistake someone has made that they infer she's involved with Scientology which she isn't. Thats the only thing I commented on. If you infer that I havent mentioned the Bal situation that makes me involved with the pedo world then you'll get reported.


----------



## shoegirl1221

PurseUOut said:


> Absolutely appalling, unfathomable and disgusting.
> 
> The teddy bear is one thing, the bondage is one thing, the court docket referencing child porn case is one thing, but to see those babies pictured with panda eyes (a clinically recognized indicator of traumatic abuse) in the context of all of this is so incredibly infuriating and gut-wrenching there is absolutely no turning back or apology that would warrant this okay. I don't own anything and will never buy balenciaga and would not be sad if this sub-forum was shut down.


All of this. I'm so sorry but for a company to claim they had no idea this was being done and trying to blame the production company and set designer...gtfo. They can't even be bothered to issue a true apology and are trying to pull a shaggy "it wasn't me" and now suing others. Someone laid eyes on this campaign, my bet would be multiple someones, and they need to be fired. One of the photos also had the little girl laying sideways or face down on the couch with used wine glasses strewn on the table - so disgusting.


----------



## RitaLA

PurseUOut said:


> I am starting to wonder if there was something to "pizzagate".


Oh ... there were MANY things about Pizzagate. Girl, you gotta start digging. You will be horrified by what these people have been doing to children all these years. It's all about the children. Also, when Balenciaga released an apology saying, "We apologize for any offense our campaign has caused." So, whatever Balenciaga did, didn't offend you guys, your executives? It didn't offend the photographers? It didn't offend your PR managers?  Are you that much of a sociopath that you don't see anything wrong in that picture? Now, they are pretending to be treating the topic in as uneventful and as if nothing happened. But there is a HUGE discrepancy going on here. They are silent but they canceled their Twitter account. On Rachel Chandler's agency IG page, you can't leave comments. Balenciaga erased their posts on IG. If it's not a big deal, let's have a conversation why you think it's offensive to us, the public, but it's not offensive to you. Instead of staying silent, let's talk about it. But THEY CANNOT TALK ABOUT IT. The dirt will start coming out. We cannot allow them to convince us that there is nothing wrong here. These are innocent children being sexualized. How can people ignore this????????????  I work with people who were sexually abused as children and when they look at those pictures, they know exactly what they mean. I had people tell me their fathers were part of cults that required the sacrifice of children.


----------



## TraceySH

She's commented now....


----------



## HAZE MAT

dangerouscurves said:


> Who are you and why are you defending this disgusting behavior? Not to mention that you just joined our forum on t November 26, 2022. I would love the admin to check on this member.


I am defending the work to make art and perhaps we shouldn't read too much at face value with Balenciaga. After all, I think that they are a brand imbued with a ton of irony and definitely we can't take everything that they do literally every single time.

After all, the Lays clutch bag is still a play at tropes and our ability to misread semiotics. I definitely have to admit that the advertisement was meant as social commentary about the United States and its current affairs. After all, the misfire happened here in the States and not in Europe.


----------



## Yhte123

A1aGypsy said:


> Alex? Alex Jones should be allowed back on Twitter? Is that who you are referring to?
> 
> Weird position to take if you are concerned about children.


Either you’re for all free speech or none.  That was my point, not him.

I still stand by the safety of children 100%


Meta said:


> I'm just going to park this here: (click to read in detail)




Oh and this lotta person has a collaboration with Adidas. Hmm when you connect the dots, you can see clearly how Adidas also involved in this.

The fact that Adidas isn’t getting backlash from this too seems suspicious


----------



## Yhte123

TraceySH said:


> She's commented now....
> 
> View attachment 5660618


So she’s willing to just “re-evaluate” not completely drop? Seems like she cares more about her bank account more than the lives of children which is more disgusting considering she’s a mother herself.


----------



## TraceySH

Yhte123 said:


> So she’s willing to just “re-evaluate” not completely drop? Seems like she cares more about her bank account more than the lives of children which is more disgusting considering she’s a mother herself.


She tweeted these 3 over an hour ago, and was lambasted. So the above I guess was more of a "read the room" follow up.


----------



## ChampagneandChakras

TraceySH said:


> She tweeted these 3 over an hour ago, and was lambasted. So the above I guess was more of a "read the room" follow up.
> 
> View attachment 5660619


I don’t gauge my moral compass on what an idiot celebrity does or doesn’t do. She doesn’t GAF about this if it’s gonna affect her bottom line.


----------



## RitaLA

TraceySH said:


> She tweeted these 3 over an hour ago, and was lambasted. So the above I guess was more of a "read the room" follow up.
> 
> View attachment 5660619


Her answer is so PC. Wow ... they are plotting behind the scenes so they don't throw each other under the bus here. Read the way she presented the issue. They have a lot of passion when it comes to antisemitism messages. Where is the passion? Where is the feistiness when it comes to children???  They are quick to react to everything. I am pretty sure if this message involved race or gender, they would have canceled any brand. She is "being" so generous and kind. Really???????????? Really??????????????  They are afraid of US, the public, because without us they have absolutely NOTHING. They are trying to pacify us. Does she take that long to express her opinions about other topics? Thank you for sharing


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## RitaLA

Look at this account on Instagram before they take it down: edclayofficial


----------



## TraceySH

RitaLA said:


> Her answer is so PC. Wow ... they are plotting behind the scenes so they don't throw each other under the bus here. Read the way she presented the issue. They have a lot of passion when it comes to antisemitism messages. Where is the passion? Where is the feistiness when it comes to children???  They are quick to react to everything. I am pretty sure if this message involved race or gender, they would have canceled any brand. She is "being" so generous and kind. Really???????????? Really??????????????  They are afraid of US, the public, because without us they have absolutely NOTHING. They are trying to pacify us. Does she take that long to express her opinions about other topics? Thank you for sharing


I guess to me at least, she's a has been. Desperately trying to stay relevant as she ages ungracefully. Her net worth is clearly A+ celebrity, but WHO she is (again IMHO) is D list, at best....not sure how many of these celebutantes have moral code or honor, I've never understood why the following and influence. No doubt her PC/ lukewarm response will instruct those more impressionable to take the softer, easier narrative towards B. Sad.


----------



## TraceySH

RitaLA said:


> Look at this account on Instagram before they take it down: edclayofficial


the blurred images are unreal. How can this even exist in daylight?


----------



## RitaLA

TraceySH said:


> the blurred images are unreal. How can this even exist in daylight?


The blurred images are paintings by a painter named Michael Borremans. His book was placed for everyone to see on one of the desks at a Balenciaga photoshoot. He is known for painting pictures of children bathed in blood and glorified child violence. Now, tell me this was an accident and an apology is sufficient???????  NO! NEVER!


----------



## RitaLA

Research Michael Borremans to see his paintings. If you learn how to interpret paintings, you learn that paintings are windows to the painter's world. It's not just "art." We generalize it, by calling it art, but what is on a canvas is a piece of the painter's reality.


----------



## Yhte123

Roie55 said:


> Sorry but I didn't mention her involvement in this Bal disaster. So i will not "spare you' I corrected the mistake someone has made that they infer she's involved with Scientology which she isn't. Thats the only thing I commented on. If you infer that I havent mentioned the Bal situation that makes me involved with the pedo world then you'll get reported.


Given the fact I literally NEVER once made the implication that YOU were part of the pedo world. My comment is directed to other members downplaying the severity of the situation. Either trying to defend Bal or liking comments that are in defense of Bal. 

I don’t know WHY you would assume my comments aside from Kidman were directed at you with your threat to censor me. 

There is a much bigger issue here going deeper than either one of us and I would rather have the conversation return to that. And I would rather not have the next generation of people groomed and corrupted by Balenciaga’s messaging

I’m not surprised wit the Borreman stuff. Subliminal messaging is a common tool used by these people to normal these things. I’m so glad I dig deeper after seeing on Fox. This is really scary the more info that comes out.


----------



## muchstuff

Just a reminder, everyone please be respectful of other posters. I realize it’s a hot topic but we can have a meaningful discussion without personal attacks.


----------



## RitaLA

muchstuff said:


> Just a reminder, everyone please be respectful of other posters. I realize it’s a hot topic but we can have a meaningful discussion without personal attacks.


Agreed!!!  It is a hot topic and it is an amazing opportunity to be able to discuss it in a public forum like this. Let's keep it centered around the facts. I think we all agree that we need to work together to help people see what is going on. Some might disagree and they have that right. If this gets too heated they might close the thread and then we are shut down from speaking. Let's keep it cool


----------



## Yhte123

I just realized. How come retailers are silent as well? Nordstrom, Neimans,Saks, Net a porter, etc? Are they just going to wait it out like the celebrities ? Why aren’t they removing Balenciaga from their stores and ending contracts?


----------



## RitaLA

Yhte123 said:


> I just realized. How come retailers are silent as well? Nordstrom, Neimans,Saks, Net a porter, etc? Are they just going to wait it out like the celebrities ? Why aren’t they removing Balenciaga from their stores and ending contracts?


Exactly!!!  Adidas and Gap canceled Kanye. Several stores canceled Ivanka when her dad ran for president. Advertisers are dropping Twitter now that Elon is willing to let them speak their minds. What is the theme here? So they cancel certain things, but they don't cancel child sexualization???  These people are mentally ill


----------



## MooMooVT

jellyv said:


> I'd like to see verification on this other than NY Post, a tabloid. Has any credible media confirmed this?











						Balenciaga Wages $25 Million Lawsuit Over Controversial Ads
					

Balenciaga has filed a lawsuit against production company North Six, Inc. and its agent, Nicholas Des Jardins over the controversial ad.




					www.thefashionlaw.com
				











						Kim Kardashian “Re-Evaluating” Relationship With Balenciaga After Being “Shaken By Disturbing Images” In Controversial Teddy Bear Campaign
					

Kim Kardashian has broken her silence over the controversial Balenciaga photo shoot that featured children posing with teddy bears in bondage. “As a mother of four, I have been shaken by the …




					deadline.com


----------



## MooMooVT

Yhte123 said:


> I just realized. How come retailers are silent as well? Nordstrom, Neimans,Saks, Net a porter, etc? Are they just going to wait it out like the celebrities ? Why aren’t they removing Balenciaga from their stores and ending contracts?


They're waiting it out to see how the next week or so goes.


----------



## muchstuff

MooMooVT said:


> They're waiting it out to see how the next week or so goes.


I think you're right.


----------



## MooMooVT

QuelleFromage said:


> Just a quick note, the photographer is a male.


I thought there were two - one for the two most controversial campaigns - one is male and the other female. But if they're both male, my bad. Honest mistake on my part.


----------



## MooMooVT

HAZE MAT said:


> I think that we tend to blow things out of proportion. The so called bondage gear is no different than looking at works by Tom of Finland.
> 
> Honestly I really found the campaign a brilliant social commentary particularly about us.
> 
> Often art speaks more about us than the artist themselves. Similar flap over the Mapplethorpe stuff back in the 1980s.


I'd be ok with it if it didn't involve small children - or any children. But a 4yo??? NO!! NO!! NO!!


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## jellyv

MooMooVT said:


> [links]


^I was asking only about your comment in post #39 about the photo display of legal documents, and others' similar statements about those docs. Post #53 answered my question.


----------



## MooMooVT

HAZE MAT said:


> A solid article on how much the news just like to make mountains out of molehills. https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/balenciaga-child-ad-conspiracy-theory/


This article is wildly biased and not even remotely factual. They're lying in the face of objectively provable facts. It's insulting.


----------



## addiCCted

TraceySH said:


> She's commented now....
> 
> View attachment 5660618


After backlash …..fake


----------



## MooMooVT

Kevinaxx said:


> This. Did they know how the ad was going to turn out or was it a “your child will be in a fashion house campaign!”.
> 
> Personally I think they wanted to do something controversial so yea, they knew what they were doing because any press is free press that keeps them relevant. It blew up more in their faces then they originally thought it would.
> 
> The brand was already faltering imho, this just set the trash on fire. Whether they come out of it like a phoenix or stay dusted, remains to be seen.


Any parent not on the set while their 4yo is on a photo shoot is criminally dumb!


----------



## MooMooVT

HAZE MAT said:


> I think that we tend to blow things out of proportion. The so called bondage gear is no different than looking at works by Tom of Finland.
> 
> Honestly I really found the campaign a brilliant social commentary particularly about us.
> 
> Often art speaks more about us than the artist themselves. Similar flap over the Mapplethorpe stuff back in the 1980s.


Hard disagree. That said, I’m glad to hear from the opposite side of this discussion.


----------



## HAZE MAT

MooMooVT said:


> Hard disagree. That said, I’m glad to hear from the opposite side of this discussion.


"I believe that any form of art is a species of exploration and transgression. ... Art by its nature is a transgressive act, and artists must accept being punished for it. The more original and unsettling their art, the more devastating the punishment."

--Joyce Carol Oates (1999 in NYT)


----------



## Asphodel

I love my old Balenciagas. I don’t think Nicolas Ghèsquiere has anything to do with the campaign today. The motto bag was his art and his vision. 

This ad campaign is very disturbing. I do not understand how anyone thought this was creative.


----------



## addiCCted

Asphodel said:


> I love my old Balenciagas. I don’t think Nicolas Ghèsquiere has anything to do with the campaign today. The motto bag was his art and his vision.
> 
> This ad campaign is very disturbing. I do not understand how anyone thought this was creative.


See post above. There are people who believe pushing the envelope is avant garde and justified in the name of art


----------



## MooMooVT

Yhte123 said:


> That website has been known to support balenciaga many times and part of their PR payroll.
> 
> This is a cheap and desperate attempt on balenciaga to downplay the severity of their actions.
> 
> Fox News and Tucker have shown more tha enough proof of Balenciaga’s depraved actions.


That article is a total joke and their claims fly in the face of objective facts. It was posted in a pathetic effort to deflect from 4yo’s posing with bondage bears


----------



## addiCCted

MooMooVT said:


> That article is a total joke and their claims fly in the face of objective facts. It was posted in a pathetic effort to deflect from 4yo’s posing with bondage bears


Seriously at this point if you’re still defending Balenciaga you might as well come out and support pedophilia…”love is love”


----------



## MooMooVT

PurseUOut said:


> I am starting to wonder if there was something to "pizzagate".


I mean, I hate to give any credibility to the whole pizza-gate thing. But then I wonder why we have not ONE SINGLE NAME from Jeffrey Epstein’s client list. Sure, there’s speculation and such.
But where’s the proof? The prosecutions? If this were only on one side of the isle, the proof would have been released long ago. Clearly it’s a zero-sum-game among both sides of the elite.


----------



## addiCCted

MooMooVT said:


> I mean, I hate to give any credibility to the whole pizza-gate thing. But then I wonder why we have not ONE SINGLE NAME from Jeffrey Epstein’s client list. Sure, there’s speculation and such.
> But where’s the proof? The prosecutions? If this were only on one side of the isle, the proof would have been released long ago. Clearly it’s a zero-sum-game among both sides of the elite.


Is ghislaine Maxwell not in jail?


----------



## MooMooVT

RitaLA said:


> Exactly!!!  Adidas and Gap canceled Kanye. Several stores canceled Ivanka when her dad ran for president. Advertisers are dropping Twitter now that Elon is willing to let them speak their minds. What is the theme here? So they cancel certain things, but they don't cancel child sexualization???  These people are mentally ill


Exactly this. Only certain voices are canceled and interestingly, it’s not those pushing child sexual exploitation


----------



## MooMooVT

addiCCted said:


> Is ghislaine Maxwell not in jail?


What’s that got to do with anything? I want the actual pedos prosecuted. I mean, it’s nice she’s behind bars. But she’s not the main criminal here.

Where is the client list? Where are the prosecutions of those perpetrating the worst of the crimes?


----------



## jellyv

addiCCted said:


> *Seriously at this point if you’re still defending Balenciaga you might as well come out and support pedophilia…*”love is love”


This is the Balenciaga forum. This forum will continue, with talk about bags that far, far predate this campaign. Many of us have owned their products for 20 years or more. Bottom line, it's possible to love our bags and be entirely outraged over this terrible ad situation. As should be obvious.

I don't like the careless way some posters are implying nefarious things about members here who haven't said *anything* in the way of defense; to the contrary, voices are ringing with disgust.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## addiCCted

MooMooVT said:


> What’s that got to do with anything? I want the actual pedos prosecuted. I mean, it’s nice she’s behind bars. But she’s not the main criminal here.
> 
> Where is the client list? Where are the prosecutions of those perpetrating the worst of the crimes?


I meant people questioning pizzagate


----------



## Yhte123

MooMooVT said:


> They're waiting it out to see how the next week or so goes.


Honestly then it’s more important than ever to increase pressure on these retailers. To show them that this behavior is not something that should be tolerated. Or else Balenciaga is just going to get away with it. Like RitaLA showed, these retailers ended contracts and whatnot for way less.  

I’m going to email them and see what happens.


----------



## addiCCted

jellyv said:


> This is the Balenciaga forum. This forum will continue, with talk about bags that far, far predate this campaign. Many of us have owned their products for 20 years or more. Bottom line, it's possible to love our bags and be entirely outraged over this terrible ad situation. As should be obvious.
> 
> I don't like the careless way some posters are implying nefarious things about members here who haven't said *anything* in the way of defense; to the contrary, voices are ringing with disgust.


Fair enough. I have their bags too. I can see how some may separate the product from the people now but I personally won’t be using my moto bag for a while and that’s my personal choice.


----------



## dangerouscurves

HAZE MAT said:


> "I believe that any form of art is a species of exploration and transgression. ... Art by its nature is a transgressive act, and artists must accept being punished for it. The more original and unsettling their art, the more devastating the punishment."
> 
> --Joyce Carol Oates (1999 in NYT)


It's almost 2023. Art that promotes child pornography should not belong in our modern society.

Off-topic: Elon and Kanye deserve to be canceled. Demna, Adidas and everyone involved in it do too. 

I have a few Balenciaga bags that I got long long time ago. I'm not gonna get rid of them but I don't be buying anything new from them either. 

Demna has been trolling us with all those crazy trash-bag bags, Ikea-shopping-bag bags and the Lays chips bags etc but this time his 'art' has gone way too far.


----------



## jblended

I'm not a Bal customer, so my opinion is about as shallow as my bank account. However, I was quite horrified by the headlines around this, and my stomach sank to learn that the headlines were not exaggerating and the imagery does contain deeply disturbing elements. I'm now schooled on something I wish I'd never heard of (panda eyes). Just typing it out makes my stomach turn and that is no exaggeration. 

It's hard reading this thread and seeing members judge each other for varying reactions. Any and all judgement and displeasure ought to be aimed at the house, the creatives and the executives who took this concept from pitch to publication.
Focusing on how outraged others are (or aren't) detracts from the focal point of how the brand- that has arguably been trolling for a couple of years now- felt empowered to make these decisions and expected its clientele to hype it up with online debates.  That's fundamentally wrong from a moral, business and marketing standpoint. It's lazy to rely on outrage and ridicule to keep your name in the papers, and it's repulsive to use such dark themes to garner that outrage in the first place.

What I would have liked is a clear statement as to what their artistic vision was. _Now, before I get slammed for saying that, let me be clear that I would have absolutely condemned it anyway. This is beyond the pale- there is no doubt about that._ However, some context would allow customers to make informed decisions about what their association with the brand will be moving forward.
Was this just them attempting to be edgy to garner as much press as possible, possibly in the hopes of going viral with this controversial campaign?
Or was it meant to be a social commentary of sorts? A mirror held up to showcase how society currently exploits children without consequence? Because, let's be honest, between celebrities and influencers posting their kids all over their social media, kids are being exploited for monetary gain all the time (and there is a darker side to those pictures being on social media sites as this campaign has shown us).
Or was it some other concept entirely that perhaps my unartistic mind cannot conceive?
I can't say that any of those possibilities would make this any more palatable. I would be horrified regardless, but people who have spent a lot of money on this house ought to have more context and a clearer answer from the house. By hiding all their social media pages, Bal are silencing an important conversation, which is problematic in itself!

As I said at the start of this, I'm not a customer, I will never be a customer, and my opinion means as little to Bal as they do to me. However, I live with myself and I have to be sure my choices reflect my values. In the same way that learning more about Chanel, Minkoff, Wang, and Bond. no. 9 (perfumery) means that I will never own any of their products, this campaign means that I will forever be disgusted by Bal.
Do I think I can make a difference to those massive brands by not shopping with them: absolutely not. But in choosing to spend my money with people who share my values, I am able to sleep better at night.
However, that is my personal decision for my life. I will not judge others if they come to a different conclusion.
My heart goes out to their once loyal fans who lovingly carried their bags and rocked their rtw and shoes. The house has put their customers in between a rock and a hard place. Those customers (of old or new Bal) will be judged, one way or another and- as this thread has shown- they will be judged just as harshly as the brand itself.

Edit: I just recalled that there was a similar issue with Celine Dion's kids clothing line...something about the imagery being inappropriate too but I don't recall the details. It didn't garner as much attention as Bal is but, it upset some people.


----------



## millivanilli

HAZE MAT said:


> On the teddy bear not the kids. But whether or not it’s bondage gear is subject to debate.


it is not.


----------



## Tuned83

The campaign is grim. Have never felt a pull for any of their products anyways but I like many others am put off for life. If they think this imagery is acceptable or appropriate, people need to now vote with their feet and show them they are wrong. The mind boggles as to how any of this was published and just how much they have got away with previously to feel emboldened to put this grimness out. Balenciaga for me is cancelled.


----------



## millivanilli

TraceySH said:


> She tweeted these 3 over an hour ago, and was lambasted. So the above I guess was more of a "read the room" follow up.
> 
> View attachment 5660619


Read:

"Actually i don't care but y'all escalated that much that I decided to write a few meaningless words and to go back to normal, earning money from B. Life's good, as long as your aren't one of these traumatized children, who again, are not my children, so it's ok."

*vomitting*


----------



## dangerouscurves

Oh and Kanye didn't say a word about this disgusting behavior of those people WHEN HE WAS THE FACE of Balenciaga. I'm sure he knew, he was Demna's good friend after all. Now suddenly he's being praised when he said it was the most freeing and liberating thing when he was dropped by Balenciaga. Come on y'all. They were all in this together before this blew up.


----------



## OriginalBalenciaga

Allisonfaye said:


> They are also on the list of companies who were supposedly pulling ads from Twitter for allowing free speech on both sides of the spectrum.





RitaLA said:


> Exactly!!!  Adidas and Gap canceled Kanye. Several stores canceled Ivanka when her dad ran for president. Advertisers are dropping Twitter now that Elon is willing to let them speak their minds. What is the theme here? So they cancel certain things, but they don't cancel child sexualization???  These people are mentally ill


Um...advertisers are not leaving twitter because those companies are against free speech.


----------



## millivanilli

uptdate, this is the "new" pic:



much better. not.


----------



## Asphodel

millivanilli said:


> uptdate, this is the "new" pic:
> View attachment 5660755
> 
> 
> much better. not.


They really should have left children completely out of their campaign.


----------



## QuelleFromage

MooMooVT said:


> I thought there were two - one for the two most controversial campaigns - one is male and the other female. But if they're both male, my bad. Honest mistake on my part.


Gabriele Galimberti (bear bag campaign) and Chris Maggio (SS2023 Adidas collab) are both men (as is the set designer Bal is suing) - not that it matters except in keeping the facts accurate. 

I don't see any way Maggio could have known the details of what was on set (as in, which papers are piled up); that's not how fashion photography works (which is likely why the brand isn't taking action against the photogs).


----------



## HAZE MAT

QuelleFromage said:


> Gabriele Galimberti (bear bag campaign) and Chris Maggio (SS2023 Adidas collab) are both men (as is the set designer Bal is suing) - not that it matters except in keeping the facts accurate.
> 
> I don't see any way Maggio could have known the details of what was on set (as in, which papers are piled up); that's not how fashion photography works (which is likely why the brand isn't taking action against the photogs).


As a photography student I notice that a lot of the fashion brands contract out the labor for the shoots here. Often with social media the cycle has to be quick so often things don’t get vetted.

At this point I thought that the YSL Opium ad with Sophie Dahl was way more problematic as a male feminist.


----------



## HAZE MAT

Tuned83 said:


> The campaign is grim. Have never felt a pull for any of their products anyways but I like many others am put off for life. If they think this imagery is acceptable or appropriate, people need to now vote with their feet and show them they are wrong. The mind boggles as to how any of this was published and just how much they have got away with previously to feel emboldened to put this grimness out. Balenciaga for me is cancelled.


And that is why I really like Balenciaga. It is very pessimistic and fits well with my deconstructionist philosophy and archaeological tendencies. Playfulness and destruction rolled up in one.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## MooMooVT

QuelleFromage said:


> Gabriele Galimberti (bear bag campaign) and Chris Maggio (SS2023 Adidas collab) are both men (as is the set designer Bal is suing) - not that it matters except in keeping the facts accurate.
> 
> I don't see any way Maggio could have known the details of what was on set (as in, which papers are piled up); that's not how fashion photography works (which is likely why the brand isn't taking action against the photogs).


Thanks for the clarification!


millivanilli said:


> uptdate, this is the "new" pic:
> View attachment 5660755
> 
> 
> much better. not.


this still included a BDSM bear - the child just isn’t holding it. There’s also bondage tape and a balaclava. Bal isn’t doing themselves any favors if they think this pic is better.


----------



## QuelleFromage

HAZE MAT said:


> As a photography student I notice that a lot of the fashion brands contract out the labor for the shoots here. Often with social media the cycle has to be quick so often things don’t get vetted.
> 
> At this point I thought that the YSL Opium ad with Sophie Dahl was way more problematic as a male feminist.


This is accurate. Usually the set is arranged prior to the photographer and models arriving (unless the photographer is the stylist). Folks are working on hourly rates or a set amount of time and production companies try to control the budget by ensuring no one charges for extra time. No photographer is flicking through every piece of paper nor vetting every stacked-up art book. 

It is the brand's job to 1) set standards with the production company and 2) check the final result.

It is JMHO, but Galimberti is famous for his series of children all over the world with their own actual toys and it seems that a creative director with zero sense of what is appropriate came up with the idea to have him shoot the bear campaign. (This is a very common and overused, lazy trope in fashion - get an art photographer or photojournalist to recreate something they are known for.) 

How it then devolved into that creative product....couldn't tell you but I don't know any creative or brand exec who would have signed off on those images.

On other problematic ads...it would be OT to go into a list but there have definitely been many other ad campaigns that go over my personal lines, sometimes way way over and sometimes yes with children. I take note when I see them and generally don't buy the product any more.


----------



## MooMooVT

QuelleFromage said:


> This is accurate. Usually the set is arranged prior to the photographer and models arriving (unless the photographer is the stylist). Folks are working on hourly rates or a set amount of time and production companies try to control the budget by ensuring no one charges for extra time. No photographer is flicking through every piece of paper nor vetting every stacked-up art book.
> 
> It is the brand's job to 1) set standards with the production company and 2) check the final result.
> 
> It is JMHO, but Galimberti is famous for his series of children all over the world with their own actual toys and it seems that a creative director with zero sense of what is appropriate came up with the idea to have him shoot the bear campaign. (This is a very common and overused, lazy trope in fashion - get an art photographer or photojournalist to recreate something they are known for.)
> 
> How it then devolved into that creative product....couldn't tell you but I don't know any creative or brand exec who would have signed off on those images.
> 
> On other problematic ads...it would be OT to go into a list but there have definitely been many other ad campaigns that go over my personal lines, sometimes way way over and sometimes yes with children. I take note when I see them and generally don't buy the product any more.


Thanks for this. I’ll add that while the photographer didn’t choose the set decoration, I have to cast a side-eye at anyone who participated in these shoots without raising a red flag (and perhaps some did raise concerns on deaf ears). I don’t hold them as accountable as Bal, but all involved need to take a deep look into their moral compass.


----------



## papertiger

HAZE MAT said:


> I am defending the work to make art and perhaps we shouldn't read too much at face value with Balenciaga. After all, I think that they are a brand imbued with a ton of irony and definitely we can't take everything that they do literally every single time.
> 
> After all, the Lays clutch bag is still a play at tropes and our ability to misread semiotics. I definitely have to admit that the advertisement was meant as social commentary about the United States and its current affairs. After all, the misfire happened here in the States and not in Europe.



IMO, this is not art, it's commerce posing as art. 

Art often proves controversial but this campaign was for publicity and sales. It didn't need the children at all. It would have actually been far more effective without one/any. 

Marketing have think about the messages they're putting out, nothing subliminal or vague about these images. They're just awful, lazy and desperate. I absolutely hate that it even got passed at the brain-storming stage.


----------



## Tuned83

HAZE MAT said:


> And that is why I really like Balenciaga. It is very pessimistic and fits well with my deconstructionist philosophy and archaeological tendencies. Playfulness and destruction rolled up in one.


I really fail to understand  how these images can be described as playful. To me they are not. I have no reason to convince you otherwise. You are within your rights to carry on with your fondness for the brand.


----------



## RitaLA

HAZE MAT said:


> And that is why I really like Balenciaga. It is very pessimistic and fits well with my deconstructionist philosophy and archaeological tendencies. Playfulness and destruction rolled up in one.


Thank you for sharing. I am really intrigued and curious about the deconstructionist philosophy.  If you have time and if you are willing I would love to hear how the deconstructionist philosophy is expressed in the theme of children and sexualization. I am not attacking your thought process. I am genuinely interested in understanding. How is Balenciaga as a brand generating a message through its branding strategy that aligns with deconstructionist or maybe the idea of challenging a metanarrative, which aligns with a postmodernist view?  Thank you =)


----------



## CobaltBlu

papertiger said:


> IMO, this is not art, it's commerce posing as art.
> 
> Art often proves controversial but this campaign was for publicity and sales. It didn't need the children at all. It would have actually been far more effective without one/any.
> 
> Marketing have think about the messages they're putting out, nothing subliminal or vague about these images. They're just awful, lazy and desperate. I absolutely hate that it even got passed at the brain-storming stage.


I agree 100%.  This awful campaign is a result of too many jackasses trying to be edgy and making decisions with their egos. 
The updated photo is just as bad and anyone involved in this should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Blyen

I don't own any Balenciaga but I've been wanting a city bag for a while...I guess prices will drop now,so it's a good time to buy 
I have to admit that I thought the whole thing was exaggerated at the beginning,but the documents in the pictures and the whole story about their designer's Instagram with disturbing images of children are creeping me out far more than the original pictures.


----------



## RitaLA

I think people are missing the point. If you studied cults and groups that embrace pedophilia, you will understand that symbolism is HUGE for them. They understand each other's language. This is not about a simple picture. This is about cultic symbolism that promotes pedophilia. It's right in front of us to see. But some are not educated in "symbology" so they just see a teddy bear wearing edgy clothes and a child holding the teddy bear. We have to look at the message behind the brand holistically and also put the pieces of the puzzle together regarding the themes being their campaigns. If you start looking into Lotta Volkova, who is one of their stylists, you will see the message in each picture. We are asleep and we need to wake up.


----------



## TraceySH

GOOD.


----------



## ChampagneandChakras

Blyen said:


> I don't own any Balenciaga but I've been wanting a city bag for a while...I guess prices will drop now,so it's a good time to buy
> I have to admit that I thought the whole thing was exaggerated at the beginning,but the documents in the pictures and the whole story about their designer's Instagram with disturbing images of children are creeping me out far more than the original pictures.


Ditto.  We, the consumer, hold the power to stop buying. No one needs any designer item.  They are disgusting. The idiots in Hollywood DGAF if it affects their endorsement money, and we already know lots of them were on Jeff's Island so there's that.......


----------



## bernpl

I just ran into the scandal while I happened to be looking for a new Balenciaga baseball cap online in white due to me wanting another. I had been slumming in my black Balenciaga baseball cap post Thanksgiving  being exhausted with all the Thanksgiving preparation/hosting of the preceding week, not knowing about all the controversy. I have been rocking Balenciaga bags, shoes, sunglasses etc since 2007. I am in my late 40s, so I have sold many of my older bags trying to be a little more classic, less rock and roll edgy, so only have 2 older bags left a Velo and a City. I did buy a newer bag, a Cagole, last year, falling in love with the beautiful green color. I rocked a Balanciaga cap, sunglasses, and a bag while on vacation this year. So, this all saddens me. I don’t really follow their campaigns etc. I am honestly appalled at the whole controversy, and it saddens me that now I don’t feel like I can support the brand and wear my items in good conscience. I feel bad for not knowing, and think people who knew about the scandal were probably judging me wearing the cap this weekend. Again, just found out about this morning. Although as a normal person, I don’t think the pictures were that bad, they scream out desperation... for attention, trying too hard to be bold and edgy, to cause a stir, desperate and not classy. The symbolism and exploitation of children, child endangerment, in the campaign disgusts me. The use of bondage on teddy bears seems desperate and trying too hard. The use of children to stir up the controversy seems desperate and distasteful.The symbolism is disgusting and in poor taste. I honestly think they were so desperate for attention, to stir up controversy, and the whole thing backfired on them. I find it hard to believe that this campaign made it this far without them pulling it down and find it even more ridiculous they are not taking responsibility and suing the ad campaign….  bs they didn’t know, bs that they released the photos and bs they won’t take responsibility. I think the whole thing backfired on them; they didn’t see the backlash, the ramifications. I am sad that I spent so much money on them, but no longer feel comfortable wearing and supporting the gear/brand in good conscience. I feel people will judge me. This makes me recall a Dolce and Gabbana boycott.


----------



## trunkdevil

Whether you believe this to be a publicity stunt, the photographer’s concept, Demna “trolling”, or something more sinister(_!!!!_).. whatever you want to argue, there is no justifying what happened. It is disturbing and vile. End of discussion! Like others have mentioned - just how many people at Balenciaga reviewed this campaign/the photos and gave this the OK?? This is a huge $$$ company. Absolutely sickening. Plus Balenciaga’s initial apology did not sit right me with - trying to shift blame to the photographer etc? And now they’ve taken full responsibility and issued an updated second apology? … _yeah_, ok. They will not get my forgiveness or my business again. 

My Balenciaga RTW collection is pretty substantial. I wore at least one piece from
the brand weekly and had done so for the last few years. Everything is now on its way to TRR and donating what wasn’t accepted. This is not being “cancelled”, actions have consequences. 

Anyone I see wearing or carrying Balenciaga now.. just won’t sit right with me. I’ll simply be wondering if they’re OK with a company that tried to monetize/normalize pedophilia…  As for Kim K tiptoeing around the issue “re-evaluating her relationship” with Balenciaga- we already know the K family has no morals but even for Kim, this is a new low and speaks volumes.


----------



## ccbaggirl89

New statement, and only image on their IG


https://www.instagram.com/balenciaga/


----------



## papertiger

ccbaggirl89 said:


> New statement, and only image on their IG
> 
> 
> https://www.instagram.com/balenciaga/



Unsurprisingly, comments are turned-off.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Meta

From @curioslight's Twitter thread that's now been updated to include this admission by Demna:


----------



## Deco

What is missing from this statement is a list of people who have been/will be fired.  Hoping that includes Demna and his side-succubus.  Bring back Nicholas.


----------



## Yhte123

trunkdevil said:


> Whether you believe this to be a publicity stunt, the photographer’s concept, Demna “trolling”, or something more sinister(_!!!!_).. whatever you want to argue, there is no justifying what happened. It is disturbing and vile. End of discussion! Like others have mentioned - just how many people at Balenciaga reviewed this campaign/the photos and gave this the OK?? This is a huge $$$ company. Absolutely sickening. Plus Balenciaga’s initial apology did not sit right me with - trying to shift blame to the photographer etc? And now they’ve taken full responsibility and issued an updated second apology? … _yeah_, ok. They will not get my forgiveness or my business again.
> 
> My Balenciaga RTW collection is pretty substantial. I wore at least one piece from
> the brand weekly and had done so for the last few years. Everything is now on its way to TRR and donating what wasn’t accepted. This is not being “cancelled”, actions have consequences.
> 
> Anyone I see wearing or carrying Balenciaga now.. just won’t sit right with me. I’ll simply be wondering if they’re OK with a company that tried to monetize/normalize pedophilia…  As for Kim K tiptoeing around the issue “re-evaluating her relationship” with Balenciaga- we already know the K family has no morals but even for Kim, this is a new low and speaks volumes.


You should definitely not sending it to TRR. A member reminded me in a page way back about how it’ll just be perpetuating the brand and keeping it circulating the fashion marketplace. Please reconsider.


----------



## Yhte123

Meta said:


> From @curioslight's Twitter thread that's now been updated to include this admission by Demna:
> 
> View attachment 5660986
> 
> 
> And Demna releases this statement: (ETA seems to be the exact same released on Bal's IG)
> 
> View attachment 5660987


That person is not Demna. That’s an innocent on Demna’s pr payroll. Demna uses this person to spread news. So sad this person is being taken advantage of by Balenciaga and roped into Demna’s disgusting world of depravity.


----------



## Yhte123

RitaLA said:


> I don't even know how to start this post.  Maybe we should all ask, "Why isn't the celebrities talking about this?" They have an opinion about everything.  Isn't child pedophilia big enough to be spoken against? If you have a child, and someone commits a crime against your child, either sexual abuse or anything pedophilia related, are you going to be quiet about it, waiting for the perpetrator to issue an apology? These celebrities are not speaking up because we know who owns them. Kim Kardashian has been quiet about this and she has children. She is one of Balenciaga's biggest supporters. There are large groups of elites who have been running child trafficking and child sexual abuse rings for years. Why now?? They have been able to get away with their symbolism for many years, but they got too comfortable knowing that people were blind to it. They are being bold about their symbols and were expecting people to get on the pedophilia bandwagon. But this time, it didn't work. People are waking up and what do they do? "Oops ... we apologize if this was offensive to you."  OMG ... these companies have a lot of resources to work on their brands, from analysts to psychologists, to anything you can imagine that will work on specific themes to brainwash people and make them hooked on their products. We do not know because we are not in the know. All we know is that we are addicted to these brands and we sit here waiting for them to release a statement so they can redeem themselves and we go on with our "tea room" lives as if nothing happened. We need to wake up and stop allowing these elites to take advantage of young women, children or anyone that they can use to profit from. Balenciaga has been in this pdophilia business for many years. Who ever heard of Rachel Chandler?? She was a big attendee at Epstein Island. She has a model agency that would "recruit" children and under age girls to shoot for Balenciaga and other brands. Where did Rachel get these girls from? She had pictures of Epstein house cameras. If you go to ther agency IG, you can't comment on anything. They are trying to shut us down. We need to stop being complacent and stop giving these people our hard earned money. This is not about teddy bears and bondage clothing. Look at how the theme of child sexualization was perfectly aligned throughout the pictures. Open your eyes and stand for what is right


Rachel has ties to LVMH too. I remember reading about this somewhere. This thing runs deep. This has really disillusioned me to the fashion industry and I’m reevaluating my LV stuff right now.

I’m glad this situation has illuminated how disgusting this industry is and how they exploit our innocent children through subliminal messaging and ads to normalize abuse. And I’m glad how much truth is being revealed in this thread for people to see. Everyone should be brought aware about this!


----------



## Meta

Yhte123 said:


> That person is not Demna. That’s an innocent on Demna’s pr payroll. Demna uses this person to spread news. So sad this person is being taken advantage of by Balenciaga and roped into Demna’s disgusting world of depravity.


Thanks for the correction! I'll remove it to avoid confusion.


----------



## ChampagneandChakras

trunkdevil said:


> Whether you believe this to be a publicity stunt, the photographer’s concept, Demna “trolling”, or something more sinister(_!!!!_).. whatever you want to argue, there is no justifying what happened. It is disturbing and vile. End of discussion! Like others have mentioned - just how many people at Balenciaga reviewed this campaign/the photos and gave this the OK?? This is a huge $$$ company. Absolutely sickening. Plus Balenciaga’s initial apology did not sit right me with - trying to shift blame to the photographer etc? And now they’ve taken full responsibility and issued an updated second apology? … _yeah_, ok. They will not get my forgiveness or my business again.
> 
> My Balenciaga RTW collection is pretty substantial. I wore at least one piece from
> the brand weekly and had done so for the last few years. Everything is now on its way to TRR and donating what wasn’t accepted. This is not being “cancelled”, actions have consequences.
> 
> Anyone I see wearing or carrying Balenciaga now.. just won’t sit right with me. I’ll simply be wondering if they’re OK with a company that tried to monetize/normalize pedophilia…  As for Kim K tiptoeing around the issue “re-evaluating her relationship” with Balenciaga- we already know the K family has no morals but even for Kim, this is a new low and speaks volumes.


Sadly most people won't even be aware of the issues........


----------



## Noorasi

I feel like Balenciaga is apologizing to the general public in case anyone was offended. What they should have done is to apologize to all the people who have personally been victims of child sexual abuse or anything of that nature. How do those people feel seeing these ads? There are children and grown-ups who have been traumatized for life for something like this (and then worse) happening to them, there are families affected by these crimes.


----------



## kemilia

ChampagneandChakras said:


> Sadly most people won't even be aware of the issues........


I certainly wasn't until I saw this today, and I rarely go to brand threads unless I'm looking for info. 

I have 3 very old moto bags and nobody around me has even heard of Balenciaga, believe me. It was a bad campaign/ad and yes the ones at the top should of been aware but it too will pass. Remember Coco Chanel was a Nazi sympathizer and even with their quality issues nowadays, their stuff sells like hotcakes.


----------



## Allisonfaye

It gets worse: 

WARNING: Some of these images are VERY sick. 








						It's Getting Worse: Balenciaga Designer Exposed for Posting Disturbing Photos Linked to 'Satanic Ritual, Cannibalism, Child Mutilation'
					

Luxury fashion brand Balenciaga is under fire again after the child pornography scandal brought to light to company’s obsession with satanic rituals, including the disturbing posts of the company’s stylist. Lotta Volkova, a stylist and consultant born in Russia, has been instrumental to the...




					www.thegatewaypundit.com


----------



## RitaLA

Meta said:


> From @curioslight's Twitter thread that's now been updated to include this admission by Demna:
> 
> View attachment 5660986


The interesting thing is that they are not exactly denying the story. They are reframing it. These people know how to manipulate language in their favor.


----------



## Allisonfaye

Whoa, if you follow the Twitter feed of that lady curioslight, she has done all the work and connects the dots.


----------



## dangerouscurves

Allisonfaye said:


> It gets worse:
> 
> WARNING: Some of these images are VERY sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's Getting Worse: Balenciaga Designer Exposed for Posting Disturbing Photos Linked to 'Satanic Ritual, Cannibalism, Child Mutilation'
> 
> 
> Luxury fashion brand Balenciaga is under fire again after the child pornography scandal brought to light to company’s obsession with satanic rituals, including the disturbing posts of the company’s stylist. Lotta Volkova, a stylist and consultant born in Russia, has been instrumental to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thegatewaypundit.com


Thank you for the link. Now we know for sure it wasn't a mistake. It was done on purpose as we have all suspected. Art my behind!


----------



## Allisonfaye

dangerouscurves said:


> Thank you for the link. Now we know for sure it wasn't a mistake. It was done on purpose as we have all suspected. Art my behind!


Look at who is liking....Marc Jacobs is one.


----------



## dangerouscurves

Allisonfaye said:


> Look at who is liking....Marc Jacobs is one


This scandal has opened the Pandora box.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Allisonfaye

dangerouscurves said:


> This scandal has opened the Pandora box.


I think so. I used to laugh at my sister because she believed all the pizza gate stuff. Now I am not so sure anymore.


----------



## RitaLA

dangerouscurves said:


> Thank you for the link. Now we know for sure it wasn't a mistake. It was done on purpose as we have all suspected. Art my behind!


Exactly! People are trying to give them the benefit of the doubt but there is no benefit when they have been doing this for years. We are focused on the image and the status they created so we don't pay attention to the symbols. There is a huge pedophilia movement happening behind the scenes, by different people and organizations, and they are trying to push their agenda onto us. We are the gatekeepers of society. Someone said that if she decides not to buy their bags, it won't make a difference. If we all take a stand to protect our vulnerable children, yes, it will make a difference.


----------



## carlinha

Meta said:


> From @curioslight's Twitter thread that's now been updated to include this admission by Demna:
> 
> View attachment 5660986


the more i read and learn, the more horrified and repulsed i am.  i have been so naive and uneducated about all these symbols and "hidden" messages.  my eyes are wide open now, and i am terrified for our children.

what does this mean exactly, is he (Demna) not denying it???


----------



## MooMooVT

carlinha said:


> the more i read and learn, the more horrified and repulsed i am.  i have been so naive and uneducated about all these symbols and "hidden" messages.  my eyes are wide open now, and i am terrified for our children.
> 
> what does this mean exactly, is he (Demna) not denying it???


For me, this isn’t really different that the current US trend of taking small children to drag shows and allowing/encouraging them to stuff money in performers enormous fake breasts. It’s slowly and intentionally both awaking and desensitizing small children’s sexuality. Attend a drag show. Have fun. But leave the kids at home.


----------



## carlinha

MooMooVT said:


> For me, this isn’t really different that the current US trend of taking small children to drag shows and allowing/encouraging them to stuff money in performers enormous fake breasts. It’s slowly and intentionally both awaking and desensitizing small children’s sexuality. Attend a drag show. Have fun. But leave the kids at home.


omg my husband was just showing me some of these videos/pics last night.  i agree with you wholeheartedly!!!


----------



## ChampagneandChakras

RitaLA said:


> Exactly! People are trying to give them the benefit of the doubt but there is no benefit when they have been doing this for years. We are focused on the image and the status they created so we don't pay attention to the symbols. There is a huge pedophilia movement happening behind the scenes, by different people and organizations, and they are trying to push their agenda onto us. We are the gatekeepers of society. Someone said that if she decides not to buy their bags, it won't make a difference. If we all take a stand to protect our vulnerable children, yes, it will make a difference.


The power is with the consumer. They can be taken down.


----------



## maxxout

jellyv said:


> No, the Ghesquiere era. The *vast majority *of Balenciaga bags owned by members here, and the ones with the highest esteem artistically and culturally, were from years before AW and Demna..
> 
> Taint can be shorter term with decent crisis management and proper public relations. Missteps and other variations of moral rot haven't always sunk a legacy brand. What they do in response makes the difference.
> 
> *I find it ludicrous to suggest that consumers should excommunicate their bags from 2001--Fall 2022 on this basis...what the hell.*


Agree 1,000%.


----------



## Swanky

We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.


----------



## Conni618

maxxout said:


> Agree 1,000%.


Me too….for heavens sake.  I fail to see how obnoxious behavior by those in current control of a brand should cast aspersions on beautiful items created by someone else, twenty years ago.


----------



## TC1

Meanwhile Cristobal Balenciaga is rolling in his grave... Legacy fashion houses are just that, a legacy. Unfortunate that with Demna at the helm this has unravelled in front of us.


----------



## maxxout

To take the horrific actions of the people responsible for these disgusting ads and decide that anyone wearing anything Balenciaga (especially from decades ago) is somehow now implicated in this tragedy  is horribly misdirected.   It’s like if you’re hunting a deer, you drop a bomb in the forest. Horrible example as I am an animal lover but nonetheless.
This is a big problem with cancel culture in every possible way. Instead of focused targeting, it’s war on everything related….as far back as …..whatever. Oh, yes…and let’s make this personal.  Instead of funding child pornography litigation, let’s make sneers at some woman carrying an 05 Balenciaga city as she’s walking down the street. Yeah, that helps.


----------



## SpeedyJC

Disgusted. I have Bal since I WAS a fan of the city bag but no more. Done with them.


----------



## lorihmatthews

I worked for multimillion dollar ad agencies for the first 20 years of my career. Just some facts, do with them what you will.

1. The client (in this case, Balenciaga) ALWAYS has to sign off on final images/artwork/ads. Their contract will state that explicitly. This is to legally protect both the agency and the client. The client does not have legal liability if they do not sign off. The contract will also state at what level signoffs are required. This will keep an intern from signing a contract.

2. Minors are required to have a parent or guardian at all photo shoots/recordings. They must sign a release stating that their images/likeliness will be used in the ads or elsewhere. (Many years ago I did a photo shoot for Intel and one of the featured employees refused to sign the release. He was not allowed to be featured in the ad because of it.)

3. All vendors sign off on the finished product as proof that they have finished the job so they can get paid. 

4. Management/legal/ADA/compliance on the client side reviews as necessary/requested. 


IMO all this finger pointing is BS. Follow the signatures for confirmation.


----------



## Deco

As I understand, the only target of the $25M lawsuit is that the true source/nature of the SCOTUS case on child porn was not disclosed to Bal and was misrepresented as made-up stuff.  If true, Bal does have a potential case against the agency, but of course the claim that they were lied to about those papers could be rebutted and disproven.

I'm not aware of Bal claiming that the ads including the children were done without their signoff, and that's not what they're suing for.


----------



## lorihmatthews

Deco said:


> As I understand, the only target of the $25M lawsuit is that the true source/nature of the SCOTUS case on child porn was not disclosed to Bal and was misrepresented as made-up stuff.  If true, Bal does have a potential case against the agency, but of course the claim that they were lied to about those papers could be rebutted and disproven.
> 
> I'm not aware of Bal claiming that the ads including the children were done without their signoff, and that's not what they're suing for.


Agree, the only reason I mentioned children is because some people further up the thread were asking where the parents were. They were there -- they had to be. 

I have never been to a shoot without a client present. There are usually multiple representatives from the client at every one. It is the client's responsibility to review and approve all the details at shoots. They can't walk away and claim ignorance. It's like getting a ticket for something and claiming that you didn't know the law. It's not a loophole.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## TCmummy

millivanilli said:


> uptdate, this is the "new" pic:
> View attachment 5660755
> 
> 
> much better. not.


….and this looks like a crime scene to me


----------



## RitaLA

lorihmatthews said:


> I worked for multimillion dollar ad agencies for the first 20 years of my career. Just some facts, do with them what you will.
> 
> 1. The client (in this case, Balenciaga) ALWAYS has to sign off on final images/artwork/ads. Their contract will state that explicitly. This is to legally protect both the agency and the client. The client does not have legal liability if they do not sign off. The contract will also state at what level signoffs are required. This will keep an intern from signing a contract.
> 
> 2. Minors are required to have a parent or guardian at all photo shoots/recordings. They must sign a release stating that their images/likeliness will be used in the ads or elsewhere. (Many years ago I did a photo shoot for Intel and one of the featured employees refused to sign the release. He was not allowed to be featured in the ad because of it.)
> 
> 3. All vendors sign off on the finished product as proof that they have finished the job so they can get paid.
> 
> 4. Management/legal/ADA/compliance on the client side reviews as necessary/requested.
> 
> 
> IMO all this finger pointing is BS. Follow the signatures for confirmation.


Exactly!!!!  Typical narcissist strategy. Read the description of anti-social personality disorder on the DSM5. These people are "functional" sociopaths. Clinically speaking, an antisocial person is NOT a shy person. It is a person with a personality disorder that displays the following: deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; reckless disregard for safety of self or others; lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another; Disregard for right and wrong; Being callous, cynical and disrespectful of others; Lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others


----------



## xpixi

RitaLA said:


> Exactly!!!!  Typical narcissist strategy. Read the description of anti-social personality disorder on the DSM5. These people are "functional" sociopaths. Clinically speaking, an antisocial person is NOT a shy person. It is a person with a personality disorder that displays the following: deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; reckless disregard for safety of self or others; lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another; Disregard for right and wrong; Being callous, cynical and disrespectful of others; Lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others


I think what you're describing are psychopaths not sociopaths. Psychopaths are more cold and calculating, while sociopaths acts without thinking and are hot-headed. And I get that anti-social personality is a disorder but I wish it had a different name, since to me anti-social also means somebody who avoids socializing with other people, either due to ptsd or trauma.


----------



## RitaLA

I am passionate about the subject because I see, firsthand, how people have been hurt by these behaviors toward children. I have heard, people saying that their parents, their fathers, took them to other men to be raped and molested. Again, if all you do is go to the mall and enjoy the wonderful life that was given to you, bless you! Many others don't have that privilege. And as a society, we need to protect the vulnerable. We have the obligation, as human beings, to speak up about any ... I mean ANY sign of abuse. When someone is a mandated reporter, that person doesn't wait to see tapes and abuse in action. They CAN READ what is going on. They see the signs, and they report. I believe we are all mandated-reporters. These children cannot protect themselves. We must do it for them. We are coming from an assumption that a caregiver is a safe figure; that a parent has their children's best interests in mind. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!  Why do we think that these celebrities and these large corporations have ethics? Where did we get this conclusion from? We create narratives in our own heads that people wouldn't do certain things because we can't fathom such atrocities. But, believe me ... they can and they will


----------



## RitaLA

xpixi said:


> I think what you're describing are psychopaths not sociopaths. Psychopaths are more cold and calculating, while sociopaths acts without thinking and are hot-headed. And I get that anti-social personality is a disorder but I wish it had a different name, since to me anti-social also means somebody who avoids socializing with other people, either due to ptsd or trauma.


There are two different types of manifestation when it comes to antisocial personality disorder. Psychopaths and sociopaths. The criteria is similar but the neurological footprint is different. I am referring to sociopaths.


----------



## RitaLA

xpixi said:


> I think what you're describing are psychopaths not sociopaths. Psychopaths are more cold and calculating, while sociopaths acts without thinking and are hot-headed. And I get that anti-social personality is a disorder but I wish it had a different name, since to me anti-social also means somebody who avoids socializing with other people, either due to ptsd or trauma.


It is called anti-social because it goes against society; it acts against people. Both types go against people but one has more "nature" than nurture. The sociopath has more of the family dynamics involved, while psychopaths have a heavy gene component to it. Anyway ... don't mean to get too scientific about it.


----------



## jblended

RitaLA said:


> Read the description of anti-social personality disorder on the DSM5. These people are "functional" sociopaths.


It's truly worrying that people are armchair diagnosing personality disorders in someone they haven't clinically assessed. I'm not trying to start an argument but, even if this was your day job and you were excellent at it, _you wouldn't and shouldn't _diagnose someone off of their PR response to a failed ad campaign. 

It is equally worrying that people are doubling down on judging owners of Bal products if their response is deemed an inappropriate level of outrage against the brand. Everyone is upset and this topic is difficult, so why complicate things further by making people feel bad about their existing collections? I just don't see why the anger is directed at the customers (that have already condemned these images) who don't fall in line with various conspiracy theories.


----------



## lorihmatthews

RitaLA said:


> Exactly!!!!  Typical narcissist strategy. Read the description of anti-social personality disorder on the DSM5. These people are "functional" sociopaths. Clinically speaking, an antisocial person is NOT a shy person. It is a person with a personality disorder that displays the following: deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; reckless disregard for safety of self or others; lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another; Disregard for right and wrong; Being callous, cynical and disrespectful of others; Lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others


While it's accurate that certain positions/industries attract people with certain personality traits, this is about money. We are nearing the end of the year and bonuses/incentives will be based on the performance of the Balenciaga brand. If their sales/reputation/image tanks, then these people will see the difference in their paychecks. Balenciaga has had a very good year thus far and you can bet these employees don't want to take a hit for anything.


----------



## Deco

TCmummy said:


> ….and this looks like a crime scene to me


Because it is.


----------



## xpixi

She even put her child in a creepy bdsm Bal costume


----------



## Kevinaxx

RitaLA said:


> Exactly!!!!  Typical narcissist strategy. Read the description of anti-social personality disorder on the DSM5. These people are "functional" sociopaths. Clinically speaking, an antisocial person is NOT a shy person. It is a person with a personality disorder that displays the following: deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; reckless disregard for safety of self or others; lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another; Disregard for right and wrong; Being callous, cynical and disrespectful of others; Lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others


And it’s usually those who do really well in group functions, how else do you explain the rise in ranks? Not that all in same position as D-bal would be, but it doesn’t surprise me.

If you’re in it purely for profit, short term you might see gain. Long term you shoot yourself in the foot.


----------



## RitaLA

Kevinaxx said:


> And it’s usually those who do really well in group functions, how else do you explain the rise in ranks? Not that all in same position as D-bal would be, but it doesn’t surprise me.
> 
> If you’re in it purely for profit, short term you might see gain. Long term you shoot yourself in the foot.


Narcissists are known to be chameleons. They adapt very easily in order to manage their image and adjust to what is expected from them so they can gain power and status. Look at these celebrities and the Kardashians. They know very well how to manage their image. But it's all a false self. There is no substance behind it. They live from people's praise and admiration. There is nothing inside. They know how to rise in the ranks because they are usually intuitive and they associate themselves with people who have power. Personality disorders usually have co-morbidity with other disorders as well. They don't stand alone


----------



## ChampagneandChakras

xpixi said:


> She even put her child in a creepy bdsm Bal costume



Why that idiotic family would even be expected to have a modicum of decency is beyond me.


----------



## Kevinaxx

RitaLA said:


> Narcissists are known to be chameleons. They adapt very easily in order to manage their image and adjust to what is expected from them so they can gain power and status. Look at these celebrities and the Kardashians. They know very well how to manage their image. But it's all a false self. There is no substance behind it. They live from people's praise and admiration. There is nothing inside. They know how to rise in the ranks because they are usually intuitive and they associate themselves with people who have power. Personality disorders usually have co-morbidity with other disorders as well. They don't stand alone


I think a lot of those who have risen definitely has to be chameleons in order to. It’s something I’ve never cared for, the politics. 

But there are also good people (I have to believe this, I could be wrong) who are also on top/successful, but generally it takes longer. 

But that’s also because there’s no such thing as instant success. Everything takes time. I’m always cautious of those who promise quick.


----------



## RitaLA

Kevinaxx said:


> I think a lot of those who have risen definitely has to be chameleons in order to. It’s something I’ve never cared for, the politics.
> 
> But there are also good people (I have to believe this, I could be wrong) who are also on top/successful, but generally it takes longer.
> 
> But that’s also because there’s no such thing as instant success. Everything takes time. I’m always cautious of those who promise quick.


Right! We can't overgeneralize. There are amazing leaders out there. There are inspirational leaders who are making a difference and evoking the best in people. Over time, we can differentiate their fruits from the ones who are in positions of power for their own agendas. I am glad we are all different and there are so many gifted people out there doing good to society. They are a breath of fresh air. =)


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Kevinaxx

BoF REVOKES award for Balenciaga creative director Demna Gvasalia
					

BoF had awarded Demna the Global VOICES Award, an honor previously given to the late designer Virgil Abloh, announced on Monday it would no longer honor him at its awards this week.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




They really need to let Demna go.


----------



## PurseUOut

jblended said:


> It is equally worrying that people are doubling down on judging owners of Bal products if their response is deemed an inappropriate level of outrage against the brand. Everyone is upset and this topic is difficult, so why complicate things further by making people feel bad about their existing collections? I just don't see why the anger is directed at the customers (that have already condemned these images) who don't fall in line with various conspiracy theories.



To me, it is an inappropriate level of outrage for adults to care more about wearing their vintage bal bags in "peace" than banning together to send a message that such an egregious display promoting child sexualization, exploitation and abuse will not be tolerated or promoted from any brand. These are children. Who are we really as a society to allow this to simply be "condemned" with no action or consequence behind it?

This goes beyond cancel culture. Balenciaga published images of toddlers engaged in sadomasochistic sexual and alcoholic imagery. These toddlers were in the same ad campaign as a copy of a SCOTUS ruling that struck down a ban on virtual child pornography because no "real" children were harmed. These photos were approved at the corporate level (by their own admission) for release. It was conceptalized and story-boarded. This is who Balenciaga is - TODAY - and they showed us very clearly who they are. If you chose to advertise this company by wearing their bags, whenever they were produced, then do it. But you can't control how others are going to feel/think about you wearing it while knowing what their company represents TODAY.


----------



## jblended

PurseUOut said:


> To me, it is an inappropriate level of outrage for adults to care more about wearing their vintage bal bags in "peace" than banning together


Forgive me but, that is not what's happening. Every single person (apart from 1) has clearly and explicitly posted that they are banding together to condemn this campaign, its messaging and its symbolism.
None of the old Bal customers signed up to be part of this messaging! Everyone has clearly said it's unthinkable and the people responsible should be held to account.
The idea that there is an arbitrary level of outrage that one must reach before you are satisfied is bizarre. How is anyone to sufficiently express this disgust? How are they to match the others shouting them down? That would not lead to any constructive conversation.



PurseUOut said:


> These toddlers were in the same ad campaign as a copy of a SCOTUS ruling that struck down a ban on virtual child pornography because no "real" children were harmed.


No they weren't. That was a separate campaign. The documents *were not *in the same photo of children with the bears. I know everyone's worked up but, let's try to keep the facts straight.



PurseUOut said:


> If you chose to advertise this company by wearing their bags, whenever they were produced, then do it.


To reiterate from my o.p. I have no skin in this game as I don't own Bal. But many people do and those people are now trying to figure out how to move forward. I'm sure Wang customers felt this confusion and disgust when the news came out about him (to use a current example).

I'm just saying, let's not shout everyone down because they don't connect this one photo to "pizza gate". There are links that are unproven, opinions peddled as facts, dummy accounts spreading misinformation, and a lot of misdirected anger.
The campaign is deeply disturbing, people are upset. Good! Like you said, we, as a society, need to take a moral stand. Now, let's hold the people involved accountable instead of attacking those who bought bags 20 years ago, given that those customers are already upset by this news and have said so.



PurseUOut said:


> But you can't control how others are going to feel/think about you wearing it while knowing what their company represents TODAY.


I'm not trying to. I said in my o.p. I won't judge anyone else's choices and I'm not trying to control anyone's reactions to mine. I can only do what's right for me in my own life, and that happens to be boycotting problematic brands. Everyone else has to draw their own line.

Edit: and with this, I'm bowing out of the discussion. Peace.


----------



## Noorasi

While I do think people can wear and enjoy their old Bal bags and still of course condemn the current situation, I do wonder if it's actually that easy. Even if you logically decide to separate the old fashion from the new sick direction, other people might not. So, depending hugely on your social circles, there's a risk that wearing a Balenciaga item will lead to someone asking "_oh, are you wearing the child porn brand?_" or some other maybe aggressive conversations about supporting child molestation. And posting outfits with Balenciage items on social media will almost certainly lead to comments like that, because people tend to condemn others very harshly on social media. I foresee luxury Youtubers largely dropping Balenciaga.

Even if your social circles or people on the metro don't recognize the brand, it's still a mind game. You can logically decide to continue loving your items, but the negative connotation lingers. You see your beautiful and loved bag and then you're reminded of children in bondage wear, want it or not. 

I am absolutely not dictating how anyone should feel about their old Bal, I'm just thinking out loud. Love for brands is hugely about aspiration and image, status and how the brand makes us feel. It might not be that easy to separate the past and present with pure logic.


----------



## Deco

And here are the problems I have with the demand that all Balenciaga products be shunned.

1. The suggestion that those who continue to enjoy their bags in public will not do so in “peace“ is repugnant.  This doesn’t mean people aren’t free to feel/think whatever condemnation they want about Bal carriers.   Freedom of thought and opinion is fundamental to a free society. So feel away.

2.  Rather than direct ire at bag collectors for not torching their bags in a grand bonfire, direct your ire at the perpetrators of this atrocity. If you’re going to lump bag carriers in with the perps bcz they don’t activism in the precise manner you prescribe, then no one is safe from persecution in this totalitarian version of moralism where the slippery slope of guilt by association has no bottom. 

3.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this horrific ad campaign doesn’t reveal anything new many of us haven’t already been acutely aware of for over a decade.  The fashion and entertainment industries are awash in this sort of crime and have been trying to launder their depravation into the mainstream culture, with great success. This campaign means I will not buy anything from this Balenciaga and have been screaming bloody murder on Twitter for days.  I’m going to pile on the outrage and demand consequences from retailers and collaborators. It doesn’t mean I’m dumping my vintage items from 15 - 20 years ago or that I will suddenly develop a deep concern over what random strangers think of me because they think the bag I carry is some kind of window into my corrupt soul.  This Balenciaga did not make my old bags.  Brand destruction is prospective, not retroactive, no matter how much those who never cared about the brand in the first place would want the brand’s annihilation to be thorough and retroactive.

4.  Part of my duty as a mother is to devise strategies to protect my child from predators and instill in her an understanding of the dangers that lurk and how to avoid and escape them. I’ve been having these  conversations with all mothers I know, to make sure we’re all aware of these dangers and look out for each other’s kids.  I also survey the community to determine who may have an insensitivity to child sexualization and a value system incompatible with those of my family’s, and make sure I steer my child clear of them.  Not letting them have “peace” is never on the menu.


----------



## PurseUOut

Another nondescript, completely coincidental photo in the ad campaign of a street address - which I am sure was "randomly" pulled from the billions on Google - leading to none other than - Epstein Gynecology Associates.

Nothing to see here. Complete coincidence. Just "art".


----------



## TraceySH

Someone pointed this out, I didn't see it at first. The "BAALENCIAGA" on the tape instead of Bal -... ew. Insert the devil into this convo, literally.


----------



## Norm.Core

I’m one one those who carry 20+ year old Balenciaga’s. I have been a member of tPF since Jan 2006 and I will still carry my old-school Bals from Nicholas Ghesquière era as Demna’s era is imploding from this controversy. 

For anybody who flames me in person or on here because I’m not gonna get rid of my 20-year old Bals then knock yourself out. I am utterly disgusted about the ad/messaging from this campaign but to have this totalitarian and unrealistic expectations of all of us here will be subservient to boycotting EVERYTHING re: Balenciaga is unbelievable. Same as canceling Cristobal Balenciaga’s legacy just because of what has happened last week. I’m sorry but get real.


----------



## claritysunshine

TraceySH said:


> Someone pointed this out, I didn't see it at first. The "BAALENCIAGA" on the tape instead of Bal -... ew. Insert the devil into this convo, literally.
> 
> View attachment 5661315



So this ad campaign involves messages/imagery of both child sexual abuse and the occultic sacrifice of children. How depraved is this company and the people involved in this? Surely they can’t push the blame on outsiders now, someone green lit the production of that roll of tape.

The more I look at the drawings in the background the more I am creeped out. Utterly disgusted by balenciaga


----------



## vesna

muchstuff said:


> If that’s the case then no one should wear Chanel.


This is very true. I actually don’t wear Chanel. Her history disturbs me.

I am not consistent in this at all, because a lot of research needs to be done on everyone to see whether to support them or not. I know in my field of science, too many great discoveries were made by absolutely horrific human beings, starting with Einstein.  His theories are the essence of my profession, but he was horrible to his first wife (unknown to anyone) and the relationship with one of his children who was mentally ill, he was hiding from the world. The other one was about to get Nobel prize but was not given because of  a finding that he was harassing female students for decades, another one whose documentaries are a staple in my lectures was found guilty of the same ….had to find new material hoping that those people would prove to be OK. 

I don’t know what to think. This company is sick now, they were so healthy and vibrant in Nicholas’ time….same with YSL in Pilati’s time (I think)….perhaps it would be best to turn the attention to decent bags from decent small cobblers and support local artisans.  Perhaps we should simply go back to decent and simple lifestyles. I will seriously think about it, and am already selling a lot of my high end things because I don’t feel them any more. I just posted in “wear your Bal “ thread about my beauties and saw this thread and was honestly horrified, and solidified my  decision to use my hard earned money better.


----------



## 2cello

RitaLA said:


> There is a bigger narrative here, which is desensitizing people culturally to issues of child sexual abuse. Culture doesn't change overnight. There has to be a narrative that follows a theme over and over and over again. AKA brainwashing. The more people are exposed to it, the more they become accustomed to it and desensitized so they don't question it anymore. The goal is not just to push "the envelope once." There are several different brands, entities, and individuals involved in this cultural narrative to promote a certain message so it becomes normalized. It's not as easy and simple as one might think. Some people changed the name to "child-attracted person."  So, they start changing language, exposing people to images, and in your brain's neuroplasticity, society starts getting used to it. Suddenly, a sense of right and wrong is gone and we don't even know how we got there. Think about this: "child-attracted person?" What in the world happened to decency in this country?


I’ve heard it as minor attracted person.  MAPS. But yes.  There is definitely an effort to make pedophilia socially acceptable. Even (mostly?) coming from academia.  It’s like there has to be a group of people who have to always push the bar.  Thus you have people defending it as “art” and claiming to be the cool ones who are into the new shocking thing. I think its also how the Bal campaign got approved by the execs because it’s being pushed more than you’d think.  They probably thought it was already more socially acceptable than it is.


----------



## vesna

jblended said:


> I'm not a Bal customer, so my opinion is about as shallow as my bank account. However, I was quite horrified by the headlines around this, and my stomach sank to learn that the headlines were not exaggerating and the imagery does contain deeply disturbing elements. I'm now schooled on something I wish I'd never heard of (panda eyes). Just typing it out makes my stomach turn and that is no exaggeration.
> 
> It's hard reading this thread and seeing members judge each other for varying reactions. Any and all judgement and displeasure ought to be aimed at the house, the creatives and the executives who took this concept from pitch to publication.
> Focusing on how outraged others are (or aren't) detracts from the focal point of how the brand- that has arguably been trolling for a couple of years now- felt empowered to make these decisions and expected its clientele to hype it up with online debates.  That's fundamentally wrong from a moral, business and marketing standpoint. It's lazy to rely on outrage and ridicule to keep your name in the papers, and it's repulsive to use such dark themes to garner that outrage in the first place.
> 
> What I would have liked is a clear statement as to what their artistic vision was. _Now, before I get slammed for saying that, let me be clear that I would have absolutely condemned it anyway. This is beyond the pale- there is no doubt about that._ However, some context would allow customers to make informed decisions about what their association with the brand will be moving forward.
> Was this just them attempting to be edgy to garner as much press as possible, possibly in the hopes of going viral with this controversial campaign?
> Or was it meant to be a social commentary of sorts? A mirror held up to showcase how society currently exploits children without consequence? Because, let's be honest, between celebrities and influencers posting their kids all over their social media, kids are being exploited for monetary gain all the time (and there is a darker side to those pictures being on social media sites as this campaign has shown us).
> Or was it some other concept entirely that perhaps my unartistic mind cannot conceive?
> I can't say that any of those possibilities would make this any more palatable. I would be horrified regardless, but people who have spent a lot of money on this house ought to have more context and a clearer answer from the house. By hiding all their social media pages, Bal are silencing an important conversation, which is problematic in itself!
> 
> As I said at the start of this, I'm not a customer, I will never be a customer, and my opinion means as little to Bal as they do to me. However, I live with myself and I have to be sure my choices reflect my values. In the same way that learning more about Chanel, Minkoff, Wang, and Bond. no. 9 (perfumery) means that I will never own any of their products, this campaign means that I will forever be disgusted by Bal.
> Do I think I can make a difference to those massive brands by not shopping with them: absolutely not. But in choosing to spend my money with people who share my values, I am able to sleep better at night.
> However, that is my personal decision for my life. I will not judge others if they come to a different conclusion.
> My heart goes out to their once loyal fans who lovingly carried their bags and rocked their rtw and shoes. The house has put their customers in between a rock and a hard place. Those customers (of old or new Bal) will be judged, one way or another and- as this thread has shown- they will be judged just as harshly as the brand itself.
> 
> Edit: I just recalled that there was a similar issue with Celine Dion's kids clothing line...something about the imagery being inappropriate too but I don't recall the details. It didn't garner as much attention as Bal is but, it upset some people.


I like your post very much. I also wish to see the explanation of artistic vision here (which will not get me less disgusted, because this was advertising campaign for selling things). Just curious to hear what was the “creative” process behind this move. Just curious.


----------



## dangerouscurves

Allisonfaye said:


> Look at who is liking....Marc Jacobs is one





Kevinaxx said:


> And it’s usually those who do really well in group functions, how else do you explain the rise in ranks? Not that all in same position as D-bal would be, but it doesn’t surprise me.
> 
> If you’re in it purely for profit, short term you might see gain. Long term you shoot yourself in the foot.


Now this actually answers my life question of why most leaders are tyrants.


----------



## Deco

2cello said:


> I’ve heard it as minor attracted person.  MAPS. But yes.  There is definitely an effort to make pedophilia socially acceptable. Even (mostly?) coming from academia.  It’s like there has to be a group of people who have to always push the bar.  Thus you have people defending it as “art” and claiming to be the cool ones who are into the new shocking thing. I think its also how the Bal campaign got approved by the execs because it’s being pushed more than you’d think.  They probably thought it was already more socially acceptable than it is.


It’s everywhere. WaPo, NYT, unis, they’re all normalizing pedophilia.

heres today‘s offering from WaPo. I read a quote from the article that described the most annoying/unsympathetic character in the play as the now grown victim of child rape.


----------



## vesna

Allisonfaye said:


> It gets worse:
> 
> WARNING: Some of these images are VERY sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's Getting Worse: Balenciaga Designer Exposed for Posting Disturbing Photos Linked to 'Satanic Ritual, Cannibalism, Child Mutilation'
> 
> 
> Luxury fashion brand Balenciaga is under fire again after the child pornography scandal brought to light to company’s obsession with satanic rituals, including the disturbing posts of the company’s stylist. Lotta Volkova, a stylist and consultant born in Russia, has been instrumental to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thegatewaypundit.com


WTH ???


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## 2cello

It’s disheartening to me how manipulatable we are. Once academia and the media start pushing things, we seem to easily succumb. I couldn’t care less about wearing Bal bags or not.  Protect your kids. 



Deco said:


> It’s everywhere. WaPo, NYT, unis, they’re all normalizing pedophilia.
> 
> heres today‘s offering from WaPo. I read a quote from the article that described the most annoying/unsympathetic character in the play as the now grown victim of child rape.


----------



## Bagsbagsbags202

I recently bought a neo cagole. I had been wearing it happily. But. I am putting it away for now. I love its style. But those campaigns are too disturbing.


----------



## millivanilli

Allisonfaye said:


> I think so. I used to laugh at my sister because she believed all the pizza gate stuff. Now I am not so sure anymore.


me, too. Really, I am feeling ashamed by me now. I laughed and shrugged it off, even having a friend who survived cult abuse and who told me years ago what she witnessed, which terrified me to the core - me having experience in this field, too, there were things I even couldn't imagine but believed her in the things she told me. Yet I underlied the same bias as everyone else: "yeah, well these things happen, but not. her. Not on earth. Anywhere else, ok. But no, not here". . Actually  I am feeling shame.


Deco said:


> It’s everywhere. WaPo, NYT, unis, they’re all normalizing pedophilia.
> 
> heres today‘s offering from WaPo. I read a quote from the article that described the most annoying/unsympathetic character in the play as the now grown victim of child rape.



it is... Now listen, this is something that happens really rarely: I have no words. Literally. In no language of this world there is an expression that would describe my feelings. I am not even feeling a mixture between irritation, scientific interest and disgust. It is beyond.   I want to agree wholeheartedly.:


----------



## TCmummy

vesna said:


> WTH ???


Whether this has something to do with the campaign or not, no normal human would post something such disturbing online… something is just not right with her…


----------



## 880

Deco said:


> It’s everywhere. WaPo, NYT, unis, they’re all normalizing pedophilia.
> 
> heres today‘s offering from WaPo. I read a quote from the article that described the most annoying/unsympathetic character in the play as the now grown victim of child rape.



Just because a play like this, or a performance, such as Mary Louise Parker’s role in How I Learned to Drive, is reviewed positively doe NOT mean the playwright, the author, the actors, or the media reviewers, ‘support’ pedophilia, or that the topic itself has been normalized. I cannot fathom how the fact that the unsympathetic character being a former victim of child rape normalizes pedophilia. In fact, if one saw the performances or actually read the reviews, it would be clear that this is not normal or mainstream.

Similarly, Leopoldstadt doesn’t promote antisemitic, nazi behavior (and the enlightened and assimilated Jews, including Mahler, Freud. Klimt, etc. weren’t responsible for the woes of the Christian society around them). (The analogy doesn’t quite fit, but I think it’s germane to the point)

There is an enormous difference between a piece that makes people think about a difficult topic and its effect on survivors, and one such as the subject of this thread, where the ad itself promotes disturbing exploitative images of children that hve no relationship to the fashion subject matter.

ETA: I am not in support of pedophilia; I am horrified by the exploitation of children; and, I am disgusted by the balenciaga ad. (I own no balenciaga, but I do own chanel, my logic being that the Werthheimers succeeded in regaining control, and they found it good business to forgive her and support her for the remainder of her life) . I can still argue that traditional incarceration fails to rehabilitate, and I can still accept that pedophiles are often adult victims of pedophila without being supportive of the act of pedophilia. (i don’t think it can be as clearly argued that racists or neo nazis were abused and groomed as children in quite the same way).

I am also disgusted at the way some posts conflate this ad with media that they clearly deride as more woke or liberal, or generalize to suggest that this ad is somehow indicative of the manipulated and gullible public or society.


----------



## 2cello

The play is saying we (society) treat pedophiles too harshly.  So yeah.  I think it is definitely moving in the direction of normalizing pedophilia.  Further, it’s part of a trend. Minor attracted persons sounds so much more sanitized. Pedophiles are normal people too. We should have compassion.

The Washington Post wouldn’t make such compassionate comments about racists (or Russians, or a whole bunch of other out of favor groups.)

And that headline is totally clickbait intending to imply support of pedophilia.


----------



## QuelleFromage

PurseUOut said:


> Another nondescript, completely coincidental photo in the ad campaign of a street address - which I am sure was "randomly" pulled from the billions on Google - leading to none other than - Epstein Gynecology Associates.
> 
> Nothing to see here. Complete coincidence. Just "art".



OK, now this is ridiculous. I drive this way every time I drive to Philadelphia. That place is actually called Advocare, and now some poor doctor is going to be hassled because her name is Epstein (a very common last name).


----------



## xpixi

The thing I am most shocked about are people who treat this scandal not seriously at all and how we are all conspiracists.


----------



## QuelleFromage

PurseUOut said:


> These toddlers were in the same ad campaign as a copy of a SCOTUS ruling that struck down a ban on virtual child pornography because no "real" children were harmed.


No. This isn't accurate. The campaigns were separate, with different timings and photographers, and the SCOTUS ruling did precisely the opposite of what you are saying. US v. Williams struck down an attempt to weaken the PROTECT act, which outlaws all sexually explicit imagery of children.

I don't even own any Balenciaga except sneakers, and I am not supporting anything the brand does, but in order to have this discussion we need to share accurate facts.


----------



## Luvbolide

MooMooVT said:


> I know the US, and the right in general, are often thought of as prudes, but maybe they’re on to something. We’re not heading in the right direction. Were is Epstein’s client list? The Feds have it, but they’re not showing it because it implicates too many people at the highest rings of society in the US and Europe.


There have been hundreds of pages produced in litigation that have been made public, including flight manifests and passenger logs.  There is a judge in Florida who is making documents from Epstein’s first criminal trial available.  Before she does so, she allows those whose names are included to file their objections to the production.  So far, most of the reason for objects are along the lines of “it would be embarrassing for me”.  She has overruled all the objections to date.

In order to prosecute someone, the govt needs to have admissible evidence, which has been hard to find.  Same for a civil, only it is the victim who has to find some evidence.  Prince Andrew is a good example - there was enough evidence for a victim to file a civil case against him.  The British police looked at the case twice and determined that they didn’t have enough evidence to go forward, so no criminal case was filed against him.

In addition, it has been a long time since most all of these events took place and most are probably barred by the statutes of limitations in various jurisdictions.  

If you want to take a look, Google Epstein flight manifests or flight logs.


----------



## BPC

xpixi said:


> The thing I am most shocked up are people who treat this scandal not seriously at all and how we are all conspiracists.


No, we take it seriously. We also think that many here are conspiracists who are very quick to believe everything they read on social media.
As far as the bears go, my mind did not automatically go to bondage or any type of kink. I was a punk in my teenage years and when I saw the bears, that's where my brain went immediately. I would have loved to own them, especially the white one with the fishnet top back then.


----------



## 2cello

I think using the SC ruling on child exploitation in an ad is weird and indeterminate. Balenciaga is suing the firm that did it, correct?  So they must feel not right about it.


----------



## xpixi

BPC said:


> No, we take it seriously. We also think that many here are conspiracists who are very quick to believe everything they read on social media.
> As far as the bears go, my mind did not automatically go to bondage or any type of kink. I was a punk in my teenage years and when I saw the bears, that's where my brain went immediately. I would have loved to own them, especially the white one with the fishnet top back then.


I am not talking about anyone in particular here just in general people who are laughing it off ''hahaha Balenciaga is just edgy.''  Its one thing for this to be a mistake or an edgy attempt one time, but doing it multiple times? Then it's a pattern. And what about other connections with the stylist being into some really depraved stuff? When you add all this stuff, and people are still not outraged, it makes them look hypocritical.


----------



## MooMooVT

Luvbolide said:


> There have been hundreds of pages produced in litigation that have been made public, including flight manifests and passenger logs.  There is a judge in Florida who is making documents from Epstein’s first criminal trial available.  Before she does so, she allows those whose names are included to file their objections to the production.  So far, most of the reason for objects are along the lines of “it would be embarrassing for me”.  She has overruled all the objections to date.
> 
> In order to prosecute someone, the govt needs to have admissible evidence, which has been hard to find.  Same for a civil, only it is the victim who has to find some evidence.  Prince Andrew is a good example - there was enough evidence for a victim to file a civil case against him.  The British police looked at the case twice and determined that they didn’t have enough evidence to go forward, so no criminal case was filed against him.
> 
> In addition, it has been a long time since most all of these events took place and most are probably barred by the statutes of limitations in various jurisdictions.
> 
> If you want to take a look, Google Epstein flight manifests or flight logs.


The flight logs aren’t evidence of a crime. I want the client list. I agree it is highly unlikely to result in criminal charges (sadly). But like Balenciaga, the public exposure of these people is what I’m looking for. 

There are so many who worship at the alter of Hollywood, political figures, and others considered in the upper echelons of society when in fact many are rapists, pedophiles, murderers, etc. But they made a funny movie or agree with me on politics or they dress fashionably and attend the Met Gala, so ignorance is bliss.


----------



## 880

2cello said:


> The play is saying we (society) treat pedophiles too harshly.  So yeah.  I think it is definitely moving in the direction of normalizing pedophilia.  Further, it’s part of a trend. Minor attracted persons sounds so much more sanitized. Pedophiles are normal people too. We should have compassion.
> 
> The Washington Post wouldn’t make such compassionate comments about racists (or Russians, or a whole bunch of other out of favor groups.)
> 
> And that headline is totally clickbait intending to imply support of pedophilia.


I believe the playwright is questioning what degree of compassion should society fairly hold out to those who have served their time for sexual abuse, assault or rape. And, I think the play makes it clear that the mainstream view is to view such people with disdain and distrust.

There is an enormous difference. It’s a troubling issue. And it isn’t simply semantics. And, what I find disheartening is that some posts here don’t seem to differentiate betwn discussing an issue and condoning a criminal act.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## pepperdiva

Right before the story broke, I had finally purchased an hourglass bag that I had been eyeing for long. The bag is beautiful but the company is ugly and scary. I will be returning the bag and not purchasing any more from this brand


----------



## PurseUOut

QuelleFromage said:


> No. This isn't accurate. The campaigns were separate, with different timings and photographers, and the SCOTUS ruling did precisely the opposite of what you are saying. US v. Williams struck down an attempt to weaken the PROTECT act, which outlaws all sexually explicit imagery of children.



Did you actually read the text of the opinion that was highlighted in the ad? 




The PROTECT act makes it illegal to advertise or present any material in such a way as to lead someone to believe that the material contains "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," or "a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

The Williams decision overturned the Ashcroft decision, which once made virtual child pornography legal as protected speech because no children were being harmed.

The photos of toddlers in the Balenciaga ad pictured near and around sexual as masochistic conduct but not actually "engaging" in sexual conduct (which is what the Williams decision banned) is essentially Balenciaga's way of saying a "F U" to this decision. They weren't honoring that the decision was trying to protect children from virtual depictions of child porn - they were MOCKING THE DECISION by pushing the limits of the Protect Act. That is why the toddlers were "holding" bears with BDSM gear and not wearing it themselves (which would be illegal because its a visual depiction of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct). This is why the toddlers were pictured around bondage material but not donning it. That's why the toddlers were laying on heart shaped pillows next to empty wine glasses instead of being photographed drinking it.


----------



## BPC

PurseUOut said:


> Did you actually read the text of the opinion that was highlighted in the ad?
> 
> View attachment 5661507
> 
> 
> The PROTECT act makes it illegal to advertise or present any material in such a way as to lead someone to believe that the material contains "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," or "a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
> 
> The Williams decision overturned the Ashcroft decision, which once made virtual child pornography legal as protected speech because no children were being harmed.
> 
> The photos of toddlers in the Balenciaga ad pictured near and around sexual as masochistic conduct but not actually "engaging" in sexual conduct (which is what the Williams decision banned) is essentially Balenciaga's way of saying a "F U" to this decision. They weren't honoring that the decision was trying to protect children from virtual depictions of child porn - they were MOCKING THE DECISION by pushing the limits of the Protect Act. *That is why the toddlers were "holding" bears with BDSM gear and not wearing it themselves (which would be illegal because its a visual depiction of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct).* This is why the toddlers were pictured around bondage material but not donning it. That's why the toddlers were laying on heart shaped pillows next to empty wine glasses instead of being photographed drinking it.


It looks like typical punk to me, not BDSM.

I agree that kids should not be photographed around alcohol and such, but the bears? I have to ask why for some it automatically goes to BDSM, and to others (me) all we see is punk.  Interesting how we see the same image so differently.


----------



## Kevinaxx

BPC said:


> I agree that kids should not be photographed around alcohol and such, but the bears? I have to ask why for some it automatically goes to BDSM,


Perhaps you didn’t see the ads referenced.



			https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/11/balenciaga-pulls-campaign-443-1.jpg
		










						Balenciaga pulls controversial bear ads amid child abuse fears
					

“We take this matter very seriously and are taking legal action against the parties responsible for creating the set and including unapproved items for our Spring 23 campaign photoshoot.&#822…




					nypost.com


----------



## Allisonfaye

Deco said:


> And here are the problems I have with the demand that all Balenciaga products be shunned.
> 
> 1. The suggestion that those who continue to enjoy their bags in public will not do so in “peace“ is repugnant.  This doesn’t mean people aren’t free to feel/think whatever condemnation they want about Bal carriers.   Freedom of thought and opinion is fundamental to a free society. So feel away.
> 
> 2.  Rather than direct ire at bag collectors for not torching their bags in a grand bonfire, direct your ire at the perpetrators of this atrocity. If you’re going to lump bag carriers in with the perps bcz *they don’t activism in the precise manner you prescribe, then no one is safe from persecution in this totalitarian version of moralism where the slippery slope of guilt by association has no bottom.*
> 
> 3.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this horrific ad campaign doesn’t reveal anything new many of us haven’t already been acutely aware of for over a decade.  The fashion and entertainment industries are awash in this sort of crime and have been trying to launder their depravation into the mainstream culture, with great success. This campaign means I will not buy anything from this Balenciaga and have been screaming bloody murder on Twitter for days.  I’m going to pile on the outrage and demand consequences from retailers and collaborators. It doesn’t mean I’m dumping my vintage items from 15 - 20 years ago or that I will suddenly develop a deep concern over what random strangers think of me because they think the bag I carry is some kind of window into my corrupt soul.  This Balenciaga did not make my old bags.  Brand destruction is prospective, not retroactive, no matter how much those who never cared about the brand in the first place would want the brand’s annihilation to be thorough and retroactive.
> 
> 4.  Part of my duty as a mother is to devise strategies to protect my child from predators and instill in her an understanding of the dangers that lurk and how to avoid and escape them. I’ve been having these  conversations with all mothers I know, to make sure we’re all aware of these dangers and look out for each other’s kids.  I also survey the community to determine who may have an insensitivity to child sexualization and a value system incompatible with those of my family’s, and make sure I steer my child clear of them.  Not letting them have “peace” is never on the menu.


This ship sailed a long time ago. I think the exact phrase was 'silence is violence'. I hope people (not directed at poster) are not being hypocritical about things.


----------



## SpeedyJC

BPC said:


> It looks like typical punk to me, not BDSM.
> 
> I agree that kids should not be photographed around alcohol and such, but the bears? I have to ask why for some it automatically goes to BDSM, and to others (me) all we see is punk.  Interesting how we see the same image so differently.


I have always been into the punk scene and all  I see here is a very creepy and wrong photo shoot that sexualizes kids.


----------



## Vlad

As someone who's shot advertising campaigns with many luxury brand partners (including Kering brands), I am aware of the oversight and review that goes into every piece of content produced to ensure that it reflects the brand image and values. Everything is being closely and tightly looked over, with several steps of approval from headquarters, even for a small publication like our PurseBlog.

Can you imagine the scrutiny for a global ad campaign that is slated to run on hundreds of publications, used in multi-million dollar ad spends?

This was intentional, and the degree of free publicity is worth its weight in negative backlash. Modern audiences will soon forget and move on, and likely, Balenciaga will bounce back and be more relevant than ever before. 

Sadly, that is the state of modern media. _There is no negative press_ rings true now more than ever. The campaign was tasteless, and children should not have been a part of it.


----------



## BPC

Kevinaxx said:


> Perhaps you didn’t see the ads referenced.
> 
> 
> 
> https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/11/balenciaga-pulls-campaign-443-1.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Balenciaga pulls controversial bear ads amid child abuse fears
> 
> 
> “We take this matter very seriously and are taking legal action against the parties responsible for creating the set and including unapproved items for our Spring 23 campaign photoshoot.&#822…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com





SpeedyJC said:


> I have always been into the punk scene and all  I see here is a very creepy and wrong photo shoot that sexualizes kids.



I'm only harping on the bears because "I" don't see it.  I do see plenty wrong with the entire campaign though.


----------



## SpeedyJC

Vlad said:


> As someone who's shot advertising campaigns with many luxury brand partners (including Kering brands), I am aware of the oversight and review that goes into every piece of content produced to ensure that it reflects the brand image and values. Everything is being closely and tightly looked over, with several steps of approval from headquarters, even for a small publication like our PurseBlog.
> 
> Can you imagine the scrutiny for a global ad campaign that is slated to run on hundreds of publications, used in multi-million dollar ad spends?
> 
> This was intentional, and the degree of free publicity is worth its weight in negative backlash. Modern audiences will soon forget and move on, and likely, Balenciaga will bounce back and be more relevant than ever before.
> 
> Sadly, that is the state of modern media. _There is no negative press_ rings true now more than ever. The campaign was tasteless, and children should not have been a part of it.


So true! 

Also Vlad you brought up a very good point and something that I have noticed now a days.

I feel like we live in the day and age of "social media outrage" and then once that outrage has died down its time to move on to the next thing to be outraged about without actually doing anything about the prior subject of outrage, rinse and repeat.


----------



## MooMooVT

Vlad said:


> As someone who's shot advertising campaigns with many luxury brand partners (including Kering brands), I am aware of the oversight and review that goes into every piece of content produced to ensure that it reflects the brand image and values. Everything is being closely and tightly looked over, with several steps of approval from headquarters, even for a small publication like our PurseBlog.
> 
> Can you imagine the scrutiny for a global ad campaign that is slated to run on hundreds of publications, used in multi-million dollar ad spends?
> 
> This was intentional, and the degree of free publicity is worth its weight in negative backlash. Modern audiences will soon forget and move on, and likely, Balenciaga will bounce back and be more relevant than ever before.
> 
> Sadly, that is the state of modern media. _There is no negative press_ rings true now more than ever. The campaign was tasteless, and children should not have been a part of it.


Thanks for this insight. Sadly, I agree that this too shall pass. Balenciaga will have very short term backlash and possibly reduced sales. By next Christmas, everything will be forgotten.


----------



## Allisonfaye

880 said:


> Just because a play like this, or a performance, such as Mary Louise Parker’s role in How I Learned to Drive, is reviewed positively doe NOT mean the playwright, the author, the actors, or the media reviewers, ‘support’ pedophilia, or that the topic itself has been normalized. I cannot fathom how the fact that the unsympathetic character being a former victim of child rape normalizes pedophilia. In fact, if one saw the performances or actually read the reviews, it would be clear that this is not normal or mainstream.
> 
> Similarly, Leopoldstadt doesn’t promote antisemitic, nazi behavior (and the enlightened and assimilated Jews, including Mahler, Freud. Klimt, etc. weren’t responsible for the woes of the Christian society around them). (The analogy doesn’t quite fit, but I think it’s germane to the point)
> 
> There is an enormous difference between a piece that makes people think about a difficult topic and its effect on survivors, and one such as the subject of this thread, where the ad itself promotes disturbing exploitative images of children that hve no relationship to the fashion subject matter.
> 
> ETA: I am not in support of pedophilia; I am horrified by the exploitation of children; and, I am disgusted by the balenciaga ad. (I own no balenciaga, but I do own chanel, my logic being that the Werthheimers succeeded in regaining control, and they found it good business to forgive her and support her for the remainder of her life) . I can still argue that traditional incarceration fails to rehabilitate, and I can still accept that pedophiles are often adult victims of pedophila without being supportive of the act of pedophilia. (i don’t think it can be as clearly argued that racists or neo nazis were abused and groomed as children in quite the same way).
> *
> I am also disgusted at the way some posts conflate this ad with media that they clearly deride as more woke or liberal, or generalize to suggest that this ad is somehow indicative of the manipulated and gullible public or society.*


Maybe, but...I don't know if you have kids or not but you should see what is in the school library. I know it can't be posted here but I have an image that is unbelievable. EVERY person I showed it to was shocked. These books are in libraries across the country.


----------



## MooMooVT

Allisonfaye said:


> Maybe, but...I don't know if you have kids or not but you should see what is in the school library. I know it can't be posted here but I have an image that is unbelievable. EVERY person I showed it to was shocked. These books are in libraries across the country.


All part of a large effort to desensitize children to sexuality and sexual content at a wildly inappropriate age. Playboy is less explicit that some of these "children's" books.


----------



## millivanilli

BPC said:


> It looks like typical punk to me, not BDSM.
> 
> I agree that kids should not be photographed around alcohol and such, but the bears? I have to ask why for some it automatically goes to BDSM, and to others (me) all we see is punk.  Interesting how we see the same image so differently.


I can understand that when you look at the pictures you think of punk. If we look at pictures of punks and their clothes or symbols, it is noticeable that punks wear collars (see also the picture),



but not collars that have the BDSM language in the form of a "collar". The classic BDSM collar has a ring that is supposed to be used to put on a leash or something similar. (see picture 2 of the ad on the bed, there is a leash - the yellow thingy on the bed)



	

		
			
		

		
	
The ring is an elementary part of the collars and is found in BDSM relevant jewelry, because it actually corresponds to the ring of the O,. By the ring of O, when worn, one recognizes an active member of the BDSm community, dominant people wear it as a ring on the left hand, submissive on the right. The collar is given to the submissive part by the dominant part and corresponds most closely to a wedding ring. A variation takes place such that either straight hoops are used as collars, or chains with a lock that can only be opened by the Dom. So it is a clear BDSM language. Long story, unimportant for here, but:

Punk does not have a ring of O in any form in its typical way
BDSM has the ring of O as a typical sign. THE typical sign. Either that or the triskele. These are the two main signs for BDSM. 

If you look at the teddy bear, you see the ring of O pretty clearly, and as I mentioned, the setting is very clear. We also find a leash. We also find the classic handcuffs - also with the ring of O andthigh cuffs, also with an eyelet to tie them down. This is not punk, it's BDSM.  The fact that punks borrow elements from BDSM and thus the boundaries are not very clear - sure, it happens all the time, it's not a bad thing. But the symbols in BOTH pictures are clear, I'm sorry to say. Believe me, I would also prefer it if BDSM would not end up in the dirty corner again. a-----------------gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain.


----------



## millivanilli

Vlad said:


> As someone who's shot advertising campaigns with many luxury brand partners (including Kering brands), I am aware of the oversight and review that goes into every piece of content produced to ensure that it reflects the brand image and values. Everything is being closely and tightly looked over, with several steps of approval from headquarters, even for a small publication like our PurseBlog.
> 
> Can you imagine the scrutiny for a global ad campaign that is slated to run on hundreds of publications, used in multi-million dollar ad spends?
> 
> This was intentional, and the degree of free publicity is worth its weight in negative backlash. Modern audiences will soon forget and move on, and likely, Balenciaga will bounce back and be more relevant than ever before.
> 
> Sadly, that is the state of modern media. _There is no negative press_ rings true now more than ever. The campaign was tasteless, and children should not have been a part of it.


but. remember Benetton. They never recovered. So, there is hope?


----------



## Allisonfaye

MooMooVT said:


> All part of a large effort to desensitize children to sexuality and sexual content at a wildly inappropriate age. Playboy is less explicit that some of these "children's" books.


So true. I spoke to a school board member about it and she lied about it right to me. She didn't know I had the list already. Made up some story about a teacher having the book on her desk and being suspended. Thankfully, we got that school board out. 

On another note, I remember back when I used to watch Law and Order, SVU. I quit watching it maybe 5 years ago when they started SHOWING the crimes. I could only stomach it before then because they didn't show them. Some of them were so hideous, I had nightmares about them. Anyway, I remember an episode where they found this group of pedophiles and they realized the degree of it was so deep that they were only able to make a drop in the bucket with regard to stopping it. The people had secret organizations that all kind of protected each other and I remember thinking at the time, OMG...this is probably true. Certainly the internet made it far easier for these people.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Vlad

SpeedyJC said:


> I feel like we live in the day and age of "social media outrage" and then once that outrage has died down its time to move on to the next thing to be outraged about without actually doing anything about the prior subject of outrage, rinse and repeat.



Modern media relies on the outrage cycle to keep our attention, which is precisely why this scandal will soon be replaced by the next. 

Seeing how many mainstream, non-fashion outlets have reported on this scandal, I can only imagine how many more minds have now been introduced to Balenciaga as a luxury brand. After the outrage has moved on, a careful pivot will position the brand as a desirable, edgy luxury destination. 

Let's connect back in this thread in a year and see where we stand.


----------



## Vlad

millivanilli said:


> but. remember Benetton. They never recovered. So, there is hope?



I do. But it was a different time. The same rules don't apply anymore.


----------



## MooMooVT

millivanilli said:


> but. remember Benetton. They never recovered. So, there is hope?


I was surprised by how many Benetton stores I saw in Italy recently. Not sure how many are still in the US, but it felt like one on every corner in Italy.


----------



## millivanilli

Vlad said:


> I do. But it was a different time. The same rules don't apply anymore.


I am afraid you are right, but I still keep my hopes high.


millivanilli said:


> I can understand that when you look at the pictures you think of punk. If we look at pictures of punks and their clothes or symbols, it is noticeable that punks wear collars (see also the picture),
> View attachment 5661587


Oh Lord when zooming into the picture I now DO see the monocle haematoma @RitaLA is talking about. That is ... ok... no. not. just no. Sorry, no. Just. no.

That's.... no.


----------



## 880

Allisonfaye said:


> Maybe, but...I don't know if you have kids or not but you should see what is in the school library. I know it can't be posted here but I have an image that is unbelievable. EVERY person I showed it to was shocked. These books are in libraries across the country.


@Allisonfaye ,   yes,  I’ve raised a child /adopted stepbrother who is much younger, and i have spent a lot of time in schools K-12 and college plus. In particular, yes I am aware of what is in school libraries. I also have a legal background, albeit decades ago, re juvenile rights division of legal aid, some of whom are representation of abused and neglected children, and some specialization in special education rights of children in public schools.

IMO, balenciaga was well aware of the nature of this ad campaign and thought they would stir up some cutting edge controversy (and severely miscalculated) into child exploitation and pedophile imagery, all of which I find appalling. I find the original intention irresponsible and lacking in every respect. And, I find the execution of such a campaign, and it’s horrendous attempt to whitewash, also horrific.

what is also disgusting is a year from now, balenciaga will be more popular than ever, and new clients will have been drawn in who only vaguely remember some kind of stir, and not any of the details.


----------



## millivanilli

MooMooVT said:


> I was surprised by how many Benetton stores I saw in Italy recently. Not sure how many are still in the US, but it felt like one on every corner in Italy.


you are right, there are a lot fo B stores in Italy, what I meant was: at the age of 16? Benetton was THE Thing in my country. Then the ads happened and nobody was so keen on them anymore. We do have 2 shops over here, one at the airport and the other in the main city afaIk but that hype- stopped. As far as I remember, might be, that I am misled here by my memory.


----------



## QuelleFromage

PurseUOut said:


> Did you actually read the text of the opinion that was highlighted in the ad?
> 
> View attachment 5661507
> 
> 
> The PROTECT act makes it illegal to advertise or present any material in such a way as to lead someone to believe that the material contains "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," or "a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
> 
> The Williams decision overturned the Ashcroft decision, which once made virtual child pornography legal as protected speech because no children were being harmed.
> 
> The photos of toddlers in the Balenciaga ad pictured near and around sexual as masochistic conduct but not actually "engaging" in sexual conduct (which is what the Williams decision banned) is essentially Balenciaga's way of saying a "F U" to this decision. They weren't honoring that the decision was trying to protect children from virtual depictions of child porn - they were MOCKING THE DECISION by pushing the limits of the Protect Act. That is why the toddlers were "holding" bears with BDSM gear and not wearing it themselves (which would be illegal because its a visual depiction of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct). This is why the toddlers were pictured around bondage material but not donning it. That's why the toddlers were laying on heart shaped pillows next to empty wine glasses instead of being photographed drinking it.


Yes. I read it. You stated that this SCOTUS ruling weakened anti-pornography laws. It did not, it upheld them. The visible excerpt contains more than one argument.

You also stated the image with the document was part of the bears campaign. It is not.

Just keeping the facts straight.

As for Balenciaga's motives here, I am inclined to agree with @Vlad that the bears campaign was intentionally over the line to stir up controversy. There are too many things wrong for it to be a misjudgment. Again, I don't know a single executive who would have signed off on that. I am glad I was never a fan of this era of Balenciaga, and I feel terrible for those who feel betrayed by the brand.


----------



## MooMooVT

millivanilli said:


> you are right, there are a lot fo B stores in Italy, what I meant was: at the age of 16? Benetton was THE Thing in my country. Then the ads happened and nobody was so keen on them anymore. We do have 2 shops over here, one at the airport and the other in the main city afaIk but that hype- stopped. As far as I remember, might be, that I am misled here by my memory.


I just searched and I don't see any stores in the US!


----------



## millivanilli

not sure about that "over the line" I guess we have really serious BDSM fanatics going on... On the bright side: no children, no teddy bear.


----------



## PurseUOut

millivanilli said:


> I can understand that when you look at the pictures you think of punk. If we look at pictures of punks and their clothes or symbols, it is noticeable that punks wear collars (see also the picture),
> View attachment 5661587
> 
> 
> but not collars that have the BDSM language in the form of a "collar". The classic BDSM collar has a ring that is supposed to be used to put on a leash or something similar. (see picture 2 of the ad on the bed, there is a leash - the yellow thingy on the bed)
> 
> View attachment 5661588
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ring is an elementary part of the collars and is found in BDSM relevant jewelry, because it actually corresponds to the ring of the O,. By the ring of O, when worn, one recognizes an active member of the BDSm community, dominant people wear it as a ring on the left hand, submissive on the right. The collar is given to the submissive part by the dominant part and corresponds most closely to a wedding ring. A variation takes place such that either straight hoops are used as collars, or chains with a lock that can only be opened by the Dom. So it is a clear BDSM language. Long story, unimportant for here, but:
> 
> Punk does not have a ring of O in any form in its typical way
> BDSM has the ring of O as a typical sign. THE typical sign. Either that or the triskele. These are the two main signs for BDSM.
> 
> If you look at the teddy bear, you see the ring of O pretty clearly, and as I mentioned, the setting is very clear. We also find a leash. We also find the classic handcuffs - also with the ring of O andthigh cuffs, also with an eyelet to tie them down. This is not punk, it's BDSM.  The fact that punks borrow elements from BDSM and thus the boundaries are not very clear - sure, it happens all the time, it's not a bad thing. But the symbols in BOTH pictures are clear, I'm sorry to say. Believe me, I would also prefer it if BDSM would not end up in the dirty corner again. a-----------------gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain.



Well stated. While some can reasonably conclude this is "punk" I find others are being purposely obtuse as to what this imagery is actually depicting/promoting - which is clearly the sexualization and masochistic abuse of children; to the extent that the law will let them get away with visualizing (as the court decision in Williams inferred). And then to further gaslight us who KNOW what the truth  as super woke cancel culture vultures when we are simply enforcing the universally agreed upon boundary of not involving children in adult sexualized **** is quite infuriating. I am a black woman. If Balenciaga had an ad promoting white hoods or other KKK references I would not be calling for a universal boycott. To the contrary, I believe companies are permitted to be racist, sexist, etc. and the free market should dictate whether or not their company ethos is acceptable to the public and/or profitable to them. But when it comes to babies/toddlers/children - those who cannot reasonably give any consent - we as adults have the obligation and duty to protect them and their innocence until such time comes when they are adults and can freely consent to BDSM/kink imagery on their own accord. The fact that I even have to spell this out to adults who should know better is even more disgusting than the actual ad itself.


----------



## aunaturale9

Ah I came on here to ask-- I have one Balenciaga bag, but I am not sure if I should keep it now. I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing it now that all this is happening, but what is everyone else doing?


----------



## MooMooVT

aunaturale9 said:


> Ah I came on here to ask-- I have one Balenciaga bag, but I am not sure if I should keep it now. I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing it now that all this is happening, but what is everyone else doing?


This is a good question and I’m not sure there’s any “right” answer. I don’t have any Bal bags, but if this happened with Gucci, I’m not sure what I would do. I don’t love the idea that a generational brand should die for the sins of the current administration. If the bag (or other goods) is heavily logo’d, I personally would hold off on carrying it. IDK. This is all so crazy. I look forward to others thoughts and appreciate those who’ve already commented on their thoughts.


----------



## MooMooVT

millivanilli said:


> not sure about that "over the line" I guess we have really serious BDSM fanatics going on... On the bright side: no children, no teddy bear.
> 
> View attachment 5661620


No children is the key for me. Adults can do what they like as long as it doesn’t involve children


----------



## xpixi

I dont know if anyone else noticed, but theres a group of people (not necessarily on this forum but they know who they are) and I see them in the media too who try to shift the convo away from this issue and minimize the severity of it and I find that absolutely disgusting that their agenda is more important than children's safety.


----------



## carlinha

millivanilli said:


> I can understand that when you look at the pictures you think of punk. If we look at pictures of punks and their clothes or symbols, it is noticeable that punks wear collars (see also the picture),
> View attachment 5661587
> 
> 
> but not collars that have the BDSM language in the form of a "collar". The classic BDSM collar has a ring that is supposed to be used to put on a leash or something similar. (see picture 2 of the ad on the bed, there is a leash - the yellow thingy on the bed)
> 
> View attachment 5661588
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ring is an elementary part of the collars and is found in BDSM relevant jewelry, because it actually corresponds to the ring of the O,. By the ring of O, when worn, one recognizes an active member of the BDSm community, dominant people wear it as a ring on the left hand, submissive on the right. The collar is given to the submissive part by the dominant part and corresponds most closely to a wedding ring. A variation takes place such that either straight hoops are used as collars, or chains with a lock that can only be opened by the Dom. So it is a clear BDSM language. Long story, unimportant for here, but:
> 
> Punk does not have a ring of O in any form in its typical way
> BDSM has the ring of O as a typical sign. THE typical sign. Either that or the triskele. These are the two main signs for BDSM.
> 
> If you look at the teddy bear, you see the ring of O pretty clearly, and as I mentioned, the setting is very clear. We also find a leash. We also find the classic handcuffs - also with the ring of O andthigh cuffs, also with an eyelet to tie them down. This is not punk, it's BDSM.  The fact that punks borrow elements from BDSM and thus the boundaries are not very clear - sure, it happens all the time, it's not a bad thing. But the symbols in BOTH pictures are clear, I'm sorry to say. Believe me, I would also prefer it if BDSM would not end up in the dirty corner again. a-----------------gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain.


oh my goodness.  thank you for the education.

i never knew about this "ring of O" and had to look it up... but honest, sincere question.... the popular Hermes collier de chien design (ring and bracelet) - which i love coincidentally - is this viewed as a "ring of O"???  are people looking at me with these pieces of jewelry thinking i practice BDSM?


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## millivanilli

carlinha said:


> oh my goodness.  thank you for the education.
> 
> i never knew about this "ring of O" and had to look it up... but honest, sincere question.... the popular Hermes collier de chien design (ring and bracelet) - which i love coincidentally - is this viewed as a "ring of O"???  are people looking at me with these pieces of jewelry thinking i practice BDSM?


I actually thought longer about whether to write this post because Hermès is picking up on this symbolism in their ring and I was worried that someone would be concerned with this ring. My opinion is:

The question is whether this is intentional on H's part or if it's an unintentional design idea.  I'm leaning towards design and not intentional because the look of the jewelry is intricate, which the O's classic ring is not. I've included one for you below. By the fact that the ring from Hermès (I have the same one) has two triangle shaped elements to the left and right of the ring, I would strongly lean toward:this breaks up the classic "ring of O " look. A classic ring of O is straight, unadorned and has the ring, (this loop) as a symbol relevant to recognition, so to say " that loop is the main attraction".



	

		
			
		

		
	
 compared to the more refined artistic from Hermès: 
	

		
			
		

		
	



	

		
			
		

		
	
 So in my opinion the collierde chien wouldn't be seen as " ring of O" but as a "normal" ring with a pretty design.

And, something I forgot: the ring of O is more common in continental Europe than in the US. In the USA, as far as I know, there are more the neck rings that make it most obvious.


----------



## carlinha

millivanilli said:


> I actually thought longer about whether to write this post because Hermès is picking up on this symbolism in their ring and I was worried that someone would be concerned with this ring. My opinion is:
> 
> The question is whether this is intentional on H's part or if it's an unintentional design idea.  I'm leaning towards design and not intentional because the look of the jewelry is intricate, which the O's classic ring is not. I've included one for you below. By the fact that the ring from Hermès (I have the same one) has two triangle shaped elements to the left and right of the ring, I would strongly lean toward:this breaks up the classic "ring of O " look. A classic ring of O is straight, unadorned and has the ring, (this loop) as a symbol relevant to recognition, so to say " that loop is the main attraction".
> 
> View attachment 5661651
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> compared to the more refined artistic from Hermès:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 5661653
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in my opinion the collierde chien wouldn't be seen as " ring of O" but as a "normal" ring with a pretty design.
> 
> And, something I forgot: the ring of O is more common in continental Europe than in the US. In the USA, as far as I know, there are more the neck rings that make it most obvious.


thank you so much for the insight and education!


----------



## aunaturale9

MooMooVT said:


> This is a good question and I’m not sure there’s any “right” answer. I don’t have any Bal bags, but if this happened with Gucci, I’m not sure what I would do. I don’t love the idea that a generational brand should die for the sins of the current administration. If the bag (or other goods) is heavily logo’d, I personally would hold off on carrying it. IDK. This is all so crazy. I look forward to others thoughts and appreciate those who’ve already commented on their thoughts.


Yeah I mean it has the one B, but not a heavy logo! At one point I used to think folks in the suburbs wouldn't recognize these bags, but now I see them around so often that I don't know what is right either.  Honestly, now I am getting a little weary..who knows whats happening in the inner workings of all of these major fashion houses..


----------



## Allisonfaye

Wow. *








						EXCLUSIVE: Angry Artist Vandalizes Balenciaga Store in London After Campaign Controversy - "More Stores will be Visited in Due Course"
					

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that the high-end fashion brand Balenciaga has received internet backlash for a creepy ad that features two young girls holding stuffed animals dressed in what looks to be bondage gear. In one photo, a little girl with fiery red hair is shown wearing one of...




					www.thegatewaypundit.com
				



*


----------



## ccbaggirl89

aunaturale9 said:


> Ah I came on here to ask-- I have one Balenciaga bag, but I am not sure if I should keep it now. I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing it now that all this is happening, but what is everyone else doing?


I feel the same as you, but we all have to decide individually what decision we'll ultimately make with Bal and the bags we own. I understand that the current "artistic" vision/direction of the company has nothing to do with my bags -- all of which are 'oldies', but personally I know I'll have a hard time disassociating them with what is currently happening and the direction the company seems to be leaning in for the past few years, actually. I'm just going to closet mine for a bit and perhaps decide later to sell/keep/donate. Make whatever choice you feel good about.


----------



## Allisonfaye

ccbaggirl89 said:


> I feel the same as you, but we all have to decide individually what decision we'll ultimately make with Bal and the bags we own. I understand that the current "artistic" vision/direction of the company has nothing to do with my bags -- all of which are 'oldies', but personally I know I'll have a hard time disassociating them with what is currently happening and the direction the company seems to be leaning in for the past few years, actually. I'm just going to closet mine for a bit and perhaps decide later to sell/keep/donate. Make whatever choice you feel good about.


Agree. I will take the same approach I have taken to Michael Jackson. I can no longer listen to his music and enjoy it. I can't separate him from what I believe he did.


----------



## jellyv

millivanilli said:


> The question is whether this is intentional on H's part or if it's an unintentional design idea.  I'm leaning towards design and not intentional because the look of the jewelry is intricate,


The Hermes Collier de Chien form, with a circular ring and studs, is well known to have originated _with intention_ in a dog collar design *nearly a hundred years ago.* For dogs.


----------



## SpeedyJC

millivanilli said:


> not sure about that "over the line" I guess we have really serious BDSM fanatics going on... On the bright side: no children, no teddy bear.
> 
> View attachment 5661620



One does not need to be a "BDSM fanatic" to recognize BDSM. That photo you posted is of adults NOT children, huge difference.


PurseUOut said:


> Well stated. While some can reasonably conclude this is "punk" I find others are being purposely obtuse as to what this imagery is actually depicting/promoting - which is clearly the sexualization and masochistic abuse of children; to the extent that the law will let them get away with visualizing (as the court decision in Williams inferred). And then to further gaslight us who KNOW what the truth  as super woke cancel culture vultures when we are simply enforcing the universally agreed upon boundary of not involving children in adult sexualized **** is quite infuriating. I am a black woman. If Balenciaga had an ad promoting white hoods or other KKK references I would not be calling for a universal boycott. To the contrary, I believe companies are permitted to be racist, sexist, etc. and the free market should dictate whether or not their company ethos is acceptable to the public and/or profitable to them. But when it comes to babies/toddlers/children - those who cannot reasonably give any consent - we as adults have the obligation and duty to protect them and their innocence until such time comes when they are adults and can freely consent to BDSM/kink imagery on their own accord. The fact that I even have to spell this out to adults who should know better is even more disgusting than the actual ad itself.


I think maybe its just easier for some people to be obtuse because they do not want to admit that there is something very sinister/pedophilic  about a photoshoot of a brand they enjoy. Even if someone does not like Bal sometimes its just easier to deny the ugliness of the world and those who bring up the ugly get gas-lighted or called "conspiracy theorist" or whatever. Just my thoughts. I guess its much easier to think "oh its punk no biggie!"

 Of course some people may just honestly think its punk because yes punk does have BDSM influences however this photoshoot is not punk.  As someone who partakes in punk scene/culture I really wish people would leave punks out of it!


----------



## SpeedyJC

aunaturale9 said:


> Ah I came on here to ask-- I have one Balenciaga bag, but I am not sure if I should keep it now. I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing it now that all this is happening, but what is everyone else doing?


Im done with Balenciaga. I have city bags but will not be using them and will get rid of them. That is just my choice.  The topic of child abuse is too close of a topic for me to feel comfortable using my bags.

Do what you feel is best. If you do not want to wear them dont. If you do then go ahead, you already owned the bag prior to this.


----------



## millivanilli

SpeedyJC said:


> One does not need to be a "BDSM fanatic" to recognize BDSM. That photo you posted is of adults NOT children, huge difference.
> 
> I think maybe its just easier for some people to be obtuse because they do not want to admit that there is something very sinister/pedophilic  about a photoshoot of a brand they enjoy. Even if someone does not like Bal sometimes its just easier to deny the ugliness of the world and those who bring up the ugly get gas-lighted or called "conspiracy theorist" or whatever. Just my thoughts. I guess its much easier to think "oh its punk no biggie!"
> 
> Of course some people may just honestly think its punk because yes punk does have BDSM influences however this photoshoot is not punk.  As someone who partakes in punk scene/culture I really wish people would leave punks out of it!


calm down, my dear. If you had read my - manifold! - posts here, you would have seen that the post you quoted was just a side comment to a long series of explanatory posts, why we find in the pictures with the teddy bears NO punk but Bdsm.  I'm not the enemy.


----------



## millivanilli

jellyv said:


> The Hermes Collier de Chien form, with a circular ring and studs, is well known to have originated _with intention_ in a dog collar design *nearly a hundred years ago.* For dogs.


no need to scream at me. Jeez.


----------



## papertiger

millivanilli said:


> I can understand that when you look at the pictures you think of punk. If we look at pictures of punks and their clothes or symbols, it is noticeable that punks wear collars (see also the picture),
> View attachment 5661587
> 
> 
> but not collars that have the BDSM language in the form of a "collar". The classic BDSM collar has a ring that is supposed to be used to put on a leash or something similar. (see picture 2 of the ad on the bed, there is a leash - the yellow thingy on the bed)
> 
> View attachment 5661588
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ring is an elementary part of the collars and is found in BDSM relevant jewelry, because it actually corresponds to the ring of the O,. By the ring of O, when worn, one recognizes an active member of the BDSm community, dominant people wear it as a ring on the left hand, submissive on the right. The collar is given to the submissive part by the dominant part and corresponds most closely to a wedding ring. A variation takes place such that either straight hoops are used as collars, or chains with a lock that can only be opened by the Dom. So it is a clear BDSM language. Long story, unimportant for here, but:
> 
> Punk does not have a ring of O in any form in its typical way
> BDSM has the ring of O as a typical sign. THE typical sign. Either that or the triskele. These are the two main signs for BDSM.
> 
> If you look at the teddy bear, you see the ring of O pretty clearly, and as I mentioned, the setting is very clear. We also find a leash. We also find the classic handcuffs - also with the ring of O andthigh cuffs, also with an eyelet to tie them down. This is not punk, it's BDSM.  The fact that punks borrow elements from BDSM and thus the boundaries are not very clear - sure, it happens all the time, it's not a bad thing. But the symbols in BOTH pictures are clear, I'm sorry to say. Believe me, I would also prefer it if BDSM would not end up in the dirty corner again. a-----------------gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain.



Depends on the Punk. There were no rules in British punk except the mix and juxtapositioning of disparate elements. Punks highlighted the hypocrisy of British society, class systems and especially the po-faced middle classes. They mixed bourgeoise society uniforms like cardigans and twinsets (Jordan, Westwood) with BDSM, torn clothes and hairstyles that took hours and mocked it all. Some punks wore actual dog collars and others just studded leather. I wasn't old enough to be a punk but in the 90s my father was   when I asked for a Hermes CDC cuff in Paris. My uncle laughed at my father and said "it's not what you think". I was only 15, but at least it was _my_ idea. I still have it and another. 





1970s British punk wearing a dog collar Pic CNN

Hermes CDCs, Cartier Love bracelets and JDC, VCA's Zip necklace, Nadine Ghosn's gold bike chains and others all use a surrealist language  than entwine 'edgy' sexual narratives and power play artistically with high fashion and precious materials. Catier's Loves are based on slave shackles (I could never). They don't however (thank goodness) use children in their ads. It's a semiotic language for adults (only).  For me there's nothing wrong with the bears as objects (if someone likes that kind of thing) it's the context of the campaign pictures that creates the story, and the story and meta-narrative is WRONG which ever way it's read and whoever is reading it (IMHO). 

Anyway, walked past Balenciaga twice today, no one in there but staff. If this campaign (or 2) was/were done for controversy, it's probably working, but at the end of the day if it doesn't translate into sales, heads will roll regardless. Kering have poured millions into Derma's Balenciaga lately, including couture shows, collabs, and massive PR, all done to raise the profile of the brand, even if this 'stirring-up of feelings' is intentional, I think it's an own goal regards brand recognition and profits.


----------



## Meta

One wonders how they went from their commitment... to having children in their ads. (credit to @curiouslight on Twitter.)











						Kering Group Bans Working With Models Under 18
					

Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent, Balenciaga and Alexander McQueen will ban underage models from 2020.




					www.forbes.com
				














						Kering Commits to Using Models Over 18: Will the Rest of the Fashion World Follow Suit?
					

The luxury group behind Gucci, Saint Laurent, and Balenciaga will no longer use underage talent in its collections or advertising.




					www.vogue.com
				




The two images above were from @curiouslight's Twitter 

Adding this taken from Kering's site:











						Kering commits to working only with models aged over 18
					

Kering commits to working only with models aged over 18




					www.kering.com


----------



## Allisonfaye

papertiger said:


> Depends on the Punk. There were no rules in British punk except the mix and juxtapositioning of disparate elements. Punks highlighted the hypocrisy of British society, class systems and especially the po-faced middle classes. They mixed bourgeoise society uniforms like cardigans and twinsets (Jordan, Westwood) with BDSM, torn clothes and hairstyles that took hours and mocked it all. Some punks wore actual dog collars and others just studded leather. I wasn't old enough to be a punk but in the 90s my father was   when I asked for a Hermes CDC cuff in Paris. My uncle laughed at my father and said "it's not what you think". I was only 15, but at least it was _my_ idea. I still have it and another.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 5661699
> 
> 1970s British punk wearing a dog collar Pic CNN
> 
> Hermes CDCs, Cartier Love bracelets and JDC, VCA's Zip necklace, Nadine Ghosn's gold bike chains and others all use a surrealist language  than entwine 'edgy' sexual narratives and power play artistically with high fashion and precious materials. Catier's Loves are based on slave shackles (I could never). They don't however (thank goodness) use children in their ads. It's a semiotic language for adults (only).  For me there's nothing wrong with the bears as objects (if someone likes that kind of thing) it's the context of the campaign pictures that creates the story, and the story and meta-narrative is WRONG which ever way it's read and whoever is reading it (IMHO).
> 
> Anyway, walked past Balenciaga twice today, no one in there but staff. If this campaign (or 2) was/were done for controversy, it's probably working, but at the end of the day if it doesn't translate into sales, heads will roll regardless. Kering have poured millions into Derma's Balenciaga lately, including couture shows, collabs, and massive PR, all done to raise the profile of the brand, even if this 'stirring-up of feelings' is intentional, I think it's an own goal regards brand recognition and profits.


Interesting. Thanks. I never really knew much about punk. I know a bit more about BDSM. But I do wonder how this campaign impacts survivors and how THEY feel about it.


----------



## millivanilli

papertiger said:


> Depends on the Punk. There were no rules in British punk except the mix and juxtapositioning of disparate elements. Punks highlighted the hypocrisy of British society, class systems and especially the po-faced middle classes. They mixed bourgeoise society uniforms like cardigans and twinsets (Jordan, Westwood) with BDSM, torn clothes and hairstyles that took hours and mocked it all. Some punks wore actual dog collars and others just studded leather. I wasn't old enough to be a punk but in the 90s my father was   when I asked for a Hermes CDC cuff in Paris. My uncle laughed at my father and said "it's not what you think". I was only 15, but at least it was _my_ idea. I still have it and another.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 5661699
> 
> 1970s British punk wearing a dog collar Pic CNN
> 
> Hermes CDCs, Cartier Love bracelets and JDC, VCA's Zip necklace, Nadine Ghosn's gold bike chains and others all use a surrealist language  than entwine 'edgy' sexual narratives and power play artistically with high fashion and precious materials. Catier's Loves are based on slave shackles (I could never). They don't however (thank goodness) use children in their ads. It's a semiotic language for adults (only).  For me there's nothing wrong with the bears as objects (if someone likes that kind of thing) it's the context of the campaign pictures that creates the story, and the story and meta-narrative is WRONG which ever way it's read and whoever is reading it (IMHO).
> 
> Anyway, walked past Balenciaga twice today, no one in there but staff. If this campaign (or 2) was/were done for controversy, it's probably working, but at the end of the day if it doesn't translate into sales, heads will roll regardless. Kering have poured millions into Derma's Balenciaga lately, including couture shows, collabs, and massive PR, all done to raise the profile of the brand, even if this 'stirring-up of feelings' is intentional, I think it's an own goal regards brand recognition and pr


Thanks, that was very interesting to read- I didn't know that about Cartier for example and am shocked.

I think we agree that "adult symbols" are not a problem (currently i am moderately enthusiastic, because the problem that BDSM is anchored in the dirty corner starts again), as long as children are not involved, because that is simply the last and unforgivable. Because of me, Balenciaga advertises with the wildest things that the colorful BDSM world has to offer. I () am not shocked by this - see my previous posts, I am an active member of the BDSM community, and have been for decades. To shock me, you need a bit more than some rings, bondage tapes (in the third picture very obvious, the kid with the two teddy bears in his rooms) or similar. The rest of the population survives this without any problems and I don't see any problem with advertising that tests the limits. But kids!! CHILDREN!!! in a context that is clearly sexualized with imagery that definitely can't be misunderstood, that's already violent and, in my view, unforgivable. That the BDSM world does not defend itself against such depictions, I do not understand, because one of our main credos " safe, sane and consensual" was massively broken with these images. Our code of honor stipulates that not even uninvolved adults should notice anything, and children are really so off limits that this should actually cause a storm of outrage -

honestly: i saw the teddy bear in the fashion show recording and found it quite adorable - according to my lifestyle - and thought about buying it. But i am an adult. As soon as children are put into a sexualized context, that's simply the end. It reminds me of the debate with the Palmers models, which escalated in Austria at the time, in which girls were placed in an inappropriate sujet. The public also found that highly unfunny at the time, because the imagery conveyed something similar.

edit: needed to fix the autocorrect that wanted to outsmart me.ha, not today, Siri!


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## 880

jellyv said:


> The Hermes Collier de Chien form, with a circular ring and studs, is well known to have originated _with intention_ in a dog collar design *nearly a hundred years ago.* For dogs.



I suppose this is the wrong time to admit that I used to use an H dog collar to anchor a scarf as a top in H subforum. No one on TPF scarf threads ever told me about any of this. . .

The tiret is also a form of ring motif that Hermes repeats throughout its collections. 

If I had any balenciaga bags or other stuff, I would put it away for awhile and see how I felt about it later. 

From a brand recovery perspective, I would have felt much better about the brand if they got rid of the creatives that thought this up, and sincerely apologized. The fact that the creative seems to fixate on children’s images, there are no words.

ETA: is the term ring of O connected to Pauline Reages book, A Story of O? I will confess, decades ago, the book really horrified me, and I could not keep reading


----------



## SpeedyJC

millivanilli said:


> calm down, my dear. If you had read my - manifold! - posts here, you would have seen that the post you quoted was just a side comment to a long series of explanatory posts, why we find in the pictures with the teddy bears NO punk but Bdsm.  I'm not the enemy.


First off I am not your dear so do not call me that.

Second off I was not angry about the photo being posted simply responding to your comment above the photo you posted because that is how public message boards work. Not sure why you think I was worked up about it but thats on your end.

Again not punk, moving on....


----------



## millivanilli

ok, let's keep it like that.


----------



## Luvbolide

MooMooVT said:


> The flight logs aren’t evidence of a crime. I want the client list. I agree it is highly unlikely to result in criminal charges (sadly). But like Balenciaga, the public exposure of these people is what I’m looking for.
> 
> There are so many who worship at the alter of Hollywood, political figures, and others considered in the upper echelons of society when in fact many are rapists, pedophiles, murderers, etc. But they made a funny movie or agree with me on politics or they dress fashionably and attend the Met Gala, so ignorance is bliss.


The flight logs are a list - the names of passengers are listed.  There are names in the documents that have been and are continuously being released by the court in Florida.  Not sure what more info you think “a list” is.


----------



## MooMooVT

Luvbolide said:


> The flight logs are a list - the names of passengers are listed.  There are names in the documents that have been and are continuously being released by the court in Florida.  Not sure what more info you think “a list” is.


I don’t think everyone who flew with him or took a photo with him knew or participated in illegal activity. I do think there’s a record of those who actively participated in child sexual assault. Epstein and Maxwell could also spill and/or corroborate. But Epstein was killed before that could happen. Maxwell isn’t speaking - for now. She knows she’d be killed quickly if she does. It will never come out because of who’s involved and their standing in society.


----------



## MooMooVT

Swanky said:


> Bears repeating!
> 
> 
> 
> Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


Noted. TY!


----------



## queennadine

Will never buy any Kering group brands again. It’s disgusting, part of a plan, and absolutely inexcusable.


----------



## Allisonfaye

queennadine said:


> Will never buy any Kering group brands again. It’s disgusting, part of a plan, and absolutely inexcusable.


I had no idea how many brands they owned. Balenciaga sure has a lot of job openings.


----------



## redney

Allisonfaye said:


> I had no idea how many brands they owned. Balenciaga sure has a lot of job openings.


Wow, neither did I. Gucci, Saint Laurent, Bottega Veneta, Balenciaga, Alexander McQueen, Brioni, Boucheron, Pomellato, DoDo, Qeelin, as well as Kering Eyewear.

Their home page has....kids.


----------



## ChampagneandChakras

queennadine said:


> Will never buy any Kering group brands again. It’s disgusting, part of a plan, and absolutely inexcusable.


What she said.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

HAZE MAT said:


> I think that we tend to blow things out of proportion. The so called bondage gear is no different than looking at works by Tom of Finland.
> 
> Honestly I really found the campaign a brilliant social commentary particularly about us.
> 
> Often art speaks more about us than the artist themselves. Similar flap over the Mapplethorpe stuff back in the 1980s.Re- Tom by





HAZE MAT said:


> I think that we tend to blow things out of proportion. The so called bondage gear is no different than looking at works by Tom of Finland.
> 
> Honestly I really found the campaign a brilliant social commentary particularly about us.
> 
> Often art speaks more about us than the artist themselves. Similar flap over the Mapplethorpe stuff back in the 1980s.


Isn't Tom by Finland homoerotic art - masculine men? Are children used ? Are you referring to the Mapplethorpe film opening in Tribeca a few years ago? If so, I don't see the connection..I think you are down playing the use of children being the offensive element.


----------



## SpeedyJC

trippinonsunshine said:


> Isn't Tom by Finland homoerotic art - masculine men? Are children used ? Are you referring to the Mapplethorpe film opening in Tribeca a few years ago? If so, I don't see the connection..I think you are down playing the use of children being the offensive element.


Yes it is of grown men. Tom of Finland to my knowledge did not do any art featuring children.

His art is very different from this.


----------



## hillaryhath

it was deliberate, some people really are that sick. officially over balenciaga, glad i didn't purchase a bag in my cart on fashionphile.


----------



## Suzil

I was sexually abused at age 4 (for many years). I am now, proudly, a “normal” 40 year old adult who has made peace with her past but to see the look on those children’s eyes was very hurtful… something I know first hand what lies behind. What a heartbreak to know what those kids are really going through. This is no mistake, they are testing us; how much more can they push us? Where are we morally? Do we see what is hidden in plain sight? And this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Don’t have answers but I have questions and that is a start!


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## dangerouscurves

Suzil said:


> I was sexually abused at age 4 (for many years). I am now, proudly, a “normal” 40 year old adult who has made peace with her past but to see the look on those children’s eyes was very hurtful… something I know first hand what lies behind. What a heartbreak to know what those kids are really going through. This is no mistake, they are testing us; how much more can they push us? Where are we morally? Do we see what is hidden in plain sight? And this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Don’t have answers but I have questions and that is a start!


You're a strong person. ❤️❤️❤️


----------



## ColetteBlue

jellyv said:


> I find it ludicrous to suggest that consumers should excommunicate their bags from 2001--Fall 2022 on this basis...what the hell.


If any PFers want to excommunicate their Ghesquiere-era Balenciaga bags to me, I am happy to take the weight off your shoulders.


----------



## Norm.Core

ColetteBlue said:


> If any PFers want to excommunicate their Ghesquiere-era Balenciaga bags to me, I am happy to take the weight off your shoulders.


Thank you for injecting some light-hearted humour. ❤️

This thread is heavy and emotional but appreciate the open discussion about this seriously wrong Bal campaign.


----------



## Shelby33

RitaLA said:


> I am passionate about the subject because I see, firsthand, how people have been hurt by these behaviors toward children. I have heard, people saying that their parents, their fathers, took them to other men to be raped and molested. Again, if all you do is go to the mall and enjoy the wonderful life that was given to you, bless you! Many others don't have that privilege. And as a society, we need to protect the vulnerable. We have the obligation, as human beings, to speak up about any ... I mean ANY sign of abuse. When someone is a mandated reporter, that person doesn't wait to see tapes and abuse in action. They CAN READ what is going on. They see the signs, and they report. I believe we are all mandated-reporters. These children cannot protect themselves. We must do it for them. We are coming from an assumption that a caregiver is a safe figure; that a parent has their children's best interests in mind. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!  Why do we think that these celebrities and these large corporations have ethics? Where did we get this conclusion from? We create narratives in our own heads that people wouldn't do certain things because we can't fathom such atrocities. But, believe me ... they can and they will


". Again, if all you do is go to the mall and enjoy the wonderful life that was given to you, bless you!" 
As a professional as you say you are, don't you think this comment was unnecessary? You don't know if the person you are talking to was sexually abused as a child? I was, but I still wasn't aware of many of the examples posted in this thread.


----------



## Shelby33

Suzil said:


> I was sexually abused at age 4 (for many years). I am now, proudly, a “normal” 40 year old adult who has made peace with her past but to see the look on those children’s eyes was very hurtful… something I know first hand what lies behind. What a heartbreak to know what those kids are really going through. This is no mistake, they are testing us; how much more can they push us? Where are we morally? Do we see what is hidden in plain sight? And this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Don’t have answers but I have questions and that is a start!


I'm so sorry you had to go through that. 
I was just going to post about the expression on that little girl's face. Not even fear, just hopeless resignation.


----------



## Brooklynite

880 said:


> ETA: is the term ring of O connected to Pauline Reages book, A Story of O? I will confess, decades ago, the book really horrified me, and I could not keep reading


omg exactly the same here. It was so dark!


----------



## rkuro

RitaLA said:


> The blurred images are paintings by a painter named Michael Borremans. His book was placed for everyone to see on one of the desks at a Balenciaga photoshoot. He is known for painting pictures of children bathed in blood and glorified child violence. Now, tell me this was an accident and an apology is sufficient???????  NO! NEVER!
> 
> View attachment 5660629
> 
> 
> View attachment 5660630


 I didn’t notice that before.. I looked it up, that artist’s paintings are shocking! There’s a lot of hidden messages in this ad.


----------



## Brooklynite

rkuro said:


> I didn’t notice that before.. I looked it up, that artist’s paintings are shocking! There’s a lot of hidden messages in this ad.


I looked at those pics and almost threw up this morning.
Some people are sick. Please, don't call them artists.


----------



## thewave1969

Saw the various photos, the campaign, the ones from Lotta Volkova that had posted on her IG, etc.  basically this is not art or creativity. This is a sick attempt to normalize sadistic pedofilia so that the public will became gradually immune to it. All pedophiles belong in jail and never forgiven by humanity. Hope that Balenciaga will suffer extreme financial trouble and become forgotten


----------



## Suzil

Shelby33 said:


> I'm so sorry you had to go through that.
> I was just going to post about the expression on that little girl's face. Not even fear, just hopeless resignation.


Thank you so much. And yes, unfortunately that is exactly what that little girl is telling us, how hopeless she feels


----------



## Suzil

Suzil said:


> I was sexually abused at age 4 (for many years). I am now, proudly, a “normal” 40 year old adult who has made peace with her past but to see the look on those children’s eyes was very hurtful… something I know first hand what lies behind. What a heartbreak to know what those kids are really going through. This is no mistake, they are testing us; how much more can they push us? Where are we morally? Do we see what is hidden in plain sight? And this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Don’t have answers but I have questions and that is a start!


Editing to add: child abuse and sex trafficking have been in the spotlight recently due to high profile scandals but parents: this crap very much happens at closer environments: home, schools, etc and abuse is usually done by family members or close people; stay vigilant, trust your child and your gut; protect them from everybody!


----------



## J'adoreHermes

I have been following this unfolding, and I am just appalled. I am appalled that any company would allow these images and campaign to be come up with, produced, and then published. As others have echoed, such a campaign must have gone through many levels of scrutiny and approvals. 

For these images to have been published, there seems to be a clear issue in the governance  of Balenciaga and Kering as a group. Administratively, Kering and Balenciaga are housed together in Paris. After Gucci, the rise of Balenciaga in popular culture and social media was the brainchild of the group. Kering has been very successful in taking underperforming brands and transforming them into leaders and the hottest brands to a certain degree more successfully than LVMH. As such, Kering in my eyes is quite the master of publicity and creating trends, so this choice of them is truly bizarre to me. 

I have mostly observed Balenciaga from afar through pictures of their shows in the news or by walking past their headquarters in the 7eme arrondissement. Also, I personally don’t own any Balenciaga pieces, but we have been a long term customer of Brioni. Additionally, I have friends who went to school with the Pinault. As such, I have spoken to and hear of the family in the Parisian circle, and I find this very shocking that they would allow this to happen. So while this is my first time in the Balenciaga forum and unfamiliar with its  universe, I am greatly shocked by Kering as the parent company. I would like to see more accountability from not only Balenciaga but also Kering as a group. The same way Balenciaga used their platform to support and help Ukraine, I hope the platform will be used to create a positive change to truly take account and make a change. 

Sustainability has been a fundamental issue for Kering, and sustainability is not simply about the environment. Rather the social and governance aspects are just as important if not more. These campaigns completely go against these principles. Beyond the stakeholder and customer dissent, I hope shareholders also react to this and hold Balenciaga and Kering accountable.


----------



## piperdog

PurseUOut said:


> I hear you and I don't disagree.
> 
> I still think _private_ companies have the right to promote any racist, sexist, anti-semetic imagery they want - providing all the participants and stakeholders are 18+ and consent without duress. I know its a controversial opinion but I am a strong believer in protecting adults rights to free speech/expression even if it is against my individual interest or belief. As such, companies also have the right to accept the free market consequences, including the inevitable cancel culture, boycotting, bankruptcy, lawsuits, federal civil rights violations, and/or criminal prosecution should they engage in, or their promotion of these images reasonably leads to violence.
> 
> What companies don't have a right to do is use actual toddlers (who can't consent) in advertisements to promote practices that are clearly against their developmental interests and will cause them tremendous physical and psychological harm. Companies can't use toddlers in ad campaigns to legitimize pedophilia and sadomasochistic activities against other children, who again, can't consent to those sexual acts with adults nor agree to mutilation, abuse or sacrifices. It's about protecting the most vulnerable in our society until such time comes where they are legally able to understand the implications behind what their image is being used for. This is especially true now as there is a push to normalize this from sick adults, we have to quell it with full force.


I agree, especially with your second paragraph. That's what makes the combination of both of the recent ad campaigns SO troubling.

1) The Office ad with the Williams case - It's a stretch, but I may be willing to suspend disbelief that an office photoshoot for a fashion house advertisement would just HAPPEN to include a printout of a USSC case that over a decade old. It's odd, but whatever. I'm a lawyer who likes to read on paper instead of screens, so I have printouts of old court cases around my workspace too. The fact that it's the Williams decision is random, but on its own could be innocuous.

2) The photos with the kids - We don't need to go back over why so many people found these images so unsettling. I offer special thanks to tpf posters who were willing to share added context and insight based on their own experiences.

As some posters have taken great pains to point out, these are completely separate campaigns. Set designers, photographers, models, etc. for one likely had no idea what was included in the other. But what did they have in common? Balenciaga. I find it hard to believe that an image-driven fashion house wouldn't comprehensively review ALL photos for major ad campaigns for consistency and cohesiveness and brand messaging before allowing them to be used. And that's what generates doubt that it was all just a weird coincidence and Bal had no idea what was going on. Because including the Williams decision in the office ads introduces the idea that the research was done ahead of time about what the legal boundaries were for CP. I expect that lawyers for Bal/Kering did exactly that research, which is probably what led to green-lighting the kids' ad.

IMO, that's what makes this beyond the pale, and also makes me wonder what other photos may have been taken for the kids' ads that weren't used in the initial release or were deemed unusable. As we saw from the initial backlash and Bal's 'response' the image of the girl holding the bear was taken down, but replaced with one where a little boy is in the same room with the bear, but not interacting with it. I'll defer to those who have worked in photography/fashion, but it seems reasonable to assume that MANY photos of MANY different scenes were taken, giving the client choices for which images to ultimately use. Is that why Bal/Kering did their legal research about what is and is not permissible?

As I read back over this, there is a LOT of supposition and not giving Bal the benefit of the doubt. But it's hard to go easy on an international conglomerate including a fashion house that prides itself on pushing boundaries and being shocking when the other side of the equation are little kids having their picture taken surrounded by questionable objects. IMO Balenciaga is going to have to do a much better job explaining itself, the intended narrative behind the ad campaign, and what went awry, before they're in the clear again. My prediction is that they never will, which would only compound why they're problematic.


----------



## MooMooVT

PurseUOut said:


> I hear you and I don't disagree.
> 
> I still think _private_ companies have the right to promote any racist, sexist, anti-semetic imagery they want - providing all the participants and stakeholders are 18+ and consent without duress. I know its a controversial opinion but I am a strong believer in protecting adults rights to free speech/expression even if it is against my individual interest or belief. As such, companies also have the right to accept the free market consequences, including the inevitable cancel culture, boycotting, bankruptcy, lawsuits, federal civil rights violations, and/or criminal prosecution should they engage in, or their promotion of these images reasonably leads to violence.
> 
> What companies don't have a right to do is use actual toddlers (who can't consent) in advertisements to promote practices that are clearly against their developmental interests and will cause them tremendous physical and psychological harm. Companies can't use toddlers in ad campaigns to legitimize pedophilia and sadomasochistic activities against other children, who again, can't consent to those sexual acts with adults nor agree to mutilation, abuse or sacrifices. It's about protecting the most vulnerable in our society until such time comes where they are legally able to understand the implications behind what their image is being used for. This is especially true now as there is a push to normalize this from sick adults, we have to quell it with full force.


Couldn't agree more. Consenting adults can do as they wish - whether behind closed doors, on twitter, or in advertising campaigns. If they're going to be racist, homophobic, sexist, what have you - then we as friends, consumers, etc. can choose to hang out with them or not - buy their products or not - listen to their music or not. It's how the free market and free speech work and I'm 100% behind this model.

But once they get children involved - now I have THOUGHTS!


----------



## lulu212121

I am so disturbed by this! Balenciaga's statement is very weak. I don't buy that this campaign went through so many hands and no one noticed anything. Even if Kering/Balenciaga didn't "see" anything wrong, surely they "felt" it. I can't in good faith give business to a corporation that is this blind or unaware. I question what else they are unaware of.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Bonosbabe

Beyond sick - evil is a better word. Don’t care to debate this either - it’s my opinion. 

Will never buy again.


----------



## Lodpah

Some sick pedophiles working in the  fashion industry. What more could it be? Thought they’d be slick and couch it somehow in the ad. I think Kanye definitely knows things.


----------



## CrackBerryCream

So far Kering's stocks are not affected by this. Either not enough people saw the news or the market doesn’t care.


----------



## RitaLA

lulu212121 said:


> I am so disturbed by this! Balenciaga's statement is very weak. I don't buy that this campaign went through so many hands and no one noticed anything. Even if Kering/Balenciaga didn't "see" anything wrong, surely they "felt" it. I can't in good faith give business to a corporation that is this blind or unaware. I question what else they are unaware of.


Ps: this answer is in acknowledgment of what you said.
I don't believe they are unaware. I think they thought we would be unaware. If we start tracking Balenciaga, some things started pointing to this time in History. This didn't happen overnight. It has been a systemic and well-planned process to continue exploring the child sexualization theme but they have been slowly introducing it to the public. The typical frog in the pan scenario. Suddenly, they get too comfortable, and bam! This is not new for them. The difference is that it wasn't so overt in the past. But I believe there is a time for everything and it's our time to open our eyes and not allow companies like that to use children to try to normalize pedophilia. This is not art. But let's go into the rabbit hole of the "art" conversation.  If you are a mother, look at Michael Borressmans paintings and read about the themes of this art.  How would you feel about his art, knowing that his paintings promote violence against children? Would you buy his paintings?  Would you have a conversation with your children about it?  What about pictures from Balenciaga that promote child violence and even adult violence (panda bear), does that align with your worldview?  If it does, good luck and move on. Rachel Chandler, Lotta Volkova, and others are all connected. Do your research (meaning: people in general).


----------



## RitaLA

CrackBerryCream said:


> So far Kering's stocks are not affected by this. Either not enough people saw the news or the market doesn’t care.
> 
> View attachment 5662096


Keep in mind that the stock market is highly manipulated. They have controls in place to keep it under control


----------



## jellyv

RitaLA said:


> .* They have controls in place to keep it under control*


Who is "they"? What are you referring to?


----------



## jellyv

RitaLA said:


> a group of _elites who handle everything from the background. _Think about Klaus Schwab, Rockefellers, Rothschild, Soros, Gates, etc.


Classic antisemitic tropes.


----------



## RitaLA

jellyv said:


> Who is "they"? What are you referring to?


Hedge fund managers have a lot of control. This is one aspect and one example. These controls were established years ago to protect the market. It doesn't fluctuate freely.



jellyv said:


> @Swanky


did you tag someone? Did I say anything wrong?



jellyv said:


> @Swanky


If I said something inappropriate, you can directly talk to me. No worries. I am open to feedback and I don't want to offend anyone or break the rules. Sometimes we get too involved in the conversation. I won't get defensive or anything like that. It's pure dialogue.


----------



## preppie

jellyv said:


> Who is "they"? What are you referring
> 
> 
> RitaLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you tag someone? Did I say anything wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Your post was overtly anti-Semitic, so yeah, you said something very wrong.
Click to expand...


----------



## RitaLA

Suzil said:


> I was sexually abused at age 4 (for many years). I am now, proudly, a “normal” 40 year old adult who has made peace with her past but to see the look on those children’s eyes was very hurtful… something I know first hand what lies behind. What a heartbreak to know what those kids are really going through. This is no mistake, they are testing us; how much more can they push us? Where are we morally? Do we see what is hidden in plain sight? And this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Don’t have answers but I have questions and that is a start!


Thank you for sharing your experience and I am deeply sorry that it happened to you. It's heartbreaking and it leaves so many wounds. I think that is why we are so passionate about the topic. If one has been sexually abused or works with victims of sexual abuse (which there are so many different expressions of it) we can see the writing on the wall. Wishing you all the best


----------



## RitaLA

anti-semitic? How? And I am not challenging you. I am just trying to understand


----------



## preppie

RitaLA said:


> anti-semitic? How? And I am not challenging you. I am just trying to understand


You posted that “they” control the market, then listed off a list of Jewish individuals and family names.  You cannot be so daft as to not know that is a major and oldest anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in history, one even used by the Nazis.  It’s combination with this thread is practically invoking a blood libel smear in Jewish persons.


----------



## RitaLA

preppie said:


> You posted that “they” control the market, then listed off a list of Jewish individuals and family names.  You cannot be so daft as to not know that is a major and oldest anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in history, one even used by the Nazis.  It’s combination with this thread is practically invoking a blood libel smear in Jewish persons.


Yikes, I didn't even know they were Jews. I love Jewish people. That had nothing to do with a religious background. I was speaking from an economical standpoint of certain people being in control and holding a large majority of financial assets in the country. Thanks for pointing it out. But the message was not against any specific group


----------



## Jaxholt15

I have always liked Balenciaga, clothes, shoes, and bags.  I own many items and will continue to wear/carry the items I own.  I will purchase other items in the future.  I looked this up and the children with the weird teddy bags (and they are weird bags) are wearing t-shirts and shorts.  The news article however is puzzling and definitely offensive.  What I am saying is I am not abandoning one of my favorite brands because someone in marketing made a mistake/error in judgement.


----------



## RitaLA

by the way, if at any point I have offended anyone I ask for forgiveness. Thank you @preppie for sharing how my statement might have been interpreted from a religious or racial lens. Under no circumstances, I would insult people and their humanity. This is the beauty of dialogue. We are able to share how others experience us and what is said. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## bklner2014

RitaLA said:


> Ps: this answer is in acknowledgment of what you said.
> I don't believe they are unaware. I think they thought we would be unaware. If we start tracking Balenciaga, some things started pointing to this time in History. This didn't happen overnight. It has been a systemic and well-planned process to continue exploring the child sexualization theme but they have been slowly introducing it to the public. The typical frog in the pan scenario. Suddenly, they get too comfortable, and bam! This is not new for them. The difference is that it wasn't so overt in the past. But I believe there is a time for everything and it's our time to open our eyes and not allow companies like that to use children to try to normalize pedophilia. This is not art. But let's go into the rabbit hole of the "art" conversation.  If you are a mother, look at Michael Borressmans paintings and read about the themes of this art.  How would you feel about his art, knowing that his paintings promote violence against children? Would you buy his paintings?  Would you have a conversation with your children about it?  What about pictures from Balenciaga that promote child violence and even adult violence (panda bear), does that align with your worldview?  If it does, good luck and move on. Rachel Chandler, Lotta Volkova, and others are all connected. Do your research (meaning: people in general).


As someone unfamiliar with any of Balenciaga's ad campaigns (I don't own any Bal items, although the Bazar tote did catch my eye), can you please share more information on the evolution of their campaigns that explore the sexualization of children? I was not aware of this at all, until this most recent Teddy Bear campaign.


----------



## bklner2014

Swanky said:


> *Bears repeating!*


An appropriate pun for this thread!


----------



## Brooklynite

Jaxholt15 said:


> I have always liked Balenciaga, clothes, shoes, and bags.  I own many items and will continue to wear/carry the items I own.  I will purchase other items in the future.  I looked this up and the children with the weird teddy bags (and they are weird bags) are wearing t-shirts and shorts.  The news article however is puzzling and definitely offensive.  What I am saying is I am not abandoning one of my favorite brands because someone in marketing made a mistake/error in judgement.


The whole point is that it's not an error in marketing. It is deliberate.


----------



## HAZE MAT

As a cool side note, the artist alluded within the ad is Michael Borremans whose work at David Zwirner I really dig- https://www.davidzwirner.com/artists/michael-borremans

The book featured in the ad is https://www.davidzwirnerbooks.com/product/michael-borremans-fire-from-the-sun

This controversy reminds me so much of when Balthus paintings first came out- https://gagosian.com/artists/balthus/

I guess in 10 years we will re-evaluate the sociopolitical acuity of the campaign and learn that in hindsight, it was pivotal just like Tom Ford x Gucci ads or the YSL ads from the 1980s.

At least we aren't getting Terry Richardson here are we? LOL


----------



## AH673

Really bizarre. I wonder where the child-models parents were (mentally) during these shoots. Did the excitement of the gig cancel out any common sense? I am betting the brand thought they were going hard-rocker/edgy or something with this and the stylist thought the bondage gear looked pretty heavy metal but I find it impossible that no one saw the finished product and didn't think, "um this is not a good result".  They actually paid to place them! They are going to lose a boatload over this. Luxury brands are 80% social cache; this is going to sting. I am glad I don't own this stock and I'm also glad I don't own their bags.  Good grief.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

RitaLA said:


> anti-semitic? How? And I am not challenging you. I am just trying to understand


I didn't interpret what you said as antisemitic. I'm confused myself.


----------



## HAZE MAT

AH673 said:


> Really bizarre. I wonder where the child-models parents were (mentally) during these shoots. Did the excitement of the gig cancel out any common sense? I am betting the brand thought they were going hard-rocker/edgy or something with this and the stylist thought the bondage gear looked pretty heavy metal but I find it impossible that no one saw the finished product and didn't think, "um this is not a good result".  They actually paid to place them! They are going to lose a boatload over this. Luxury brands are 80% social cache; this is going to sting. I am glad I don't own this stock and I'm also glad I don't own their bags.  Good grief.


Considering how many pieces in the Balenciaga have a heavy metal influence, I would not be suprised.

The way I see, I see the ad flap up as much as the way people demonized Dungeons and Dragons in the earlier days. And now D and D is one of the most popular roleplaying games ever. Balenciaga may be cagey but if the the long term strategy is to get attention they certainly got it now


----------



## trippinonsunshine

preppie said:


> You posted that “they” control the market, then listed off a list of Jewish individuals and family names.  You cannot be so daft as to not know that is a major and oldest anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in history, one even used by the Nazis.  It’s combination with this thread is practically invoking a blood libel smear in Jewish persons.


Unfair to refer to "daft" - I am confused myself. Perhaps not appropriate to continue in this thread so I will stop here.


----------



## Jaxholt15

Brooklynite said:


> The whole point is that it's not an error in marketing. It is deliberate.


Balenciaga certainly apologized for the marketing.  If deliberate marketing by everyone at Balenciaga why apologize?


----------



## trippinonsunshine

I felt the "apology" issued was casting blame on others, threatening lawsuits and absolving themselves. I'd love a better explanation of how this came to pass, what were they trying to convey if not what many interpreted and how they plan to right the wrong. B. needs to address this far better than they have.


----------



## Compass Rose

Does anyone here think this is just the tip of the iceberg?  It's all about the children now.


----------



## Tyler_JP

This is very reminiscent of the editorial in Vogue Paris that ultimately got Carine Roitfeld fired as editor in chief back in 2011… really surprised any fashion label would go this route after that incident.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

Tyler_JP said:


> This is very reminiscent of the editorial in Vogue Paris that ultimately got Carine Roitfeld fired as editor in chief back in 2011… really surprised any fashion label would go this route after that incident.


Can you give more detail? I looked this Carine Roitfeld up and I don't see any link to children. 
Edit- Apologies - I located the information.


----------



## Tyler_JP

trippinonsunshine said:


> Can you give more detail? I looked this Carine Roitfeld up and I don't see any link to children.


Gawker

All things considered, I truly don’t think there‘s anything deeper going on here other than an extremely tasteless, inappropriate ad campaign.


----------



## SakuraSakura

Suzil said:


> I was sexually abused at age 4 (for many years). I am now, proudly, a “normal” 40 year old adult who has made peace with her past but to see the look on those children’s eyes was very hurtful… something I know first hand what lies behind. What a heartbreak to know what those kids are really going through. This is no mistake, they are testing us; how much more can they push us? Where are we morally? Do we see what is hidden in plain sight? And this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Don’t have answers but I have questions and that is a start!



Me too. Won't go into any further detail than that but I will never purchase anything from Balenciaga again. I've come to terms with some of my past but it still tends to creep up at moments, especially seeing campaigns like this that normalize exploitation. I'm here with you. Your story matters. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## 880

jellyv said:


> Classic antisemitic tropes.



Agree. I found it to be  alarming, offensive, and smacking of outrageous conspiracy theories surrounding well known Jewish figures. Especially if a particular post did not know they were Jewish, (which indicates to me how pervasive and sneaky the tropes are), to interject them all here in this balenciaga mess, smacks of the same kind of thoughtlessness that we attribute to Kering Group. 

I am not solely referring to the one post quoted by @jellyv. Several contributors to this thread have made general disparaging remarks about elites, woke media (NYT; WaPo; etc) and nebulous wealthy behind the scenes powers — all of which are infamous antisemitic tropes — that the posts have connected to pedophilia; “pizzagate is real” statement (made by the same poster); and now Balenciaga WTF. 

ETA : To be more specific,  persecution of ‘people in control and holding a large amount of financial assets’  has been an ignorant and racist trope since the Middle Ages and culminating against the  Jews in WWII. I sincerely question anyone who claims ignorance of these tropes (starting with Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice) onward. Tagging @trippinonsunshine bc she posted a query about antisemitic tropes. 

ETA : I find the balenciaga campaign totally offensive; however someone else posted a query as to how the suits could have approved it; questioned what the brief could be; or asked how the brand could begin to apologize. I would hazard a guess that a p*ss poor explanation might run like this: 

We made a serious and offensive error in judgment. We are a brand known for being controversial and edgy, and thought this ad would be no worse than Thierry Muglier Virgin No. 1, Scent of a Murder.  The juxtaposition of a child, representing human innocence, being confronted or surrounded by a tawdry and sinful world of salacious [albeit criminal] temptation, seemed like a novel way of presenting our latest damn bag. In other words, the idiotic balenciaga apology would be, oops, we were trying for louche fashion and wandered into seemingly casual acceptance if not active promotion of criminal pedophilia. 

To tie my comment together, just as this parody of an apology is ridiculous, so are some of these antisemitism tropes, that didn’t just lead to a crappy ad campaign, but to WWII genocide.


----------



## HAZE MAT

Jaxholt15 said:


> I have always liked Balenciaga, clothes, shoes, and bags.  I own many items and will continue to wear/carry the items I own.  I will purchase other items in the future.  I looked this up and the children with the weird teddy bags (and they are weird bags) are wearing t-shirts and shorts.  The news article however is puzzling and definitely offensive.  What I am saying is I am not abandoning one of my favorite brands because someone in marketing made a mistake/error in judgement.



Indeed a ton of the virtue signalling here on this forum is quite eye rolling to me. https://slate.com/human-interest/2022/11/balenciaga-scandal-child-teddy-bears-fox-news.html

In fact, there are much worse exploitation happening in the world that is being overlooked while people argue about an anti-ad ad.


----------



## ccbaggirl89

I'm still waiting for something more substantial than the apology -- perhaps hearing that Demna has been fired. This must have been his vision, or that of his creative team. If he remains I would take that to mean that Bal is completely satisfied with the direction of the company and just a bit irked that the current ad drew negative attention.


----------



## 2manychins

aunaturale9 said:


> Ah I came on here to ask-- I have one Balenciaga bag, but I am not sure if I should keep it now. I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing it now that all this is happening, but what is everyone else doing?


If I had any I’d return them to the store and ask for a refund.  If it was a long ago purchase I’d ask to speak to a manager and explain that I realize they probably can’t take it back but that I’d like them to let upper management know that I want to make a statement.


----------



## 2manychins

millivanilli said:


> I actually thought longer about whether to write this post because Hermès is picking up on this symbolism in their ring and I was worried that someone would be concerned with this ring. My opinion is:
> 
> The question is whether this is intentional on H's part or if it's an unintentional design idea.  I'm leaning towards design and not intentional because the look of the jewelry is intricate, which the O's classic ring is not. I've included one for you below. By the fact that the ring from Hermès (I have the same one) has two triangle shaped elements to the left and right of the ring, I would strongly lean toward:this breaks up the classic "ring of O " look. A classic ring of O is straight, unadorned and has the ring, (this loop) as a symbol relevant to recognition, so to say " that loop is the main attraction".
> 
> View attachment 5661651
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> compared to the more refined artistic from Hermès:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 5661653
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in my opinion the collierde chien wouldn't be seen as " ring of O" but as a "normal" ring with a pretty design.
> 
> And, something I forgot: the ring of O is more common in continental Europe than in the US. In the USA, as far as I know, there are more the neck rings that make it most obvious.


Could the Hermes design be a nod to horses?  As in where someone can tie their horses?


----------



## Noorasi

HAZE MAT said:


> In fact, there are much worse exploitation happening in the world that is being overlooked while people argue about an anti-ad ad.


Since this is a luxury forum and more specifically a Balenciaga subforum, it's pretty logical that a Balenciaga ad would garner more attention than something outside the scope of the forum. It does not mean people don't take a stand against more serious crimes or that people are overlooking other issues, it just means they understand this is probably not the right platform to effectively do so.


----------



## 880

HAZE MAT said:


> As a cool side note, the artist alluded within the ad is Michael Borremans whose work at David Zwirner I really dig- https://www.davidzwirner.com/artists/michael-borremans
> 
> The book featured in the ad is https://www.davidzwirnerbooks.com/product/michael-borremans-fire-from-the-sun
> 
> This controversy reminds me so much of when Balthus paintings first came out- https://gagosian.com/artists/balthus/
> 
> I guess in 10 years we will re-evaluate the sociopolitical acuity of the campaign and learn that in hindsight, it was pivotal just like Tom Ford x Gucci ads or the YSL ads from the 1980s.
> 
> At least we aren't getting Terry Richardson here are we? LOL



@HAZE MAT , I happen to adore works by Balthus, but I was a bit disconcerted to discover that he was apparently obsessed with a neighboring restaurant workers 11 year old, and at least 10 major works, in what might now be deemed sexually aggressive poses, culminated when she was 12 or 13. 

I sadly don’t think this ad campaign will be pivotal; rather I think the outrage will die down, and balenciaga’s reputation for edgy and provoking fashion will go on 

@2manychins , I believe @jellyv posted above #278 that CDC is based on (and named after) a 100 year old design of a dog collar here https://forum.purseblog.com/threads...idas-collab-teddy-controversy.1057196/page-19

ETA: finished by the time the girl turned 12 or 13


----------



## 2manychins

redney said:


> Wow, neither did I. Gucci, Saint Laurent, Bottega Veneta, Balenciaga, Alexander McQueen, Brioni, Boucheron, Pomellato, DoDo, Qeelin, as well as Kering Eyewear.
> 
> Their home page has....kids.
> 
> View attachment 5661864


If that was my kid I’d want their pictures removed.


----------



## 2manychins

880 said:


> @HAZE MAT , I happen to adore works by Balthus, but I was a bit disconcerted to discover that he was apparently obsessed with a neighboring restaurant workers 11 year old, and at least 10 major works, in what might now be deemed sexually aggressive poses, culminated when she was 12 or 13.
> 
> I sadly don’t think this will be pivotal; rather I think the outrage will die down, and balenciaga’s reputation for edgy and provoking fashion will go on
> 
> @2manychins , I believe @jellyv posted above #278 that CDC is based on (and named after) a 100 year old design of a dog collar here https://forum.purseblog.com/threads...idas-collab-teddy-controversy.1057196/page-19


Yes I read that after I made my post.  Thank you


----------



## 2manychins

Suzil said:


> I was sexually abused at age 4 (for many years). I am now, proudly, a “normal” 40 year old adult who has made peace with her past but to see the look on those children’s eyes was very hurtful… something I know first hand what lies behind. What a heartbreak to know what those kids are really going through. This is no mistake, they are testing us; how much more can they push us? Where are we morally? Do we see what is hidden in plain sight? And this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Don’t have answers but I have questions and that is a start!


I’m so sorry, I know your pain and how triggering this is.  Hugs


----------



## 2manychins

Shelby33 said:


> I'm so sorry you had to go through that.
> I was just going to post about the expression on that little girl's face. Not even fear, just hopeless resignation.


I’m so sorry your were too.  Hugs


----------



## muchstuff

From the Daily Mail (UK).

“The Spanish fashion house and photographer Gabriele Galimberti faced a furious backlash but the father of one of the child models has now defended the shoot.  

He said Galimberti was 'innocent' of any wrongdoing and revealed the models were all children of Balenciaga employees who were at the shoot and had approved the campaign.”


----------



## Kevinaxx

ccbaggirl89 said:


> I'm still waiting for something more substantial than the apology -- perhaps hearing that Demna has been fired. This must have been his vision, or that of his creative team. If he remains I would take that to mean that Bal is completely satisfied with the direction of the company and just a bit irked that the current ad drew negative attention.


100%.

I will say, we humans can make stupid mistakes, some so much that others would question whether we have common sense or not but what’s common sense to some may not be common sense to others and vice versa.

What IS important is that if you are in a position where something like this flew… you have to take responsibility. Even if, truly, it was not something you personally signed off on because you have many minions that do that (financial scandals like Enron anyone?).

And if you start playing the blame game without some acknowledgement yourself, well, that just shows the type of person you are.

And if Bal as a company, does not remove Demna then it is deeply rooted in their corporate culture to allow such “creative direction” which imho is disgusting.


----------



## Roie55

AH673 said:


> Really bizarre. I wonder where the child-models parents were (mentally) during these shoots. Did the excitement of the gig cancel out any common sense? I am betting the brand thought they were going hard-rocker/edgy or something with this and the stylist thought the bondage gear looked pretty heavy metal but I find it impossible that no one saw the finished product and didn't think, "um this is not a good result".  They actually paid to place them! They are going to lose a boatload over this. Luxury brands are 80% social cache; this is going to sting. I am glad I don't own this stock and I'm also glad I don't own their bags.  Good grief.


There are many sleuths on tiktok, they are great at investigating. Today I saw a woman saying she was aware the kids were the children of staff members there. I tend to believe this could be true as no parents have come out in outrage to sue or condemn the brand. I imagine their jobs might be on the line if they talk?  Just speculating but it fits. 
On another note - it really makes me see Kim's Met gala outfit as complete BDSM stuff, and even dressing her child in something of that nature at fashion week. That she hasn't said she'll leave the brand says a lot about her character. Also why is no one (media) talking about Adidas in all this?

Regarding the stylist - no not someone looking for edgy, Is Lotta her name? She has a disgusting instagram full of dark imagery, this is a look into her mind. She knew what she was doing. Bal will suffer for a long time but they need to do no less than get rid of the whole design and style team. But then again the horrors go all the way to the top.


----------



## Shelby33

muchstuff said:


> From the Daily Mail (UK).
> 
> “The Spanish fashion house and photographer Gabriele Galimberti faced a furious backlash but the father of one of the child models has now defended the shoot.
> 
> He said Galimberti was 'innocent' of any wrongdoing and revealed the models were all children of Balenciaga employees who were at the shoot and had approved the campaign.”


Interesting...


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## OriginalBalenciaga

@Suzil & @Shelby33 & @SakuraSakura   I am so very sorry and sending wishes for healing and comfort to you all


----------



## MooMooVT

Compass Rose said:


> Does anyone here think this is just the tip of the iceberg?  It's all about the children now.


I hope it is and that anyone harming children is exposed


----------



## BagsRGreat

I saw this image from The Babylon Bee (a satirical online publication) just this morning, and I think it accurately reflects what will happen regarding celebrity endorsements of the brands involved in this disgustingly unacceptable ad campaign-- absolutely nothing! Sadly, I don't think any celebrity will step away from Balenciaga over this sickening scandal. The idea of keeping children safe from sexual predators isn't an important issue to celebrities, whereas persecuting anyone of a different political ideology _is_ a reason to distance from a brand or a designer for these celebrities that so many people follow and adore. Only the Balenciaga and Adidas customer can step away and show the brand what they think of this clearly intentional "sexualization of children" campaign by purchasing items from different brands. Stocks can be easily manipulated by people with enough money to do so. The consumer has the ultimate power, however, to sink a brand, if the consumer so chooses.

ETA: Clearly, the photo below was manipulated  by The Babylon Bee, and there is/was no MyPillow pillow in the Balenciaga photo shoot.


----------



## MooMooVT

BagsRGreat said:


> I saw this image from The Babylon Bee (a satirical online publication) just this morning, and I think it accurately reflects what will happen regarding celebrity endorsements of the brands involved in this disgustingly unacceptable ad campaign-- absolutely nothing! Sadly, I don't think any celebrity will step away from Balenciaga over this sickening scandal. The idea of keeping children safe from sexual predators isn't an important issue to celebrities, whereas persecuting anyone of a different political ideology _is_ a reason to distance from a brand or a designer for these celebrities that so many people follow and adore. Only the Balenciaga and Adidas customer can step away and show the brand what they think of this clearly intentional "sexualization of children" campaign by purchasing items from different brands. Stocks can be easily manipulated by people with enough money to do so. The consumer has the ultimate power, however, to sink a brand, if the consumer so chooses.
> 
> ETA: Clearly, the photo below was manipulated  by The Babylon Bee, and there is/was no MyPillow pillow in the Balenciaga photo shoot.
> 
> View attachment 5662691


I saw this last night online and cackled. Because they’re right. Americans seem to care more about one’s political leanings than child sexual exploitation


----------



## trippinonsunshine

880 said:


> Agree. I found it to be  alarming, offensive, and smacking of outrageous conspiracy theories surrounding well known Jewish figures. Especially if a particular post did not know they were Jewish, (which indicates to me how pervasive and sneaky the tropes are), to interject them all here in this balenciaga mess, smacks of the same kind of thoughtlessness that we attribute to Kering Group.
> 
> I am not solely referring to the one post quoted by @jellyv. Several contributors to this thread have made general disparaging remarks about elites, woke media (NYT; WaPo; etc) and nebulous wealthy behind the scenes powers — all of which are infamous antisemitic tropes — that the posts have connected to pedophilia; “pizzagate is real” statement (made by the same poster); and now Balenciaga WTF.
> 
> ETA : To be more specific,  persecution of ‘people in control and holding a large amount of financial assets’  has been an ignorant and racist trope since the Middle Ages and culminating against the  Jews in WWII. I sincerely question anyone who claims ignorance of these tropes (starting with Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice) onward. Tagging @trippinonsunshine bc she posted a query about antisemitic tropes.
> 
> ETA : I find the balenciaga campaign totally offensive; however someone else posted a query as to how the suits could have approved it; questioned what the brief could be; or asked how the brand could begin to apologize. I would hazard a guess that a p*ss poor explanation might run like this:
> 
> We made a serious and offensive error in judgment. We are a brand known for being controversial and edgy, and thought this ad would be no worse than Thierry Muglier Virgin No. 1, Scent of a Murder.  The juxtaposition of a child, representing human innocence, being confronted or surrounded by a tawdry and sinful world of salacious [albeit criminal] temptation, seemed like a novel way of presenting our latest damn bag. In other words, the idiotic balenciaga apology would be, oops, we were trying for louche fashion and wandered into seemingly casual acceptance if not active promotion of criminal pedophilia.
> 
> To tie my comment together, just as this parody of an apology is ridiculous, so are some of these antisemitism tropes, that didn’t just lead to a crappy ad campaign, but to WWII genocide.





880 said:


> Agree. I found it to be  alarming, offensive, and smacking of outrageous conspiracy theories surrounding well known Jewish figures. Especially if a particular post did not know they were Jewish, (which indicates to me how pervasive and sneaky the tropes are), to interject them all here in this balenciaga mess, smacks of the same kind of thoughtlessness that we attribute to Kering Group.
> 
> I am not solely referring to the one post quoted by @jellyv. Several contributors to this thread have made general disparaging remarks about elites, woke media (NYT; WaPo; etc) and nebulous wealthy behind the scenes powers — all of which are infamous antisemitic tropes — that the posts have connected to pedophilia; “pizzagate is real” statement (made by the same poster); and now Balenciaga WTF.
> 
> ETA : To be more specific,  persecution of ‘people in control and holding a large amount of financial assets’  has been an ignorant and racist trope since the Middle Ages and culminating against the  Jews in WWII. I sincerely question anyone who claims ignorance of these tropes (starting with Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice) onward. Tagging @trippinonsunshine bc she posted a query about antisemitic tropes.
> 
> ETA : I find the balenciaga campaign totally offensive; however someone else posted a query as to how the suits could have approved it; questioned what the brief could be; or asked how the brand could begin to apologize. I would hazard a guess that a p*ss poor explanation might run like this:
> 
> We made a serious and offensive error in judgment. We are a brand known for being controversial and edgy, and thought this ad would be no worse than Thierry Muglier Virgin No. 1, Scent of a Murder.  The juxtaposition of a child, representing human innocence, being confronted or surrounded by a tawdry and sinful world of salacious [albeit criminal] temptation, seemed like a novel way of presenting our latest damn bag. In other words, the idiotic balenciaga apology would be, oops, we were trying for louche fashion and wandered into seemingly casual acceptance if not active promotion of criminal pedophilia.
> 
> To tie my comment together, just as this parody of an apology is ridiculous, so are some of these antisemitism tropes, that didn’t just lead to a crappy ad campaign, but to WWII genocide.



I truly appreciate the tag and the obvious ignorance I have concerning this subject matter. Perhaps the silver lining of this horrid situation is that I (perhaps others like myself) might learn more about these other areas discussed from which I have no knowledge or understanding.  Truthfully, I feel I need to research all of this and like everything these days it seems like work to investigate and not be taken in by various media sources, in order to obtain an objective viewpoint. That is a whole other topic of discussion. The fact is, as such, this will be an exhaustive process that I intend to follow through on. If anyone wishes to message me (to keep this thread on topic -- although I believe there are others in my situation that could stand to gain from proceeding with this in an open forum). I'd appreciate key words, subject lines that point to these areas and allow me to learn.  As an aside the mock B. apology statement 880 was likely spot on! I do know that the campaign featuring these children appeared very inappropriate and my heart hurts on that aspect of all of this.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

MooMooVT said:


> I saw this last night online and cackled. Because they’re right. Americans seem to care more about one’s political leanings than child sexual exploitation


Don't make that generalization - NOT true.


----------



## chloehandbags

The way to ascertain whether a comment is antisemitic, or not, is to ask if the person commenting would still hold the same opinion if the people listed were not Jewish.

If they still would, it can't, logically, be viewed as antisemitic.

...and bearing in mind that some of the people listed are not Jewish, it would strongly suggest that s/he would still hold that same opinion if they all weren't.

So, s/he's not being antisemitic.


----------



## Meta

J'adoreHermes said:


> I have mostly observed Balenciaga from afar through pictures of their shows in the news or by walking past their headquarters in the 7eme arrondissement. Also, I personally don’t own any Balenciaga pieces, but we have been a long term customer of Brioni. Additionally, I have friends who went to school with the Pinault. As such, I have spoken to and hear of the family in the Parisian circle, and I find this very shocking that they would allow this to happen. So while this is my first time in the Balenciaga forum and unfamiliar with its  universe, I am greatly shocked by Kering as the parent company. *I would like to see more accountability from not only Balenciaga but also Kering as a group.* The same way Balenciaga used their platform to support and help Ukraine, I hope the platform will be used to create a positive change to truly take account and make a change.



I highlighted that statement from your post because I don't think we'll be seeing more if any accountability. However, I want to point out this is what Denma shared this for the Spring/Summer collection which includes the questionable bears:

"One needs to have courage and persistence to *truly assume their identity and who they really are*. Every day becomes a battlefield to *defend this unique identity*. And the more you try to be yourself, the more you get punched in your face. But how great it is to be different from one another." Further down he said, *"I've decided to no longer explain my collections and verbalize my designs, but to express my state of mind."*






J'adoreHermes said:


> *Sustainability has been a fundamental issue for Kering, and sustainability is not simply about the environment. *Rather the social and governance aspects are just as important if not more. These campaigns completely go against these principles. Beyond the stakeholder and customer dissent, I hope shareholders also react to this and hold Balenciaga and Kering accountable.


What sustainability?  275 cubic metres of mud from a peat bog!











						Santiago Sierra creates mud runway for Balenciaga during Paris Fashion Week
					

Spanish artist Santiago Sierra filled a convention centre in Paris with mounds of mud from a peat bog and was used as a runway for Balenciaga's Spring Summer 2023 show.




					www.dezeen.com
				



Guess it's just more lip service, much like not using models aged below 18.


----------



## Brooklynite

Meta said:


> *truly assume their identity and who they really are*.


this looks even more disturbing given the ads...


----------



## 2manychins

millivanilli said:


> Yes it is and I find that book highly disturbing AND terribly written. Can't  read it. Same applies to Nabokov Lolita. That will make me feel sick to the gut  (like " I want to vomit sick to the gut" but nobody seems to care...). Don't understand why these books will be sold up till today.
> 
> as it is called collier die chien (DCD) which translates into dog collar I guess it comes from the dog - hunting- space?  Would fit to the history of H. ?


Yes I realized later when I was rereading and reading down further that it literally has dog in the name.


----------



## Swanky

MooMooVT said:


> I saw this last night online and cackled. Because they’re right. Americans seem to care more about one’s political leanings than child sexual exploitation



This is an offensive sweeping generalization of Americans, I disagree.


----------



## portraitofalady

I’m not really one to get involved in internet debates, but I thought I would share another perspective on the issue of what to do with your current Balenciaga pieces.

I’ll preface this with a little context. I have never followed Balenciaga and didn’t own anything until very recently. I don’t like the new designs at all but I have recently been more into vintage/secondhand bags and thought the moto bags were a cool vintage piece that held up well. Unfortunately for me, I just purchased one of these old style moto bags from eBay right before this ad scandal.

I find the ads as troubling as many people here have expressed, and I don’t see how this could possibly be excused as a mistake. I don’t really associate the old Balenciaga designs with the current brand, but it is personally difficult to separate it from this issue or at least not be reminded. I also personally think customers should be outraged not just by the indecency of these ads, but that this brand is taking advantage of customer support to fund this kind of messaging.

So, I have been concerned about what to do with the Balenciaga bag I now have. I initially thought, as some others have said, that I wouldn’t want to promote the brand by carrying anything from the label. I also do understand that others who have had those older styles for years would be able to separate them from the current state of the brand and this ad issue. For me, since I literally just got my bag right before this scandal, it feels like a pointed reminder. I was discussing this issue with my brother (who has never owned anything designer in his life and is very much outside of this), and he suggested that selling the bag on the resale market would actually hurt the brand today. His reasoning was that the resale market takes away from potential sales for the brand. If we buy/sell previous designs, we are keeping those dollars that the brand might otherwise get. Just a thought for those considering reselling. I’m sure this isn’t perfect logic, but it’s something to consider/discuss.


----------



## tweegy

portraitofalady said:


> I’m not really one to get involved in internet debates, but I thought I would share another perspective on the issue of what to do with your current Balenciaga pieces.
> 
> I’ll preface this with a little context. I have never followed Balenciaga and didn’t own anything until very recently. I don’t like the new designs at all but I have recently been more into vintage/secondhand bags and thought the moto bags were a cool vintage piece that held up well. Unfortunately for me, I just purchased one of these old style moto bags from eBay right before this ad scandal.
> 
> I find the ads as troubling as many people here have expressed, and I don’t see how this could possibly be excused as a mistake. I don’t really associate the old Balenciaga designs with the current brand, but it is personally difficult to separate it from this issue or at least not be reminded. I also personally think customers should be outraged not just by the indecency of these ads, but that this brand is taking advantage of customer support to fund this kind of messaging.
> 
> So, I have been concerned about what to do with the Balenciaga bag I now have. I initially thought, as some others have said, that I wouldn’t want to promote the brand by carrying anything from the label. I also do understand that others who have had those older styles for years would be able to separate them from the current state of the brand and this ad issue. For me, since I literally just got my bag right before this scandal, it feels like a pointed reminder. I was discussing this issue with my brother (who has never owned anything designer in his life and is very much outside of this), and he suggested that selling the bag on the resale market would actually hurt the brand today. His reasoning was that the resale market takes away from potential sales for the brand. If we buy/sell previous designs, we are keeping those dollars that the brand might otherwise get. Just a thought for those considering reselling. I’m sure this isn’t perfect logic, but it’s something to consider/discuss.


I loved the Balenciaga moto days. I only have a hip from them which I really love. I agree with this perspective. I genuinely loved the bag itself brand aside. 
The past recent years I havent been a fan at all of Balenciaga's designs. They seem to have just been turned into a kind of fame wh*re brand in my eyes if that makes sense. So I kind of see the moto age as another brand. 
I dont buy that no one in balenciaga house didnt know about this campaign or was on snooze.


----------



## Brooklynite

portraitofalady said:


> I’m not really one to get involved in internet debates, but I thought I would share another perspective on the issue of what to do with your current Balenciaga pieces.
> 
> I’ll preface this with a little context. I have never followed Balenciaga and didn’t own anything until very recently. I don’t like the new designs at all but I have recently been more into vintage/secondhand bags and thought the moto bags were a cool vintage piece that held up well. Unfortunately for me, I just purchased one of these old style moto bags from eBay right before this ad scandal.
> 
> I find the ads as troubling as many people here have expressed, and I don’t see how this could possibly be excused as a mistake. I don’t really associate the old Balenciaga designs with the current brand, but it is personally difficult to separate it from this issue or at least not be reminded. I also personally think customers should be outraged not just by the indecency of these ads, but that this brand is taking advantage of customer support to fund this kind of messaging.
> 
> So, I have been concerned about what to do with the Balenciaga bag I now have. I initially thought, as some others have said, that I wouldn’t want to promote the brand by carrying anything from the label. I also do understand that others who have had those older styles for years would be able to separate them from the current state of the brand and this ad issue. For me, since I literally just got my bag right before this scandal, it feels like a pointed reminder. I was discussing this issue with my brother (who has never owned anything designer in his life and is very much outside of this), and he suggested that selling the bag on the resale market would actually hurt the brand today. His reasoning was that the resale market takes away from potential sales for the brand. If we buy/sell previous designs, we are keeping those dollars that the brand might otherwise get. Just a thought for those considering reselling. I’m sure this isn’t perfect logic, but it’s something to consider/discuss.


I still have my moto bag in my closet, even though it has been used so much that the leather is now paper thin...
I've thought about it too...Nicholas is a very different designer who designed classic and beautiful things with grace, the opposite of what the current designer offers. The Balenciaga back then was chic rock n roll. The logo was also different. I wouldn't use it today, but after this issue is resolved (current designer kicked out and logo changed back), I will be happily using mine again because of what the Balenciaga then represented - effortlessly cool.


----------



## Love Of My Life

Clients will either look away or continue to support the brand. Wearing vintage or current pieces
from the collection in the long run will not have a great impact on the brand, unfortunately
because there are people who simply may not be aware of what has occurred & continue to think
that Balenciaga is cool
It's unfortunate that this issue will quiet down & Balenciaga will go on..JMO


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## lee_dya

I just watched this Youtuber explained about the Balenciaga scandal.


----------



## HAZE MAT

I really like Demna honestly. Brilliant and insightful designer. Bliss Foster does well to explain.


----------



## ccbaggirl89

The source is TMZ (not sure I can link them here, just visit their site), but a few other outlets are now reporting that Kim K. has made the decision to no longer work with B and not extend her contract.

_"Kim Kardashian announced she's 're-evaluating' her future with Balenciaga, but it appears she's made up her mind ... declining an offer from the brand, and ditching outfits she was set to wear at upcoming events.

Sources with direct knowledge of the situation tell us the design house presented Kim an offer to do a 2023 Balenciaga campaign before the controversial child BDSM ads went live. We're told once those ads went public, Kim made the decision to reject the offer ... even before releasing a statement on the issue."_


----------



## Brooklynite

ccbaggirl89 said:


> The source is TMZ (not sure I can link them here, just visit their site), but a few other outlets are now reporting that Kim K. has made the decision to no longer work with B and not extend her contract.
> 
> _"Kim Kardashian announced she's 're-evaluating' her future with Balenciaga, but it appears she's made up her mind ... declining an offer from the brand, and ditching outfits she was set to wear at upcoming events.
> 
> Sources with direct knowledge of the situation tell us the design house presented Kim an offer to do a 2023 Balenciaga campaign before the controversial child BDSM ads went live. We're told once those ads went public, Kim made the decision to reject the offer ... even before releasing a statement on the issue."_


we'll see...i just checked out her insta and twitter comments...brutal. she will ultimately have to make a commercial choice b/w her future personality/brand and this, to say the least. (You would think morals should be the top reason, but clearly that's not enough for her to make a decision yet.)


----------



## addiCCted

lee_dya said:


> I just watched this Youtuber explained about the Balenciaga scandal.




Calling people stupid who don’t agree with his perspective…very unbiased lol. 

People are upset at the implication. If it was literally child porn they would have been sued and arrested already. Here’s where plausible deniability comes in.  

Everyone draws their own line to what is acceptable or not.


----------



## RitaLA

I'm just gonna say this. Brands don't operate in isolation. Nobody on this planet operates in isolation. We are all connected in some way or another.  We are all part of a system: culture, language, economy, views, etc. These systems vary from micro to macro, but regardless, we are part of a system. And please, do not assign any *specific* *meaning* to what I am saying by "system." A system can be an ecosystem, an economic system, or a feedback loop system seen in thermostats. There is no cultural, racial, or religious meaning attached to it. A system is a system (period).  In a system, things are not linear (1+1=2). In a system, all things are impacted by the actions of others (people or things). So it's not possible to remove Balenciaga and whatever message the brand wanted to send through its  ads or its "mission statement" as a company out of a certain "context."  Balenciaga as a fashion brand is a part of a context. And in this thread, we are dialoguing and trying to understand by bouncing ideas, what the context might be. There are a lot of things into play here and it's not just one ad or one campaign. We are trying to understand as a group, where Balenciaga stands in terms of children and the sexualization of children. Please, I will ask again, do not assign any racial or religious significance to what I am saying because there is nothing related to it in this statement.


----------



## ant23

what concerns me more is what parent lets their child be part of this...


----------



## Angel1988

PurseUOut said:


> Absolutely appalling, unfathomable and disgusting.
> 
> The teddy bear is one thing, the bondage is one thing, the court docket referencing child porn case is one thing, but to see those babies pictured with panda eyes (a clinically recognized indicator of traumatic abuse) in the context of all of this is so incredibly infuriating and gut-wrenching there is absolutely no turning back or apology that would warrant this okay. I don't own anything and will never buy balenciaga and would not be sad if this sub-forum was shut down.


I agree with almost everything you say (naturally!).

However, I do not like that the people who are in charge now at Balenciaga also manage to tarnish the whole history of the brand.
To be honest, I never really liked Balenciaga anymore since Nicolas Ghesquière left, but I will continue wearing my first handbags (bought around 2008) and clothing from that period.

I think the blame should more be placed on the people in charge of this, so far, I don't think we've heard much about that.
It's a shady diversion to only speak about 'Balenciaga' (not a person!).


----------



## cerulean blue

_*I'm going to say what I say, this will be my only comment here and I'm out. Reply, I'm not replying back.*_

I'm really tired of these misinformed narratives and the extremely egregious amounts of misinformation/disinformation repeated not only on social media,_* but here as well.*_ People have been saying that the children were restrained or wearing locks, implying that the children were nude, conflating two separate ad campaigns, etc etc. Not to mention the slew of right-wing/misinformation/qanon websites shared here too. And it's not surprising these comments have been coming majorly from right-wing/misinformation/qanon mouthpieces/influencers who have tried to draw a connection with Balenciaga's campaign with their conspiracies.
Someone went as far as saying the brand is Satanic because the yellow caution tape is cut and shows the text 'BAAL' therefore alluding to demons in a Christian context.

I have acquaintances and friends that work in higher positions with the house; I've spoken with them to get clarification on this situation. The attempt to generate controversy is _*NOT*_ true. This was a holiday/gifts campaign, which was to appeal to a very broad audience, so there was no attempt to generate (this type) controversy which would likely alienate people.

To reiterate, none of this was deliberate in generating controversy. The attempts Balenciaga makes to generate controversy are usually done with frivolity like the trash bags. That's the type of controversy Balenciaga likes to garner, to agitate and subvert the average person's sense of good taste regarding design and fashion._* Not speak to abuse, p*rn, racism, or to offend any marginalized group. *_

Regarding the holiday campaign, the bears are 'mascota' bags that were adorned with punk, goth, or emo style clothing and accessories which is a sub-culture and aesthetic Demna has explored constantly throughout his collections. In fact, the photographer said Balenciaga told him the theme was "punk". The intent was Gabriele's style of photography art, combined a punk sensibility, to advertise the series of Balenciaga products that would be good gifts: candle holders, ornaments, apparel/shoes.

Yes, the idea was misguided and reads offensive when you consider what people outside your circle will think. However, the series of people who approved this have the same groupthink. They all are familiar with Demna's ideas (which is punk) so they would approve this. When you are _only_ thinking of punk, Demna's style, and that's all you think of after working with him for half a decade, for some, you might not think of anything else. They did not consider external associations or undertones like BDSM, bondage, or abuse with the bear bags. And _Balenciaga has taken accountability for that per their statement._

Regarding the Spring 23 campaign featuring props of court documents relating to child p*rn. Barely anyone is looking this deep into the props when attention is to the models and the clothing. People who are retouching these photos are more focused on the models and overarching factors like lighting. Not zooming into documents. Not paying attention to the coffee table books/ certificates in the background. A person is paid to retouch, not do deep diving into the names to see who have been implicated in what and any associations. Neither would anyone else. More importantly, the documents came from “numerous boxes” rented from a prop house which were all supposed to be “fake office documents.” To include these elements are "the result of reckless negligence" per Balenciaga and they are pursuing legal action against the external parties that were responsible for the props.

Yes I understand how damning it is when you combine the two campaigns but please note that each campaign had a number of different people working on it. I understand it was approved by multiple people. However, in my experience, when a company gets too comfortable with their position, they tend to be more reckless and sloppy with their 'approval' process and not think of other contexts. Balenciaga has taken accountability for their recklessness and are now taking steps to fix this behavior per their statement.

*I am not making excuses for Balenciaga, but to offer a counterpoint to the pervasive idea that Balencaiga were all in this together and because this was approved by multiple people, it was intentional and to cause controversy. I agree with Balenciaga taking accountability for their (lack of) actions.*

To the people who are going as far as calling this abuse and p*rn. There is a reason why the FBI isn't involved. The DST, French police, Interpol aren't either. Literally no government agency is coming out to hold Balenciaga criminally accountable. And the reason is so simple and straightforward. Because there wasn't any. To categorize what Balenciaga has done as any of these things is extremely dangerous and undermines actual instances of abuse and p*rn.

People who aren't even involved in the shoot are being harassed and accosted. Friends of demna, those who aren't even associated with Balenciaga anymore, celebrities who were there pose and look good, etc. There have been cases with the stores and client services too. A friend notified me of heightened security at some locations because of this. It's going too far. Retail employees, who literally just sell the merchandise (and not paid the best imo), are being harassed. They already have to deal with exacting clients and unrealistic sales goals. Why are people doing this?

I'm _*NOT*_ going to judge anyone wearing Balenciaga. Have the members here who proudly declared they will judge others considered other factors of why else a person would wear Balenciaga past this controversy? What if that person isn't online/on social media, doesn't pay attention to fashion, and/or unaware of the news? _*Please extend the empathy you have to others as well. *_


----------



## Angel1988

Brooklynite said:


> I still have my moto bag in my closet, even though it has been used so much that the leather is now paper thin...
> I've thought about it too...*Nicholas is a very different designer who designed classic and beautiful things with grace, the opposite of what the current designer offers. The Balenciaga back then was chic rock n roll. The logo was also different. I wouldn't use it today, but after this issue is resolved (current designer kicked out and logo changed back)*, I will be happily using mine again because of what the Balenciaga then represented - effortlessly cool.



So so true, but I'm afraid that's only wishful thinking... I so miss Ghesquiére's Balenciaga of the early 2000's.


----------



## RitaLA

cerulean blue said:


> I'm going to say what I say, this will be my only comment here and I'm out.
> 
> I'm really tired of these misinformed narratives and the extremely egregious amounts of misinformation/disinformation repeated not only on social media,_* but here as well.*_ People have been saying that the children were restrained or wearing locks, implying that the children were nude, conflating two separate ad campaigns, etc etc. Not to mention the slew of right-wing/misinformation/qanon websites shared here too. And it's not surprising these comments have been coming majorly from right-wing/misinformation/qanon mouthpieces/influencers who have tried to draw a connection with Balenciaga's campaign with their conspiracies.
> Someone went as far as saying the brand is Satanic because the yellow caution tape is cut and shows the text 'BAAL' therefore alluding to demons in a Christian context.
> 
> I have acquaintances and friends that work in higher positions with the house; I've spoken with them to get clarification on this situation. The attempt to generate controversy is _*NOT*_ true. This was a holiday/gifts campaign, which was to appeal to a very broad audience, so there was no attempt to generate (this type) controversy which would likely alienate people.
> 
> To reiterate, none of this was deliberate in generating controversy. The attempts Balenciaga makes to generate controversy are usually done with frivolity like the trash bags. That's the type of controversy Balenciaga likes to garner, to agitate and subvert the average person's sense of good taste regarding design and fashion._* Not speak to abuse, p*rn, racism, or to offend any marginalized group. *_
> 
> Regarding the holiday campaign, the bears are 'mascota' bags that were adorned with punk, goth, or emo style clothing and accessories which is a sub-culture and aesthetic Demna has explored constantly throughout his collections. In fact, the photographer said Balenciaga told him the theme was "punk". The intent was Gabriele's style of photography art, combined a punk sensibility, to advertise the series of Balenciaga products that would be good gifts: candle holders, ornaments, apparel/shoes.
> 
> Yes, the idea was misguided and reads offensive when you consider what people outside your circle will think. However, the series of people who approved this have the same groupthink. They all are familiar with Demna's ideas (which is punk) so they would approve this. When you are _only_ thinking of punk, Demna's style, and that's all you think of after working with him for half a decade, for some, you might not think of anything else. They did not consider external associations or undertones like BDSM, bondage, or abuse with the bear bags. And _Balenciaga has taken accountability for that per their statement._
> 
> Regarding the Spring 23 campaign featuring props of court documents relating to child p*rn. Barely anyone is looking this deep into the props when attention is to the models and the clothing. People who are retouching these photos are more focused on the models and overarching factors like lighting. Not zooming into documents. Not paying attention to the coffee table books/ certificates in the background. A person is paid to retouch, not do deep diving into the names to see who have been implicated in what and any associations. Neither would anyone else. More importantly, the documents came from “numerous boxes” rented from a prop house which were all supposed to be “fake office documents.” To include these elements are "the result of reckless negligence" per Balenciaga and they are pursuing legal action against the external parties.
> 
> Yes I understand how damning it is when you combine the two campaigns but please note that each campaign had a number of different people working on it. I understand it was approved by multiple people. However, in my experience, when a company gets too comfortable with their position, they tend to be more reckless and sloppy with their 'approval' process and not think of other contexts. Balenciaga has taken accountability for their recklessness and are now taking steps to fix this behavior per their statement.
> 
> *I am not making excuses for Balenciaga, but to offer a counterpoint to the pervasive idea that Balencaiga were all in this together and because this was approved by multiple people, it was intentional and to cause controversy. I agree with Balenciaga taking accountability for their (lack of) actions.*
> 
> To the people who are going as far as calling this abuse and p*rn. There is a reason why the FBI isn't involved. The DST, French police, Interpol aren't either. Literally no government agency is coming out to hold Balenciaga criminally accountable. And the reason is so simple and straightforward. Because there wasn't any. To categorize what Balenciaga has done as any of these things is extremely dangerous and undermines actual instances of abuse and p*rn.
> 
> People who aren't even involved in the shoot are being harassed and accosted. Friends of demna, those who aren't even associated with Balenciaga anymore, celebrities who were there pose and look good, etc. There have been cases with the stores and client services too. A friend notified me of heightened security at some locations because of this. It's going too far. Retail employees, who literally just sell the merchandise (and not paid the best imo), are being harassed. They already have to deal with exacting clients and unrealistic sales goals. Why are people doing this?
> 
> I'm _*NOT*_ going to judge anyone wearing Balenciaga. Have the members here who proudly declared they will judge others considered other factors of why else a person would wear Balenciaga past this controversy? What if that person isn't online/on social media, doesn't pay attention to fashion, and/or unaware of the news? _*Please extend the empathy you have to others as well. *_


_"Regarding the Spring 23 campaign featuring props of court documents relating to child p*rn. Barely anyone is looking this deep into the props when attention is to the models and the clothing. People who are retouching these photos are more focused on the models and overarching factors like lighting. Not zooming into documents. Not paying attention to the coffee table books/ certificates in the background. A person is paid to retouch, not do deep diving into the names to see who have been implicated in what and any associations. Neither would anyone else. More importantly, the documents came from “numerous boxes” rented from a prop house which were all supposed to be “fake office documents.” To include these elements are "the result of reckless negligence" per Balenciaga and they are pursuing legal action against the external parties."_
I am sorry but having court documents, which is an actual case, under a bag, is not really recklessness. Someone would have to go and print the case and make a point to use it as a prop.  If Balenciaga was a law firm, I could understand why court paperwork would be on desks, but a fashion house? Why not roe v. wade? Why not the NY times newspaper? Why not a magazine? I want to validate what you said and your point of view is important, but it is a bit challenging to be empathic toward them when the messages seem to hold a theme.


----------



## addiCCted

ant23 said:


> what concerns me more is what parent lets their child be part of this...


Which brings up the point of “desensitization” and “normalization”. Perhaps these parents truly see no harm in posing their kids next to these “punk” bears. One has to ask why some groups of people think there is absolutely nothing wrong and some think there absolutely is. Does physical harm have to occur before something is harmful? How much of it is influenced by “thought leaders” telling us what is avant garde and what is “art”? 

If no backlash were to occur, would society then be ok with children with bdsm-esque paraphernalia? Is this how goal posts are moved in society? 

I have no answers. Just questions.


----------



## addiCCted

RitaLA said:


> _"Regarding the Spring 23 campaign featuring props of court documents relating to child p*rn. Barely anyone is looking this deep into the props when attention is to the models and the clothing. People who are retouching these photos are more focused on the models and overarching factors like lighting. Not zooming into documents. Not paying attention to the coffee table books/ certificates in the background. A person is paid to retouch, not do deep diving into the names to see who have been implicated in what and any associations. Neither would anyone else. More importantly, the documents came from “numerous boxes” rented from a prop house which were all supposed to be “fake office documents.” To include these elements are "the result of reckless negligence" per Balenciaga and they are pursuing legal action against the external parties."_
> I am sorry but having court documents, which is an actual case, under a bag, is not really recklessness. Someone would have to go and print the case and make a point to use it as a prop.  If Balenciaga was a law firm, I could understand why court paperwork would be on desks, but a fashion house? Why not roe v. wade? Why not the NY times newspaper? Why not a magazine? I want to validate what you said and your point of view is important, but it is a bit challenging to be empathic toward them when the messages seem to hold a theme.


Esp when it’s two separate campaigns. Why is the topic of sex and children touched on in both campaigns when they’re just trying to sell handbags and clothes?


----------



## 880

cerulean blue said:


> I'm going to say what I say, this will be my only comment here and I'm out.
> 
> I'm really tired of these misinformed narratives and the extremely egregious amounts of misinformation/disinformation repeated not only on social media,_* but here as well.*_ People have been saying that the children were restrained or wearing locks, implying that the children were nude, conflating two separate ad campaigns, etc etc. Not to mention the slew of right-wing/misinformation/qanon websites shared here too. And it's not surprising these comments have been coming majorly from right-wing/misinformation/qanon mouthpieces/influencers who have tried to draw a connection with Balenciaga's campaign with their conspiracies.
> Someone went as far as saying the brand is Satanic because the yellow caution tape is cut and shows the text 'BAAL' therefore alluding to demons in a Christian context.
> 
> I have acquaintances and friends that work in higher positions with the house; I've spoken with them to get clarification on this situation. The attempt to generate controversy is _*NOT*_ true. This was a holiday/gifts campaign, which was to appeal to a very broad audience, so there was no attempt to generate (this type) controversy which would likely alienate people.
> 
> To reiterate, none of this was deliberate in generating controversy. The attempts Balenciaga makes to generate controversy are usually done with frivolity like the trash bags. That's the type of controversy Balenciaga likes to garner, to agitate and subvert the average person's sense of good taste regarding design and fashion._* Not speak to abuse, p*rn, racism, or to offend any marginalized group. *_
> 
> Regarding the holiday campaign, the bears are 'mascota' bags that were adorned with punk, goth, or emo style clothing and accessories which is a sub-culture and aesthetic Demna has explored constantly throughout his collections. In fact, the photographer said Balenciaga told him the theme was "punk". The intent was Gabriele's style of photography art, combined a punk sensibility, to advertise the series of Balenciaga products that would be good gifts: candle holders, ornaments, apparel/shoes.
> 
> Yes, the idea was misguided and reads offensive when you consider what people outside your circle will think. However, the series of people who approved this have the same groupthink. They all are familiar with Demna's ideas (which is punk) so they would approve this. When you are _only_ thinking of punk, Demna's style, and that's all you think of after working with him for half a decade, for some, you might not think of anything else. They did not consider external associations or undertones like BDSM, bondage, or abuse with the bear bags. And _Balenciaga has taken accountability for that per their statement._
> 
> Regarding the Spring 23 campaign featuring props of court documents relating to child p*rn. Barely anyone is looking this deep into the props when attention is to the models and the clothing. People who are retouching these photos are more focused on the models and overarching factors like lighting. Not zooming into documents. Not paying attention to the coffee table books/ certificates in the background. A person is paid to retouch, not do deep diving into the names to see who have been implicated in what and any associations. Neither would anyone else. More importantly, the documents came from “numerous boxes” rented from a prop house which were all supposed to be “fake office documents.” To include these elements are "the result of reckless negligence" per Balenciaga and they are pursuing legal action against the external parties.
> 
> Yes I understand how damning it is when you combine the two campaigns but please note that each campaign had a number of different people working on it. I understand it was approved by multiple people. However, in my experience, when a company gets too comfortable with their position, they tend to be more reckless and sloppy with their 'approval' process and not think of other contexts. Balenciaga has taken accountability for their recklessness and are now taking steps to fix this behavior per their statement.
> 
> *I am not making excuses for Balenciaga, but to offer a counterpoint to the pervasive idea that Balencaiga were all in this together and because this was approved by multiple people, it was intentional and to cause controversy. I agree with Balenciaga taking accountability for their (lack of) actions.*
> 
> To the people who are going as far as calling this abuse and p*rn. There is a reason why the FBI isn't involved. The DST, French police, Interpol aren't either. Literally no government agency is coming out to hold Balenciaga criminally accountable. And the reason is so simple and straightforward. Because there wasn't any. To categorize what Balenciaga has done as any of these things is extremely dangerous and undermines actual instances of abuse and p*rn.
> 
> People who aren't even involved in the shoot are being harassed and accosted. Friends of demna, those who aren't even associated with Balenciaga anymore, celebrities who were there pose and look good, etc. There have been cases with the stores and client services too. A friend notified me of heightened security at some locations because of this. It's going too far. Retail employees, who literally just sell the merchandise (and not paid the best imo), are being harassed. They already have to deal with exacting clients and unrealistic sales goals. Why are people doing this?
> 
> I'm _*NOT*_ going to judge anyone wearing Balenciaga. Have the members here who proudly declared they will judge others considered other factors of why else a person would wear Balenciaga past this controversy? What if that person isn't online/on social media, doesn't pay attention to fashion, and/or unaware of the news? _*Please extend the empathy you have to others as well. *_


 
I enjoy and learn from all of your posts, and this is no exception. I think what most posts on this thread react to is the juxtaposition of children, not with punk elements, as one member pointed out, but with the BDSM gear, that apparently (I learned this from this thread) lays out a pretty obvious ‘secret’ coded message. 

I am horrified that the creative director and associates may have personal Instagram pages filled with far more graphic and objectionable  and grotesque images, and I believe that these people should not have been in charge of final vetting of creative decisions. I do think that vetting of those images should have been done with more care. I am also disgusted with the way Balenciaga did not step up to the plate to take entire responsibility of their own ad campaign (I think we disagree on that point). I didn’t think that anyone on this thread equated this with child pornography or supported vigilante behavior of the sort that you mention, but I will reread. I am sure that I am not alone in being grateful for your providing a counterweight to the rest of the thread. 

ETA: I was only aware of and focusing on the child with a bondage bear ad campaign, and I was most disgusting with posts that tried to spread disinformation by mentioning tropes, pizzagate, Soros, woke media, and other unrelated stuff, that I do think is conspiracy theory inspired or adjacent. And, I don’t think that Broadway plays or Balthus, or even this ad, as distasteful as it is, do anything to normalize pedophilia. I do think it’s disgusting that some posts cannot even tolerate the existence of a play that discusses the marginalization of offenders, yes rapists etc, who have served their time in state incarceration. We are supposed to believe in a system of Justice after all. WTF is up with those posts, I really don’t know.


----------



## Annawakes

cerulean blue said:


> Someone went as far as saying the brand is Satanic because the yellow caution tape is cut and shows the text 'BAAL' therefore alluding to demons in a Christian context.
> 
> I have acquaintances and friends that work in higher positions with the house; I've spoken with them to get clarification on this situation. The attempt to generate controversy is _*NOT*_ true. This was a holiday/gifts campaign, which was to appeal to a very broad audience, so there was no attempt to generate (this type) controversy which would likely alienate people.



Thank you for a well written and thoughtful post.

However, it’s hard to believe that a fashion house would mistakenly spell their own name wrong.  Surely one of the many many people working on the ad would have said, Hey, our name is spelled wrong?!!  Let’s carefully turn the tape so people can see our mistake.

Also, I’m not surprised that the people you spoke with denied attempting this type of controversy.  I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have spoken against the position the company already put out.  Which is really weak in my opinion.  

But I do appreciate reading other view points.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Swanky

Y'all. . . this thread is a great deal of work.  Please just discuss the original topic 



Swanky said:


> Bears repeating!
> 
> 
> 
> Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## beauxgoris

I saw somewhere a minor celeb with a garbage bag taking some bag clothing and bags to the curb. I wonder if all of this will bring the brand renaissance to a halt. The resale market has been really high for a while now due to the coveting of the old colors and leathers - but maybe this will cool their market. Will be interesting to see what's next for the brand.


----------



## Jktgal

I want to comment on somebody saying it's stupid to get rid of Bal stuff since it's squandering money, illogical, etc. But people buy things because they value it (there's a whole field in economics analysing factors affecting demand) and most people on the globe would probably think spending more than 50$ on a bag is 'stupid'. A bottle of Loub nail polish may be priced $50 but my value for it is exactly zero - if I get it for free I will use it but won't pay more than zero for it; yet I'll pay $20-30 for polish from another brand.
I also worked in advertising and clearly the campaign is intentional. Who are the target for such campaign? To me it is very clear because child abuse (through pornography, exploitation etc) do exist day to day. There are perpetrators, gatekeepers, closet admirers, all potential sales.
Also admirers of free speech, the-unwoke, art for art's sake, etc, all potential sales.
Also logo people for which logo = value, now introduced to the brand due to it being on news etc.
If I spend a couple of hours researching, no doubt I'l find more consumer segments for which such ad will create/enhance value.
The brand may walk back on said advert now due to backlash from current customers who suddenly realise their value of the brand has diminished, but I am convinced the ad was intentional and had a target consumer in mind.

Edit: I was going to post this in the other thread but I think maybe still relevant in this thread. Which is: for me, I'm looking fwd to prices for older Bals in the 2ndary market to drop and thereby alligns more closely to my value for them, which this brouhaha will likely facilitate.


----------



## 2cello

addiCCted said:


> Which brings up the point of “desensitization” and “normalization”. Perhaps these parents truly see no harm in posing their kids next to these “punk” bears. One has to ask why some groups of people think there is absolutely nothing wrong and some think there absolutely is. Does physical harm have to occur before something is harmful? How much of it is influenced by “thought leaders” telling us what is avant garde and what is “art”?
> 
> If no backlash were to occur, would society then be ok with children with bdsm-esque paraphernalia? Is this how goal posts are moved in society?
> 
> I have no answers. Just questions.


 
Yes, I think this is how goalposts are moved.  It’s doesn’t have to be organized as such.  Thought leaders is a good term. Ideas just spread by cultural thought leaders and then it becomes a trend and then it becomes normal.


----------



## AH673

880 said:


> I enjoy and learn from all of your posts, and this is no exception. I think what most posts on this thread react to is the juxtaposition of children, not with punk elements, as one member pointed out, but with the BDSM gear, that apparently (I learned this from this thread) lays out a pretty obvious ‘secret’ coded message.
> 
> I am horrified that the creative director and associates may have personal Instagram pages filled with far more graphic and objectionable  and grotesque images, and I believe that these people should not have been in charge of final vetting of creative decisions. I do think that vetting of those images should have been done with more care. I am also disgusted with the way Balenciaga did not step up to the plate to take entire responsibility of their own ad campaign (I think we disagree on that point). I didn’t think that anyone on this thread equated this with child pornography or supported vigilante behavior of the sort that you mention, but I will reread. I am sure that I am not alone in being grateful for your providing a counterweight to the rest of the thread.
> 
> ETA: I was only aware of and focusing on the child with a bondage bear ad campaign, and I was most disgusting with posts that tried to spread disinformation by mentioning tropes, pizzagate, Soros, woke media, and other unrelated stuff, that I do think is conspiracy theory inspired or adjacent. And, I don’t think that Broadway plays or Balthus, or even this ad, as distasteful as it is, do anything to normalize pedophilia. I do think it’s disgusting that some posts cannot even tolerate the existence of a play that discusses the marginalization of offenders, yes rapists etc, who have served their time in state incarceration. We are supposed to believe in a system of Justice after all. WTF is up with those posts, I really don’t know.


I agree, after someone told me the stylists name, I googled her and saw her posts - well, the professional apple did not fall far from the tree, lets say. Clearly Bal must approve of her style - and probably saw the campaign through the lens of who the stylist is and it's very much in line with her aesthetic, apparently.  I think its dark, disturbed, inappropriate and scary myself but this all makes more sense when you see the professional in charge of the scene.   She may not be messaging consciously but she clearly has a dark personality and she crossed a line here.  I highly doubt there is an organized campaign to solicit in all of this but I agree with the poster who said normalization of images like this is how we become numb to our ethical compass. People are right to be concerned, even if only being alerted by others alarm.


----------



## TraceySH

Annawakes said:


> Thank you for a well written and thoughtful post.
> 
> However, it’s hard to believe that a fashion house would mistakenly spell their own name wrong.  Surely one of the many many people working on the ad would have said, Hey, our name is spelled wrong?!!  Let’s carefully turn the tape so people can see our mistake.
> 
> Also, I’m not surprised that the people you spoke with denied attempting this type of controversy.  I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have spoken against the position the company already put out.  Which is really weak in my opinion.
> 
> But I do appreciate reading other view points.


And that's kind of the point. When every single advertorial is published, each mm is scrutinized. A single hair or eyelash out of place could warrant a photo tossed for another one, more perfect. Every single pixel of these ads is purposeful, and perfectly aligned with the "vision" to bring to market. To say that anything is sloppy or out of place or a mistake or happenstance is ridiculous, naive, ignorant and uninformed. 

People say that fashion is art. But that's not exactly true. Fashion is RETAIL SALES TO CONSUMERS TO MAKE MONEY and cloaks itself as art to sway a consumer to purchase a mostly otherwise ordinary item with romance and evanescence. People are hired to make massive profits by separating you from your money, one way or the other. All this other ethereal narrative is a mirage.


----------



## jellyv

TraceySH said:


> People say that fashion is art. But that's not exactly true. Fashion is RETAIL SALES TO CONSUMERS TO MAKE MONEY and cloaks itself as art to sway a consumer to purchase a mostly otherwise ordinary item with *romance and evanescence. *People are hired to make massive profits by separating you from your money, one way or the other.* All this other ethereal narrative is a mirage.*


How is the art market itself, i.e., art when it enters public spaces and commerce, any different?  If you substitute the word "art" in the above for the word "fashion" the comments are still correct. Art is a commodity. The problem with this campaign isn't about whether it's art or not--it doesn't get a free pass, period, because of social norms.


----------



## SpeedyJC

Jktgal said:


> I want to comment on somebody saying it's stupid to get rid of Bal stuff since it's squandering money, illogical, etc.


People can do what they want. The money was already squandered anyways. Lets be honest no one here needs these bags to survive. If people want to sell or throw it in the trash that is their decision.

I personally do not care if people sell or continue to use their bags and buys new ones. It's not my business.


----------



## SpeedyJC

TraceySH said:


> People say that fashion is art. But that's not exactly true. Fashion is RETAIL SALES TO CONSUMERS TO MAKE MONEY and cloaks itself as art to sway a consumer to purchase a mostly otherwise ordinary item with romance and evanescence. People are hired to make massive profits by separating you from your money, one way or the other. All this other ethereal narrative is a mirage.


I disagree with that. Fashion 100 percent can be art.


----------



## TraceySH

jellyv said:


> How is the art market itself, i.e., art when it enters commerce, any different?  If you substitute the word "art" in the above for the word "fashion" the comments are still correct.  The problem with this campaign isn't about whether it's art or not--it doesn't get a free pass, period, because of social norms.


Real, authentic art, to me at least, isn’t widely received and able to be mass marketed. It’s very specific and unique, and most times the artists are disinterested in a goal of making millions of dollars in stock options, having multiple homes and Ferraris as a result of their consumer sales to the masses. Again, to me, the goal of art in its purest form is to evoke emotion, not to evoke retail sales to laud to board members for quarterly earnings reports.


----------



## TraceySH

SpeedyJC said:


> I disagree with that. Fashion 100 percent can be art.


The goal is still sales #1. Not just appreciation from afar. It’s all about money. All of it. Like I said, any “art” is secondary if that.


----------



## jellyv

TraceySH said:


> The goal is still sales #1. Not just appreciation from afar. It’s all about money. All of it. Like I said, any “art” is secondary if that.


^That's not the perspective of art historians and scholars of material culture, if you're speaking of fashion. Your notion of art being pure and untainted by commerce is the height of romanticization, which you just complained about above concerning fashion. If you know artists from any period of time in history--they like (or liked) to eat.

To topic, I think you were assailing anyone's supposed defense of this bad campaign on the basis of it being "art."  I'm saying its moral meaning and impact is totally unrelated to whether it is or isn't art.


----------



## SpeedyJC

TraceySH said:


> The goal is still sales #1. Not just appreciation from afar. It’s all about money. All of it. Like I said, any “art” is secondary if that.


And you do not think art is about the money?

I do not mean to sound rude so please do not take it that way but you do not know much about the world of art it seems.


----------



## TraceySH

SpeedyJC said:


> And you do not think art is about the money?
> 
> I do not mean to sound rude so please do not take it that way but you do not know much about the world of art it seems.


My best friends are the largest art dealers in the country so yeah, I’ve got plenty of backdrop and lots of interesting stories… that’s for sure.



SpeedyJC said:


> And you do not think art is about the money?
> 
> I do not mean to sound rude so please do not take it that way but you do not know much about the world of art it seems.


No. I don’t.



jellyv said:


> That's not the perspective of art historians or scholars of material culture if you're speaking of fashion. Your notion of art being pure and untainted by commerce is the height of romanticization, which you just complained about above concerning fashion. If you know artists from any period of time in history--they like (or liked) to eat.


Well I disagree entirely. And that’s ok. Mass produced fashion isn’t art. Never will be. Again, IMO.


----------



## SpeedyJC

TraceySH said:


> My best friends are the largest art dealers in the country so yeah, I’ve got plenty of backdrop and lots of interesting stories… that’s for sure.


My husband owned an art gallery in Manhattan and at the end of the day it was all about sales.

I have friends who are artists. Do you know how expensive it is to even be an artist? I was just talking over dinner to an artist from Brooklyn about this. Paints, Canvas , renting out a studio to be able to paint large pieces in ect ect. She loves being an artist but of course its about sales for her it has to be or she would not be able to afford to do this as a profession nor be able to afford to pay her bills, rent buy food.

Being an artist as your profession is about money. Unless you are talking about hobbyist who do not rely on art as main income. Sounds like you have a rather romantic idea of what art and I mean the serious art trade is actually about.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## TraceySH

SpeedyJC said:


> My husband owned an art gallery in Manhattan and at the end of the day it was all about sales.
> 
> I have friends who are artists. Do you know how expensive it is to even be an artist? I was just talking over dinner to an artist from Brooklyn about this. Paints, Canvas , renting out a studio to be able to paint large pieces in ect ect. She loves being an artist but of course its about sales for her it has to be or she would not be able to afford to do this as a profession nor be able to afford to pay her bills, rent buy food.
> 
> Being an artist as your profession is about money. Unless you are talking about hobbyist who do not rely on art as main income.


Clearly you didn’t understand my sentiment at all. Artists make as much money as they need to keep being artists. Typically their priority IS NOT flying around on private jets and being in board rooms and having multiple villas. Not saying there isn’t money in the ART BUSINESS. Clearly dealers make millions of dollars a month in trading to many billionaires. And have fun doing it. But the artists themselves? Nah.


----------



## HAZE MAT

Jktgal said:


> I want to comment on somebody saying it's stupid to get rid of Bal stuff since it's squandering money, illogical, etc. But people buy things because they value it (there's a whole field in economics analysing factors affecting demand) and most people on the globe would probably think spending more than 50$ on a bag is 'stupid'. A bottle of Loub nail polish may be priced $50 but my value for it is exactly zero - if I get it for free I will use it but won't pay more than zero for it; yet I'll pay $20-30 for polish from another brand.
> I also worked in advertising and clearly the campaign is intentional. Who are the target for such campaign? To me it is very clear because child abuse (through pornography, exploitation etc) do exist day to day. There are perpetrators, gatekeepers, closet admirers, all potential sales.
> Also admirers of free speech, the-unwoke, art for art's sake, etc, all potential sales.
> Also logo people for which logo = value, now introduced to the brand due to it being on news etc.
> If I spend a couple of hours researching, no doubt I'l find more consumer segments for which such ad will create/enhance value.
> The brand may walk back on said advert now due to backlash from current customers who suddenly realise their value of the brand has diminished, but I am convinced the ad was intentional and had a target consumer in mind.
> 
> Edit: I was going to post this in the other thread but I think maybe still relevant in this thread. Which is: for me, I'm looking fwd to prices for older Bals in the 2ndary market to drop and thereby alligns more closely to my value for them, which this brouhaha will likely facilitate.


I agree. Because of the ad and their other subversive ideas I actually plan to buy more of their goods. Apparently unlike the other fashion houses at least their team can do sociopolitical commentary better than anyone else.

If folks want to toss their Balenciaga goodies to the curb please DM me and I will gladly take all of your Balenciaga collection via post or FedEx 

Sorry YSL.


----------



## HAZE MAT

TraceySH said:


> Clearly you didn’t understand my sentiment at all. Artists make as much money as they need to keep being artists. Typically their priority IS NOT flying around on private jets and being in board rooms and having multiple villas. Not saying there isn’t money in the ART BUSINESS. Clearly dealers make millions of dollars a month in trading to many billionaires. And have fun doing it. But the artists themselves? Nah.


Damien Hirst anyone?


----------



## TraceySH

HAZE MAT said:


> Damien Hirst anyone?


And clearly YOU didn’t read all my posts correctly. I made room in each of them for outliers.


----------



## SpeedyJC

TraceySH said:


> Clearly you didn’t understand my sentiment at all. Artists make as much money as they need to keep being artists. Typically their priority IS NOT flying around on private jets and being in board rooms and having multiple villas. Not saying there isn’t money in the ART BUSINESS. Clearly dealers make millions of dollars a month in trading to many billionaires. And have fun doing it. But the artists themselves? Nah.


and what about all the fashion designers out there also not living the life of a jet setting millionaire? Why is their fashion not art according to you?


----------



## TraceySH

SpeedyJC said:


> and what about all the fashion designers out there also not living the life of a jet setting millionaire? Why is their fashion not art according to you?


They don’t work for Balenciaga making billions of dollars for the company, do they?

And that’s exactly my point that you just made.  It’s always about the money.


----------



## SpeedyJC

TraceySH said:


> They don’t work for Balenciaga making billions of dollars for the company, do they?
> 
> And that’s exactly my point that you just made.  It’s always about the money.


So are you saying that fashion can be art as long as its not  that of a large fashion house? What about the artist who keep large art galleries and dealers afloat? Billions are exchanged in the art world. Are they not truly artist? What about artist who get hired to work for campaigns for these companies? Are they not artist anymore because they illustrated an ad for lets say Gucci? 

Sorry but your sweeping statements,  generalizations and standards are confusing.

I typically find people who insist they know what art is never actually do know what art is its just what they think it is. Can anyone truly even say what art is or is not? 

With that I am moving on from this conversation as its not on topic at all.


----------



## Suzil

RitaLA said:


> Thank you for sharing your experience and I am deeply sorry that it happened to you. It's heartbreaking and it leaves so many wounds. I think that is why we are so passionate about the topic. If one has been sexually abused or works with victims of sexual abuse (which there are so many different expressions of it) we can see the writing on the wall. Wishing you all the best


Thank you for the very kind words!! ♥️


----------



## TraceySH

SpeedyJC said:


> So are you saying that fashion can be art as long as its not  that of a large fashion house? What about the artist who keep large art galleries and dealers afloat? Billions are exchanged in the art world. Are they not truly artist? What about artist who get hired to work for campaigns for these companies? Are they not artist anymore because they illustrated an ad for lets say Gucci?
> 
> Sorry but your sweeping statements,  generalizations and standards are confusing.
> 
> I typically find people who insist they know what art is never actually do know what art is its just what they think it is. Can anyone truly even say what art is or is not?
> 
> With that I am moving on from this conversation as its not on topic at all.


Agree, this is totally off topic. And again, even tho I prefaced many times above, these are all my opinions. We don't need to agree. 

The point is, all of this is about money. Everything. Do you think Balenciaga would "apologize" if they thought this might not affect sales? Of course not. When we say, boycott or "let's hit them where it hurts", we aren't talking about telling them we don't think what they produce is art. They don't care about that! We are talking about SALES. 

So in that vein, a bad controversy for them isn't about their "artistic reputation". It's about their bottom line....SALES.


----------



## 880

Re whether the thread topic (child with bondage bear) has artistic merit (I’m not going to debate whether fashion advertising is an art form) Aside from its subject matter,  divorced from its subtext, (which many would find impossible to separate out), I would say that the image has a flowing narrative, definite point of view, deliberately staged and decent composition, and is very polished. (I’m a visual artist who has sold a large portion of my work in the past, mainly prior to pursuing other unrelated career objectives). 

A lot of art is found in reproduction: prints; photos; series. . . I certainly cannot determine what is definitively art and what isn’t. Certainly some artists are more commercial than others. And, it goes without saying that many fine artists were terrible people with questionable taste and morality. 

The ad’s edgy quality and artistic polish might be what people in the future remember about this image.


----------



## 2cello

Perhaps one day we’ll move past edgy. Edge requires constantly moving the line. What’s the next edgy move now that we’ve mainstreamed the sexual exploitation of children?  Animals?


----------



## Suzil

2manychins said:


> I’m so sorry, I know your pain and how triggering this is.  Hugs


I so wish you didn’t! Hugs back to you! ♥️


OriginalBalenciaga said:


> @Suzil & @Shelby33 & @SakuraSakura   I am so very sorry and sending wishes for healing and comfort to you all


Thank you so very much ♥️


----------



## RitaLA

2cello said:


> Perhaps one day we’ll move past edgy. Edge requires constantly moving the line. What’s the next edgy move now that we’ve mainstreamed the sexual exploitation of children?  Animals?


I agree. One can be edgy and challenge the cultural metanarrative without wounding others. Some might say, "no child was harmed in this ad." Maybe they were not immediately wounded physically, but once we start introducing the idea that children belong in sexual messages, expressed in their different forms, we are systemically hurting them short and long-term. No one ... I mean no one should sexualize a child. That has severe, long-term, and deep psychological consequences. When society sexualizes children, it harms them greatly. We are all sexual beings and we express it in different ways. Balenciaga can be edgy in challenging the sexual metanarrative, without involving children.


----------



## 2cello

Well I’m also challenging the basic premise that edgy is always desirable, or the highest artistic goal, independent of this particular ad.


----------



## RitaLA

2cello said:


> Well I’m also challenging the basic premise that edgy is always desirable, or the highest artistic goal, independent of this particular ad.


Not sure if I understand what you are saying LOL, but I think in every culture or in every cultural setting, there will always be someone challenging the main message (whatever the message is). And I personally believe there is something healthy about it. It creates dialogue, challenges people's thought processes, and it helps us to think critically about things. I am not a religious person under any circumstances, but I do think the idea of "loving your neighbor, as you love yourself," concept should be applied. And here, in this context, children are our "neighbors." We have to protect them and love them, instead of placing them in a context that might harm them. And some may debate what "harming others" might mean. To me, it is pretty clear. But we all hold different values and that will affect they way we perceive life and make judgments about what we see and how we behave.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Shelby33

Shelby33 said:


> I'm so sorry you had to go through that.
> I was just going to post about the expression on that little girl's face. Not even fear, just hopeless resignation.


I want to add, I am not saying anything happened to the girl in the photo. But out of all the pictures they must have taken, I think it's strange that they would choose this picture to use.


----------



## ILP

It is annoying to watch these celebs and so-called influencers dumping/burning their Balenciaga items on social media for attention and “likes”.  Instead, they should sell these things and donate the profits to a cause that helps children who have been victimized - like a non-profit that supports victims of child trafficking.  And they should “influence” others to do the same.


----------



## linhtp411

It's disgusting! How could so many masterminds let this happen? What's wrong with this world? I have never supported Balenciaga and WILL NEVER support this house. Not like anything they make look appealing to me


----------



## trippinonsunshine

880 said:


> The ad’s edgy quality and artistic polish might be what people in the future remember about this image.




And if so, we have learned nothing -that would be a terrible, terrible tragedy.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

Shelby33 said:


> I want to add, I am not saying anything happened to the girl in the photo. But out of all the pictures they must have taken, I think it's strange that they would choose this picture to use.


They were clearly going for a certain look - these shot were the aim. What I'd like to know is how did they approach that photo shoot to obtain this type of look. The photographer/designer meeting to discuss same or however this would be normally done...What role did the parents play in achieving this outcome? How were these particular children selected? I am sorry I don't think these parents should be absolved, nor the talent agency.


----------



## Brooklynite

cerulean blue said:


> People who aren't even involved in the shoot are being harassed and accosted. Friends of demna, those who aren't even associated with Balenciaga anymore, celebrities who were there pose and look good, etc. There have been cases with the stores and client services too. A friend notified me of heightened security at some locations because of this. It's going too far. Retail employees, who literally just sell the merchandise (and not paid the best imo), are being harassed. They already have to deal with exacting clients and unrealistic sales goals. Why are people doing this?



Isn't it Demna or Kering's fault? If there is one person who stands up like a man to what he/she believes, show up, explain, and take accountability. All of the big shots are hiding, and this is why everyone is looking for an answer. 

It's 100% on the offending party which is Demna/Kering.


----------



## Coco.lover

It’s awful but I’ll still continue to use the bags I own.


----------



## chloehandbags

trippinonsunshine said:


> They were clearly going for a certain look - these shot were the aim. What I'd like to know is how did they approach that photo shoot to obtain this type of look. The photographer/designer meeting to discuss same or however this would be normally done...What role did the parents play in achieving this outcome? How were these particular children selected? I am sorry I don't think these parents should be absolved, nor the talent agency.


Somebody said that they were the children of staff members, rather than models as such, but I obviously don't know if that is true, or not.


----------



## jay_que_lyn

I'm sure there's info that has been put out there that I haven't heard about yet, but I hopped on fashionphile yesterday because I was curious about their pricing. I didn't see any drastic drops in their pricing. I haven't seen companies say they're ending their relationship with Balenciaga. 
It's not the first controversy a fashion house has had and it won't be the last. But I can't help roll my eyes at this.
considering this was a ad campaign vs how many companies that violate labor/human rights and no one bats an eye because the items are  affordable. Like, really? People don't seem to mind the kid in underdeveloped country working all day, not going to school for a small amount of money because those sneakers and fast fashion, cell phone items are so cool? OK then...

I know this is incredibly cynical POV, but ultimately I think it'll pass.


----------



## jay_que_lyn

HAZE MAT said:


> I agree. Because of the ad and their other subversive ideas I actually plan to buy more of their goods. Apparently unlike the other fashion houses at least their team can do sociopolitical commentary better than anyone else.
> 
> If folks want to toss their Balenciaga goodies to the curb please DM me and I will gladly take all of your Balenciaga collection via post or FedEx
> 
> Sorry YSL.


right?! accepting Balenciaga donations here LOL


----------



## SB Bag Lady

I’m not going to let some “influencer” or Fox News tell me what I can & can’t wear. I’ll wear what I want, including Balenciaga. Cancel culture is so lame.


----------



## ccbaggirl89

RitaLA said:


> I agree. One can be edgy and challenge the cultural metanarrative without wounding others. Some might say, "no child was harmed in this ad." Maybe they were not immediately wounded physically, but once we start introducing the idea that children belong in sexual messages, expressed in their different forms, we are systemically hurting them short and long-term. No one ... I mean no one should sexualize a child. That has severe, long-term, and deep psychological consequences. When society sexualizes children, it harms them greatly. We are all sexual beings and we express it in different ways. Balenciaga can be edgy in challenging the sexual metanarrative, without involving children.


Exactly. If you swap out the children used in the ads and insert adults -- would any of this be an issue? It's the use of children that bothers me and nothing else about the ad. The ad is still not my personal style or interest but it wouldn't have mattered at all -- their use of children to sell this more adult theme is my issue.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

jay_que_lyn said:


> I'm sure there's info that has been put out there that I haven't heard about yet, but I hopped on fashionphile yesterday because I was curious about their pricing. I didn't see any drastic drops in their pricing. I haven't seen companies say they're ending their relationship with Balenciaga.
> It's not the first controversy a fashion house has had and it won't be the last. But I can't help roll my eyes at this.
> considering this was a ad campaign vs how many companies that violate labor/human rights and no one bats an eye because the items are  affordable. Like, really? People don't seem to mind the kid in underdeveloped country working all day, not going to school for a small amount of money because those sneakers and fast fashion, cell phone items are so cool? OK then...
> 
> I know this is incredibly cynical POV, but ultimately I think it'll pass.


Two wrongs do not make it right.


----------



## maxxout

jellyv said:


> How is the art market itself, i.e., art when it enters public spaces and commerce, any different?  If you substitute the word "art" in the above for the word "fashion" the comments are still correct. Art is a commodity. The problem with this campaign isn't about whether it's art or not--it doesn't get a free pass, period, because of social norms.



The difference between fashion and art is that fashion is made for the market from the very beginning. 
Art, true, art, is made from a deeper personal place without concerns for the marketplace. Art enters the marketplace as a commodity after that.


----------



## jellyv

T


maxxout said:


> The difference between fashion and art is that fashion is made for the market from the very beginning.
> Art, true, art, is made from a deeper personal place without concerns for the marketplace. Art enters the marketplace as a commodity after that.


This I agree with, which is why I mentioned the *art market,* meaning art when it's tied up in commerce. The same romanticization and storytelling surrounds art every bit as much as it does other branches of creative effort, inc. fashion marketing. Talk to open the wallet.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## maxxout

^^^ 
Yes. ART and the art market are two entirely different things. Usually they are polar opposites.

They work pretty well together, as artist do need to be supported. It’s always a struggle for artist to keep things clean of the marketplace when creating, but then, when it does enter the marketplace to let it go.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

BALENCIAGA TAKES THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WITH THE OBJECTIVE TO LEARN
FROM OUR MISTAKES AS AN ORGANIZATION.
NEW CONTROL INSTANCES:
OUR CURRENT PROCESS FOR CONTENT VALIDATION HAS FAILED, AND WE
RECOGNIZE THE NEED TO DO BETTER
ON THE INTERNAL SIDE, WE NOMINATE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AN IM-
AGE BOARD RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING THE NATURE OF OUR CONTENT
FROM CONCEPT TO FINAL ASSETS, INCLUDING LEGAL, SUSTAINABILITY AND
DIVERSITY EXPERTISE
ON THE EXTERNAL SIDE, WE HAVE APPOINTED A BEST-IN-CLASS AGENCY
TO ASSESS AND EVALUATE OUR CONTENT
ORGANIZATION:
WE HAVE REORGANIZED OUR IMAGE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE FULL ALIGN-
MENT WITH OUR CORPORATE GUIDELINES
LAWSUIT:
BALENCIAGA HAS DECIDED NOT TO PURSUE LITIGATION
LEARN AND CONTRIBUTE:
WE WANT TO LEARN, HELP AND CONTRIBUTE TO PROTECT CHILDREN
WE ARE STARTING TRAININGS ON RESPONSIBLE COMMUNICATION ACROSS
OUR TEAMS
TOGETHER WITH MY TEAM, WE WILL GO ON "LISTENING TOUR" TO ENGAGE
WITH ADVOCACY GROUPS WHO AIM TO PROTECT CHILDREN
DONATION:
WE HAVE SET ASIDE A SIGNIFICANT FUND FOR GRANTS TO ORGANIZATIONS
SO THAT WE CAN HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN PROTECTING CHILDREN
I WANT TO PERSONALLY REITERATE MY SINCERE APOLOGIES FOR THE OFFENSE
CAUSED AND TAKE MY RESPONSIBILITY.
AT BALENCIAGA, WE STAND TOGETHER FOR CHILDREN SAFETY AND DO NOT
TOLERATE ANY KIND OF VIOLENCE AND HATRED MESSAGE.
CÉDRIC CHARBIT
PRESIDENT AND CEO

What a load of crap! You need to appoint an "image board" to know right from wrong when using children in campaigns? No you need an image board to assess legal ramifications --disgusting. You drop the lawsuit not to assume full responsibility and screen every individual internally responsible for allowing this to be approved/released. You again reiterate appointing a "best in class agency to evaluate content" -- what is wrong with you people? If you took accountability and heads rolled over there who were responsible and a clear public message was sent that would be a start. You retain the designer !!!!!

Typical corporate PR statement. Assign a board, coordinate trainings, throw pretend money that you receive tax incentive at the issue and my personal favorite --go on a listening tour... I hope you get an earful of insight.  BTW- lose the caps..

Set aside significant fund for grants ? How much?  
At Balenciaga we stand together for children safety and do not tolerate any kind of violence or hatred message.... Obtuse!

Every time they open their mouths, I get more angry.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

Personal Message
I want to personally apologize for the wrong artistic
choice of concept for the gifting campaign with the kids
and I take my responsibility. It was inappropriate to have
kids promote objects that had nothing to do with them.
As much as I would sometimes like to provoke a thought
through my work, I would NEVER have an intention to
do that with such an awful subject as child abuse that
I condemn. Period.
I need to learn from this, listen and engage with child
protection organizations to know how I can contribute
and help on this terrible subject.
I apologize to anyone offended by the visuals and
Balenciaga has guaranteed that adequate mea-
sures will be taken not only to avoid similar mis.
takes in the future but also to take accountability in
protecting child welfare in every way we can.
Sincerely
Demna

The wrong artistic choice for the gifting campaign with kids and I take my responsibility ---- HOW?
It is inappropriate to have kids promote objects that have nothing to do with them?  REALLY? That is what you take away from this? No wonder Balenciaga indicates they are instituting all the hand holding going forward.  So why did you create a campaign and have kids promote objects that have nothing to do with them? Explain that please!!  Discuss what creative process got you in this situation. I would love to understand and not speculate instead of You and B. talking in circles with corporate speak.  What was this campaign supposed to represent? Why?


----------



## dangerouscurves

I don't buy his apology. His stylist, Lotta, has disturbing 'arts' that include violence towards children. There's a painting of a disembowel boy in her Instagram feed. Remember those dirty sneakers Balenciaga tried to sell? I watch a video on YouTube saying this shoes were supposedly the murdered children shoes. Why do they even have names for those shoes, such as 'Maria's destroyed shoes'? This is sick. The interpol needs to investigate thiis.


----------



## Noorasi

cerulean blue said:


> I have acquaintances and friends that work in higher positions with the house; I've spoken with them to get clarification on this situation. The attempt to generate controversy is _*NOT*_ true. This was a holiday/gifts campaign, which was to appeal to a very broad audience, so there was no attempt to generate (this type) controversy which would likely alienate people.
> 
> To reiterate, none of this was deliberate in generating controversy. The attempts Balenciaga makes to generate controversy are usually done with frivolity like the trash bags. That's the type of controversy Balenciaga likes to garner, to agitate and subvert the average person's sense of good taste regarding design and fashion._* Not speak to abuse, p*rn, racism, or to offend any marginalized group. *_
> 
> Regarding the holiday campaign, the bears are 'mascota' bags that were adorned with punk, goth, or emo style clothing and accessories which is a sub-culture and aesthetic Demna has explored constantly throughout his collections. In fact, the photographer said Balenciaga told him the theme was "punk". The intent was Gabriele's style of photography art, combined a punk sensibility, to advertise the series of Balenciaga products that would be good gifts: candle holders, ornaments, apparel/shoes.
> 
> Yes, the idea was misguided and reads offensive when you consider what people outside your circle will think. However, the series of people who approved this have the same groupthink. They all are familiar with Demna's ideas (which is punk) so they would approve this. When you are _only_ thinking of punk, Demna's style, and that's all you think of after working with him for half a decade, for some, you might not think of anything else. They did not consider external associations or undertones like BDSM, bondage, or abuse with the bear bags. And _Balenciaga has taken accountability for that per their statement._


I'm sorry but this all sounds very delusional considering we know Lotta Volkova has worked loads with Balenciaga (brand consulting etc.) and is a friend of Demna's, they've been working together since 2015. Lotta is the one who's Instagram is full of child gore and all sorts of disturbing material involving children and blood. She's also posted teddy bears in bondage gear. The W Magazine wrote in 2016 that Lotta was_ "one of the key players who helped shape Demna Gvasalia’s underground-cool label". _

As mentioned in this thread earlier, Demna himself wrote on Instagram back in 2016 that “_Someone wrote that Lotta, Gosha, and I grew up on child pornography and radiation from Chernobyl, which is why we’re so f*cked up._" The other friend he mentions is Gosha Rubchinskiy, the designer who previously had a bit of a scandal because he was caught asking nudes from a 16-year-old male model.

To be clear, as far as I know Lotta Volkova was not working on these Balenciaga campaigns and has not worked with Balenciaga recently, but the influences look eerily similar. In any case, claiming all of this is just Demna being _purely punk_ is utterly ridiculous.


----------



## RitaLA

There are SO many red flags in their fake apology that I don't even know where to start. When it is said, 
"I WANT TO PERSONALLY REITERATE MY SINCERE APOLOGIES FOR THE OFFENSE
CAUSED AND TAKE MY RESPONSIBILITY."
So this person wants to apologize for the offense caused. Okay ... you are basically saying that this didn't offend you. It offended some of us. So you are throwing the responsibility on us because we felt offended by your "art." That person doesn't see anything wrong in the pictures they provided??? You are still not taking any responsibility. If you can't see how deeply pathological this is, then you need help.


----------



## Jaxholt15

It’s clear they went in a direction that they now regret.  I really doubt that Balenciaga as a whole condones child abuse.  What can they do but apologize?


----------



## RitaLA

I am just talking out loud here ... I don't own any Balenciaga bags because I never fell in love with any of their designs. But I am trying to focus on Kering as a company because I do own Gucci and YSL bags. I personally do not want to own bags that belong to a company that is not bothered by one of their brands sexualizing children. I do not want to align with them. I reject their message and I reject their products. The owner of Kering, also owns an auction website that sells child sex mannequins with genitalia on their faces. You can research online and that information is out there for anyone to see. Let's think systemically again. If the CEO of Kering, own an action website that sells child mannequins with genitalia on their faces, you don't think that mindset will not affect the direction of the brands under him? It's a loop .. it goes around and around and around.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

Jaxholt15 said:


> It’s clear they went in a direction that they now regret.  I really doubt that Balenciaga as a whole condones child abuse.  What can they do but apologize?


Explain themselves - that is what I'd like to see. What was the thinking behind this campaign or both campaigns for that matter. Hubris!


----------



## RitaLA

trippinonsunshine said:


> Explain themselves - that is what I'd like to see. What was the thinking behind this campaign or both campaigns for that matter. Hubris!


Exactly! They just keep saying that we got offended. Yeah, we did. Didn't they? Now, they need to put protocols in place to avoid these situations. Protocol??? This should be common sense. You need to hire boards and other decision-makers when you (meaning the brand) are unable to do that yourself. So they need a group of people with some kind of moral and ethical "special" compass to vet things. That means that Kering has none. The statement they released actually makes things worse for them


----------



## jellyv

Crisis management _starts with_ communication.  If the apology and words about it thus far have failed for some of you, what apology wouldn't have failed? Language to the effect of taking responsibility,  mentioning the problems, and stating steps to fix it going forward apparently isn't enough: you got better words?  What might they be?  Care to offer a draft? (Spoiler: there are no apologies some here will offer as acceptable. We know this.) 

Again, this is the stage of public contrition. Not the actions succeeding it.


----------



## Shelby33

jay_que_lyn said:


> I'm sure there's info that has been put out there that I haven't heard about yet, but I hopped on fashionphile yesterday because I was curious about their pricing. I didn't see any drastic drops in their pricing. I haven't seen companies say they're ending their relationship with Balenciaga.
> It's not the first controversy a fashion house has had and it won't be the last. But I can't help roll my eyes at this.
> considering this was a ad campaign vs how many companies that violate labor/human rights and no one bats an eye because the items are  affordable. Like, really? People don't seem to mind the kid in underdeveloped country working all day, not going to school for a small amount of money because those sneakers and fast fashion, cell phone items are so cool? OK then...
> 
> I know this is incredibly cynical POV, but ultimately I think it'll pass.


I don't think this is true though-I have seen many many posts from members here very concerned about child labor. We are a small fraction of the public, honestly I don't think most people research where or how their bag was made. A lot of people care about and are against child labor, maybe it doesn't occur to them to look at the label in their bags. 
Normalizing sexual abuse-especially of children-is an entirely different subject. Using those photos were on purpose to get a reaction and they got one.


----------



## Shelby33

jellyv said:


> Crisis management _starts with_ communication.  If the apology and words about it thus far have failed for some of you, what apology wouldn't have failed? Language to the effect of taking responsibility,  mentioning the problems, and stating steps to fix it going forward apparently isn't enough: you got better words?  What might they be?  Care to offer a draft? (Spoiler: there are no apologies some here will offer as acceptable. We know this.)
> 
> Again, this is the stage of public contrition. Not the actions succeeding it.


Maybe "We fu*ked up, (a WHOLE BUNCH OF US) and will cut ties with anyone who approved these entirely inappropriate photos to be used in our stupid gift shop promotion" 
I'd have more respect for that then the crap they are handing us.


----------



## jellyv

Shelby33 said:


> Maybe "We fu*ked up, (a WHOLE BUNCH OF US) and will cut ties with anyone who approved these entirely inappropriate photos to be used in our stupid gift shop promotion"
> I'd have more respect for that then the crap they are handing us.


So you think they could announce specific, confidential staff firing decisions in a mea culpa PR memo, without following due process...


----------



## ccbaggirl89

RitaLA said:


> I am just talking out loud here ... I don't own any Balenciaga bags because I never fell in love with any of their designs. But I am trying to focus on Kering as a company because I do own Gucci and YSL bags. I personally do not want to own bags that belong to a company that is not bothered by one of their brands sexualizing children. I do not want to align with them. I reject their message and I reject their products. The owner of Kering, also owns an auction website that sells child sex mannequins with genitalia on their faces. You can research online and that information is out there for anyone to see. Let's think systemically again. If the CEO of Kering, own an action website that sells child mannequins with genitalia on their faces, you don't think that mindset will not affect the direction of the brands under him? It's a loop .. it goes around and around and around.


I own Bal, Gucci and YSL and I happen to really like Gucci. Even if I stay away from Bal bags in the future I'm sure that money from the other brands would go towards helping Bal if they happen to falter in sales as a result of this botched campaign. I imagine that supporting the other brands indirectly still supports Bal so I won't be purchasing from Kering group again.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

jellyv said:


> Crisis management _starts with_ communication.  If the apology and words about it thus far have failed for some of you, what apology wouldn't have failed? Language to the effect of taking responsibility,  mentioning the problems, and stating steps to fix it going forward apparently isn't enough: you got better words?  What might they be?  Care to offer a draft? (Spoiler: there are no apologies some here will offer as acceptable. We know this.)
> 
> Again, this is the stage of public contrition. Not the actions succeeding it.


I'm not going to do the heavy lifting for them. What's been stated by them thus far, is woefully inadequate. Since the word contrition has been used, here is the definition sourced from dictionary.com.--- meaning sincere penitence or remorse - Nothing stated thus far conveys that sentiment.


----------



## SakuraSakura

I've been ambivalent about whether I should comment as this is a sensitive for many of our members, myself included. Once I reply, for my peace of mind, I will not be responding. 

Balenciaga deserves every morsel of vitriol they're receiving. Every element within the photo shoot was carefully selected to craft an image, one that places children at its focal point. It is one thing to take controversial pictures and dissect painful topics but it's another to willingly insert Supreme Court documents into the background and posing children on a bed. Children cannot legally consent to how their likeness is portrayed. It is abhorrent that the adults saw nothing wrong with this. In any type of media, framing is everything. The way these CHILDREN are being framed is gross. It is for the sake of shock value - there is NO art in this kind of SHOCK VALUE.


----------



## RitaLA

ccbaggirl89 said:


> I own Bal, Gucci and YSL and I happen to really like Gucci. Even if I stay away from Bal bags in the future I'm sure that money from the other brands would go towards helping Bal if they happen to falter in sales as a result of this botched campaign. I imagine that supporting the other brands indirectly still supports Bal so I won't be purchasing from Kering group again.


Right. They need to balance the portfolio and keep the companies in shape and afloat. I am out. No more bags from Kering brands for me. The company doesn't align with my values.  And in the future, I need to do my own homework by researching companies and not just fall for design. But this is me. I am not preaching to anyone. People do whatever they want with their money.


----------



## Shelby33

jellyv said:


> So you think they could announce specific, confidential staff firing decisions in a mea culpa PR memo, without following due process...


I don't care about their due process and where did I say they should announce who gets fired? 
They could at least show that they are taking this very seriously, but all they are taking seriously right now is "How can we get out of this and make it look like it was an accident". 
What did Demna say something like "I hope to learn from this" etc. Really?? He knew exactly what he was doing, it's all there perfectly laid out. Nobody could accidentally include that much symbolism of the same thing.


----------



## Shelby33

SakuraSakura said:


> I've been ambivalent about whether I should comment as this is a sensitive for many of our members, myself included. Once I reply, for my peace of mind, I will not be responding.
> 
> Balenciaga deserves every morsel of vitriol they're receiving. Every element within the photo shoot was carefully selected to craft an image, one that places children at its focal point. It is one thing to take controversial pictures and dissect painful topics but it's another to willingly insert Supreme Court documents into the background and posing children on a bed. Children cannot legally consent to how their likeness is portrayed. It is abhorrent that the adults saw nothing wrong with this. In any type of media, framing is everything. The way these CHILDREN are being framed is gross. It is for the sake of shock value - there is NO art in this kind of SHOCK VALUE.


I was talking about this with a friend who is a Detective in IL. He showed me a dozen different examples of items that were in the photos and told me what they meant, before I said "ok enough". He said they weren't trying to hide it. They were advertising it. And the way one of the girls was standing on the bed... Wtf.


----------



## jellyv

Shelby33 said:


> I don't care about their due process and where did I say they should announce who gets fired?


You don't care, a position that costs you nothing, personally, to hold, without any stake in the outcome. But companies and big orgs do and must care about HR process, because that's potentially disastrous and expensive to mess up. They're already in the midst of a disaster.

Answering your question, in post 450 You wrote: "Maybe "We fu*ked up, (a WHOLE BUNCH OF US) and *will cut ties with anyone who approved these entirely inappropriate photos *to be used in our stupid gift shop promotion"-- which had to be in house, and probably easily outed, hence totally not what they'd do in a PR apology.


----------



## Shelby33

jellyv said:


> You don't and that's cheap to have a feeling.  But companies do and must care about HR process, because that's potentially very expensive otherwise.
> 
> Answering your question, in post 450 You wrote: "Maybe "We fu*ked up, (a WHOLE BUNCH OF US) and *will cut ties with anyone who approved these entirely inappropriate photos *to be used in our stupid gift shop promotion"-- which had to be in house, hence announcing firings just as chatter for the public. Not going to happen.


I know it won't happen. But you asked what apology would satisfy people, and that's the apology I want to hear. They do not seem to be upset, shocked, outraged about this do they? I hear a few people saying this will blow over and I hear many, many more say they will never forget. People are upset. It took too long to post a very carefully worded apology that sounds like damage control. It doesn't feel sincere to me.
ETA to address your first point-I am not worried about the adults who thought this was OK. They are adults they can defend their position but children cannot. Children are not to be the prize for sick people. I will worry about the kids and if I have an extra minute maybe I will worry about the adults. I am not trying to be disrespectful to you, but this is how I feel.


----------



## roomservicemenu

I truly feel Balenciaga is finished at this point. There is no turning back after what they have done and they should just throw the whole company in the trash and each and everyone who did not say NO to this campaign should go to therapy and court.

I’m sorry but the line that has been crossed here is just unbelievably disturbing and makes me want to throw up.


----------



## RitaLA

roomservicemenu said:


> I truly feel Balenciaga is finished at this point. There is no turning back after what they have done and they should just throw the whole company in the trash and each and everyone who did not say NO to this campaign should go to therapy and court.
> 
> I’m sorry but the line that has been crossed here is just unbelievably disturbing and makes me want to throw up.


They are probably counting that people will move on and forget. And I do wish, with all my heart that no one WILL EVER forget and now allow them to continue with their desensitizing agenda and that they will pay the price for what they have done


----------



## reflection212

I don’t know much about Balenciaga and their history, but saw a behind the scenes clip of a fashion show model holding baby doll in a front carrier (supposedly with a bruise on her though I couldn’t see it) also holding a Balenciaga Paris bag with a pacifier, bloody clothes and a bloody teddy bear inside. Is this type of thing common in Balenciaga fashion shows? 



Also, it makes sense teddy bears represent childhood innocence and they are doing to the bears what they can’t actually do to children.


----------



## RitaLA

reflection212 said:


> I don’t know much about Balenciaga and their history, but saw a behind the scenes clip of a fashion show model holding baby doll in a front carrier (supposedly with a bruise on her though I couldn’t see it) also holding a Balenciaga Paris bag with a pacifier, bloody clothes and a bloody teddy bear inside. Is this type of thing common in Balenciaga fashion shows?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, it makes sense teddy bears represent childhood innocence and they are doing to the bears what they can’t actually do to children.
> 
> View attachment 5663761
> 
> 
> View attachment 5663762
> 
> 
> View attachment 5663763


This is what we have been talking about ALL WEEK. It's not one isolated incident. It's not one ad. One campaign. One photoshoot. One court document. Once we start putting all the pieces of the puzzle together, we see a theme. And the themes are children, sexualization of children, violence, and children covered in blood. How on earth can anyone with a sane mind deny this? How can anyone with a moral compass not acknowledge this?  Sickening and disgusting!!!!  Thank you for sharing


----------



## RitaLA

For the sake of not shocking the audience I will only post this picture that people are saying belongs to Fracois Pinault (the CEO of Kering) auction's house website. Pictures are all over the web.


----------



## Pkac

Shelby33 said:


> Nobody could accidentally include that much symbolism of the same thing.


THIS.


----------



## dangerouscurves

This controversy literally makes me physically ill. I can't imagine what these unfortunate children have to go through in real life. I've also decided not to buy anything from Kering anymore. I'll still carry my bags in my collection. After seeing what other fellow tpfs post here, I just can't.


----------



## addiCCted

Shelby33 said:


> I was talking about this with a friend who is a Detective in IL. He showed me a dozen different examples of items that were in the photos and told me what they meant, before I said "ok enough". He said they weren't trying to hide it. They were advertising it. And the way one of the girls was standing on the bed... Wtf.


Do you mind sharing the items and the relevance? I think it would be informative so that more people are aware of what to look for. I know it’s a nauseating subject but I’d hate to see something else in plain sight and not know what it really was.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## CrackBerryCream

RitaLA said:


> For the sake of not shocking the audience I will only post this picture that people are saying belongs to Fracois Pinault (the CEO of Kering) auction's house website. Pictures are all over the web.


The auction house in question is Christie's. It's not as if these questionable artworks are the only type of art they're selling.
If one digs deep enough one can always find "something" to support one's opinion.


----------



## dangerouscurves

The silence of the fashion universe is deafening.


----------



## ChampagneandChakras

RitaLA said:


> Right. They need to balance the portfolio and keep the companies in shape and afloat. I am out. No more bags from Kering brands for me. The company doesn't align with my values.  And in the future, I need to do my own homework by researching companies and not just fall for design. But this is me. I am not preaching to anyone. People do whatever they want with their money.


There goes my first Gucci purchase. Was trying to branch out from LV.


----------



## Shelby33

addiCCted said:


> Do you mind sharing the items and the relevance? I think it would be informative so that more people are aware of what to look for. I know it’s a nauseating subject but I’d hate to see something else in plain sight and not know what it really was.


Off the top of my head-
Teddy bears - innocence 
White rabbit(there's one in EVERY pic) - purity
He mentioned the crow on the wall, some drawings here, I do not remember what he said about those. I have to make another post about what else he said because I'm having problems uploading the pictures.


----------



## Shelby33

In the first picture he immediately noticed the placement of the child and the placement of the straw.
There are wine glasses there and again the bondage bear.

In every picture the children are wearing adult sized sneakers. 

In the second picture the child is now lying down, he thought that could  be suggesting that she was given alcohol.
The couch she is lying on looks like an alter. There is a "heart within a heart" chair on the left, I don't know if I should say what that means but you can Google it.
There appears to be a tea party set up. I have heard from 2 women that this is how they were lured to someone's (both offenders were relatives of each woman) home.
Oh and of course the bondage bears.


----------



## Shelby33

There are other pictures but you get the idea. These observations are immediately apparent, there is nothing there I can find that suggests happiness, cool sneakers, do I want those sunglasses, etc. It looks like the child is the product. It's just really strange, I don't think any parent would give their child that bear or set up a room for a play date like that. 
Then there are the two photos that were released days later-they knew what those court documents referenced and what was in the Michaël Borremans' book, which is also on the desk. Don't Google those pictures if you value your sanity.


----------



## LuxePup

Accepting Balenciaga bags donations here, thanks y’all.


----------



## chloehandbags

LuxePup said:


> Accepting Balenciaga bags donations here, thanks y’all.


Nobody is going to stop using their bags, due to this, just to give them to someone else who would then use them instead.

How would that send a message to anyone?


----------



## trippinonsunshine

@880 I tried messaging you privately (to keep on topic) but was unable, so this will be short. Regarding the departure from topic many posts ago, I realize that I had joined the thread after the issue referenced and didn't appreciate the full presentation by the time the remark that I did see, was posted.  I now understand. If there is more to learn in terms of product placement as it relates to the campaign, that is also under this umbrella topic, please let me know. In reading back, it appears your comment was more related to a post and not B. campaign. Thanks for way you handled the matter. I came away positive and wanting to understand.


----------



## 880

trippinonsunshine said:


> @880 I tried messaging you privately (to keep on topic) but was unable, so this will be short. Regarding the departure from topic many posts ago, I realize that I had joined the thread after the issue referenced and didn't appreciate the full presentation by the time the remark that I did see, was posted.  I now understand. If there is more to learn in terms of product placement as it relates to the campaign, that is also under this umbrella topic, please let me know. In reading back, it appears your comment was more related to a post and not B. campaign. Thanks for way you handled the matter. I came away positive and wanting to understand.


Thank you for your kind compliment. @Shelby33 above has shared eye opening, super informative posts re product placement as it relates to the campaign. She articulated an issue I had with the campaign that the child deliberately appears to be the product. 

ETA: when I googled heart within a heart chair I got this








						Verner panton Heart Cone Chair for Vitra | hivemodern.com
					

Verner panton Heart Cone Chair for Vitra




					hivemodern.com
				




but realized that I’m not sure I want to know any other significant HwH

@LuxePup , thanks for the moment of levity


----------



## RitaLA

CrackBerryCream said:


> The auction house in question is Christie's. It's not as if these questionable artworks are the only type of art they're selling.
> If one digs deep enough one can always find "something" to support one's opinion.


Just like you're doing? LOL
By the way, *Christie's* is owned by Groupe Artémis, François-Henri Pinault's holding company.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

880 said:


> Thank you for your kind compliment. @Shelby33 above has shared eye opening, super informative posts re product placement as it relates to the campaign. She articulated an issue I had with the campaign that the child deliberately appears to be the product.
> 
> ETA: when I googled heart within a heart chair I got this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verner panton Heart Cone Chair for Vitra | hivemodern.com
> 
> 
> Verner panton Heart Cone Chair for Vitra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hivemodern.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but realized that I’m not sure I want to know any other significant HwH
> 
> @LuxePup , thanks for the moment of levity


I am aware of some of these posts that point more to the topic at hand - product placement, the children as the product, etc . When referenced in my post to you,  product placement, I was referring to the off topic issue in the event I missed anything. Thanks.


----------



## RitaLA

LuxePup said:


> Accepting Balenciaga bags donations here, thanks y’all


Nah, I think you will probably feel more useful to the brand and an activist if you buy the bags yourself.  It will make you feel really good to get your hard-earned money and support the brand. You wouldn't want donations. It doesn't make sense if you love the brand so much!  Fight for them.  Buy their products with your own money!  Be pro-active. Fight for them.


----------



## Shelby33

880 said:


> Thank you for your kind compliment. @Shelby33 above has shared eye opening, super informative posts re product placement as it relates to the campaign. She articulated an issue I had with the campaign that the child deliberately appears to be the product.
> 
> ETA: when I googled heart within a heart chair I got this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verner panton Heart Cone Chair for Vitra | hivemodern.com
> 
> 
> Verner panton Heart Cone Chair for Vitra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hivemodern.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but realized that I’m not sure I want to know any other significant HwH
> 
> @LuxePup , thanks for the moment of levity


These are just things he quickly recognized because of his line of work. I think some people are very uncomfortable with the pictures, they know something is off but it's not easy to articulate. 
I have found the declassified FBI symbols/meanings on slideshare but I think I should ask a moderator first?


----------



## TraceySH

880 said:


> Thank you for your kind compliment. @Shelby33 above has shared eye opening, super informative posts re product placement as it relates to the campaign. She articulated an issue I had with the campaign that the child deliberately appears to be the product.
> 
> ETA: when I googled heart within a heart chair I got this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verner panton Heart Cone Chair for Vitra | hivemodern.com
> 
> 
> Verner panton Heart Cone Chair for Vitra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hivemodern.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but realized that I’m not sure I want to know any other significant HwH
> 
> @LuxePup , thanks for the moment of levity


@880 this is what I found on that one....


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## RitaLA

Not sure if anyone ever heard of the term "sleeper." Sleeper is a term used to label the state of mind of the unaware person. A person is unaware because the new information is too anxiety-provoking to reach their awareness. That is: their higher conscious and intellectual levels of functioning. When people can't tolerate certain levels of anxiety, the brain cannot process the information that is presented to them. It does not emerge into consciousness for them to be able to assess the new information. It is treated as dangerous and life-threatening. They defend against it with negation and their brain blocks it. This occurs beneath consciousness. This is expressed by avoidance, mocking, and ridicule of the new information and anyone who speak it. 
*I am not saying that everyone does that,* but it is an important component of people's perceptions and their processing of reality which can't be ignored. I work with a lot of people who are intolerant to anxiety, which generates more anxiety. The brain gets so overwhelmed that they use "splitting" to be able to survive.


----------



## RitaLA

TraceySH said:


> @880 this is what I found on that one....
> 
> View attachment 5664033


Amazing!!!!!!!!!  Thank you so much for this!!!  This is great info!


----------



## 880

TraceySH said:


> @880 this is what I found on that one....
> 
> View attachment 5664033


Thank you


----------



## TraceySH

RitaLA said:


> Amazing!!!!!!!!!  Thank you so much for this!!!  This is great info!


It appears as also something related to child sex trafficking... https://www.ourrescue.org/blog/signs-of-slavery


----------



## Jaxholt15

Many of you are certainly quick to determine you will never purchase from Balenciaga or the Kering Group.  If you do some research what brand doesn’t have scandal?  Chanel has Nazi affiliations, they say Coco Chanel had a relationship with a Nazi officer.  Hermes boutique caught for selling fakes as real bags.  Nike slammed for low wages and labor practices.  Dolce and Gabbana China fashion show scandal over alleged racism.  The list goes on and on.  If you are all set to abandon every brand with bad marketing choices you better learn to sew! I do not condone any of the bad marketing/scandals I am simply saying most brands have scandal that they overcome.


----------



## BleuSaphir

The ads are distasteful and disturbin. how it got approved from the executives is beyond me.

Everyone involved need to resign.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

A


Jaxholt15 said:


> Many of you are certainly quick to determine you will never purchase from Balenciaga or the Kering Group.  If you do some research what brand doesn’t have scandal?  Chanel has Nazi affiliations, they say Coco Chanel had a relationship with a Nazi officer.  Hermes boutique caught for selling fakes as real bags.  Nike slammed for low wages and labor practices.  Dolce and Gabbana China fashion show scandal over alleged racism.  The list goes on and on.  If you are all set to abandon every brand with bad marketing choices you better learn to sew! I do not condone any of the bad marketing/scandals I am simply saying most brands have scandal that they overcome.


I think the difference is this subject matter and offense relates to children so blatantly. This personally has produced outrage on my part. I also feel this statement, proves 2 wrongs (or multiples) does not make a right. I am trying to raise my awareness regarding content aspects of your post and others as well. It is a daunting task.


----------



## Shelby33

TraceySH said:


> @880 this is what I found on that one....
> 
> View attachment 5664033


Yup


----------



## TraceySH

Jaxholt15 said:


> Many of you are certainly quick to determine you will never purchase from Balenciaga or the Kering Group.  If you do some research what brand doesn’t have scandal?  Chanel has Nazi affiliations, they say Coco Chanel had a relationship with a Nazi officer.  Hermes boutique caught for selling fakes as real bags.  Nike slammed for low wages and labor practices.  Dolce and Gabbana China fashion show scandal over alleged racism.  The list goes on and on.  If you are all set to abandon every brand with bad marketing choices you better learn to sew! I do not condone any of the bad marketing/scandals I am simply saying most brands have scandal that they overcome.


Ummmm…. These are children?


----------



## Jaxholt15

trippinonsunshine said:


> A
> 
> I think the difference is this subject matter and offense relates to children so blatantly. This personally has produced outrage on my part. I also feel this statement, proves 2 wrongs (or multiples) does not make a right. I am trying to raise my awareness regarding content aspects of your post and others as well. It is a daunting tas


Hmmm, ads not actual harm to children compares to Nazi’s and the livelihood of people?


----------



## TraceySH

jay_que_lyn said:


> some of these posts attempting to “explain the meanings” of some these items, starting to sound as if they’ve gone off the Qanon deep end.


Some are listed as such by the FBI. Others maybe not. But the pedophile symbols are well known.


----------



## TraceySH

Jaxholt15 said:


> Hmmm, ads not actual harm to children compares to Nazi’s and the livelihood of people?


Many only bought after Coco Chanel was dead for this reason alone. So yes, there was most definitely blowback for her association with Nazi’s. But the brand moved on. Different owners, different CD, etc. No doubt if Balenciaga swept house, it would allow for a similar reset of its relationship with the public.


----------



## TraceySH

My interpretation, and granted I’ve only worked with a handful of BDSM patients over the years, is that these displays were meant to mimic a BDSM playroom where the children were either one of the toys or a sub.


----------



## RitaLA

jay_que_lyn said:


> some of these posts attempting to “explain the meanings” of some these items, starting to sound as if they’ve gone off the Qanon deep end.


This has nothing to do with Qanon.  This has to do with a company disseminating pedophilia. Pedophilia is an old problem that society doesn't seem to be able to get rid of. Maybe because people continue to ignore it. Child trafficking and child sexual abuse has existed for years, way before this Q movement started.  Child abuse and child trafficking are NOT conspiracy theories.  Have you ever talked to someone who has been abused as a child? Did you know that 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused and 1 in 6 boys are? Did you know that the abuser is someone the child knows? No wonder parents are consenting to this. Only 10% of abusers are strangers. Did you know that grooming is not a conspiracy theory term? Have you ever researched websites that teach parents how to protect their children from sexual abuse? Do you know the facts? If you do know the facts, Qanon is way at the bottom of the list


----------



## TraceySH

RitaLA said:


> This has nothing to do with Qanon.  This has to do with a company disseminating pedophilia. Pedophilia is an old problem that society doesn't seem to be able to get rid of. Maybe because people continue to ignore it. Child trafficking and child sexual abuse has existed for years, way before this Q movement started.  Child abuse and child trafficking are NOT conspiracy theories.  Have you ever talked to someone who has been abused as a child? Did you know that 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused and 1 in 6 boys are? Did you know that the abuser is someone the child knows? No wonder parents are consenting to this. Only 10% of abusers are strangers. Did you know that grooming is not a conspiracy theory term? Have you ever researched websites that teach parents how to protect their children from sexual abuse? Do you know the facts? If you do know the facts, Qanon is way at the bottom of the list


Thank you. I think it’s clear from some of the responses here why it continues to persist.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

Jaxholt15 said:


> Hmmm, ads not actual harm to children compares to Nazi’s and the livelihood of people?


Advertising blatantly -- subject matter CHILDREN. I will quit trying to explain myself to someone who is committed to misunderstanding me.


----------



## RitaLA

Jaxholt15 said:


> Coco Chanel has been and no doubt will continue to be used in marketing for the brand.  She is the face of the brand.  You have made my point exactly, outrage, outrage forgotten and we all need a Chanel bag!


Start speaking up then!  Start a thread exposing Chanel. Why not?  We are here, gathering, as citizens to protect the children and we don't feel we need to be silenced because other brands are doing this and that. If you don't agree with what Chanel has done, use your voice to speak up against Chanel, instead of rationalizing it. We will stop voicing our disagreement with what Balenciaga did.


----------



## RitaLA

trippinonsunshine said:


> Advertising blatantly -- subject matter CHILDREN. I will quit trying to explain myself to someone who is committed to misunderstanding me.


Right???? The lack of education when it comes to sexual matters involving children is absolutely mind-boggling. I can't fathom the level of blindness that permeates society. I fear for our children. People simple can't see. How is that even possible? Wow!


----------



## TraceySH

RitaLA said:


> Right???? The lack of education when it comes to sexual matters involving children is absolutely mind-boggling. I can't fathom the level of blindness that permeates society. I fear for our children. People simple can't see. How is that even possible? Wow!


Maybe Balenciaga has a better read on society than we thought.


----------



## ccbaggirl89

TraceySH said:


> Many only bought after Coco Chanel was dead for this reason alone. So yes, there was most definitely blowback for her association with Nazi’s. But the brand moved on. Different owners, different CD, etc. No doubt if Balenciaga swept house, it would allow for a similar reset of its relationship with the public.


That's what I was hoping they'd do -- the fact they haven't just indicates that they're completely ok with what they did and content to keep having the current creative team push the envelope in a questionable direction. So their apologies and future plans... not meaningful or indicative of any major change.


----------



## TraceySH

ccbaggirl89 said:


> That's what I was hoping they'd do -- the fact they haven't just indicates that they're completely ok with what they did and content to keep having the current creative team push the envelope in a questionable direction. So their apologies and future plans... not meaningful or indicative of any major change.


They just keep shifting blame. If they came out and said, this was purposeful, we signed off on it, it was a horrible mistake and clearly it’s indicative of our failed culture here at Balenciaga. Therefore, we are changing our culture, cleaning house, and want to rebuild. Boom. People would give them that.


----------



## Shelby33

Jaxholt15 said:


> Many of you are certainly quick to determine you will never purchase from Balenciaga or the Kering Group.  If you do some research what brand doesn’t have scandal?  Chanel has Nazi affiliations, they say Coco Chanel had a relationship with a Nazi officer.  Hermes boutique caught for selling fakes as real bags.  Nike slammed for low wages and labor practices.  Dolce and Gabbana China fashion show scandal over alleged racism.  The list goes on and on.  If you are all set to abandon every brand with bad marketing choices you better learn to sew! I do not condone any of the bad marketing/scandals I am simply saying most brands have scandal that they overcome.


I understand what Coco Chanel did during... WW2? in the 1940s. Yes, it was racist. 
The Hermes thing not a huge deal IMO. 
D&G is or at least has been racist and homophobic since 2012.( They also like Kim K.) 
Nike, absolutely responsible for what they did. 
No passes for any of them. 

Now it is 2022 and most adults are painfully aware of the overwhelming amount of sexual abuse against children. It is discussed with young students at school. It is discussed at home. People my age are coming forward with their stories from 40 years ago- those things just weren't spoken about back then. 
The prevalence of abuse is overwhelming. It is very much on people's minds. 
So this year, when we are more aware than ever about what can, might, or has happened to children, Bal decides this campaign is a great idea? That is the topic of this thread. BALENCIAGA, and how they used children in an attempt to normalize things that SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN.


----------



## trunkdevil

TraceySH said:


> They just keep shifting blame. If they came out and said, this was purposeful, we signed off on it, it was a horrible mistake and clearly it’s indicative of our failed culture here at Balenciaga. Therefore, we are changing our culture, cleaning house, and want to rebuild. Boom. People would give them that.


Exactly this!! The fact that Balenciaga went from a weak apology, shifting blame/lawsuit and now to a more sincere apology with a lot of empty promises to “learn”/donations etc. it does not sit right with me. It speaks volumes about the brand that they’re not parting ways with Demna & co. after this. 

At this point, those involved with this campaign need their hard drives checked out by authorities.


----------



## Shelby33

jay_que_lyn said:


> some of these posts attempting to “explain the meanings” of some these items, starting to sound as if they’ve gone off the Qanon deep end.


So how do you explain it? I'm really interested because if you can convince me that they were all some innocent coincidence, I would have a much better day. Tell me why when people see these ads they don't even notice the items being sold. 
Qanon has been linking this to some kind of satanical cult as usual. No surprises there. 
Nobody here has done that and for you to make that comparison, whatever that's your choice.


----------



## Jaxholt15

Shelby33 said:


> I understand what Coco Chanel did during... WW2? in the 1940s. Yes, it was racist.
> The Hermes thing not a huge deal IMO.
> D&G is or at least has been racist and homophobic since 2012.( They also like Kim K.)
> Nike, absolutely responsible for what they did.
> No passes for any of them.
> 
> Now it is 2022 and most adults are painfully aware of the overwhelming amount of sexual abuse against children. It is discussed with young students at school. It is discussed at home. People my age are coming forward with their stories from 40 years ago- those things just weren't spoken about back then.
> The prevalence of abuse is overwhelming. It is very much on people's minds.
> So this year, when we are more aware than ever about what can, might, or has happened to children, Bal decides this campaign is a great idea? That is the topic of this thread. BALENCIAGA, and how they used children in an attempt to normalize things that SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN.


I would never condone any of the actions mentioned, ever!  That was never my point.  I am saying that pretty much every brand with any longevity has something in their background like this.  I think Balenciaga will clean house, Demna’s days are numbered.  I do take exception when people are saying anyone wearing Balenciaga agrees with the ads, that is NOT true.


----------



## papertiger

How did at least one of the campaigns (the one featuring children) get this passed at the brainstorming stage?
Why does someone in the/a Bal team know so much about all this sh*t?
Why isn't Demna CREATIVE DIRECTOR apologising to everyone who works at Balenciaga for putting all their jobs in jeopardy?
Why muddy the name of the BDSM community (who have strict codes based on consent)?

Why are children in a campaign to sell to adults at all?

I went to Kering HQ in London today and posted a handwritten letter inside a Christmas card. Something along the lines of how disappointed I am with the management of this crisis, before and after they got 'found out'.

Saturday in London and every store had a queue outside today, I observed not a single customer in Bal.

I am going to continue to wear the BAL I have, although I haven't purchased anything for a long time. I don't see what customers who buy a product on its own merits maybe years and years ago should be made to feel like a leper.


----------



## Shelby33

Jaxholt15 said:


> I would never condone any of the actions mentioned, ever!  That was never my point.  I am saying that pretty much every brand with any longevity has something in their background like this.  I think Balenciaga will clean house, Demna’s days are numbered.  I do take exception when people are saying anyone wearing Balenciaga agrees with the ads, that is NOT true.


I also do not think that anyone who owns something from Bal should be judged. I think it is horrible that Bal SAs are being threatened. It is unacceptable and not productive for the message they are trying to send. It screws things up for the rest of us, I don't want to appear crazy and vindictive. I don't want to be compared to Q for stating my opinion. It's such a predictable cop out. 
I realize other houses have had their scandals but the topic here is Bal. 
Clean house, get rid of Demna is great, I hope they do. But there were many other people who signed off on this as well.


----------



## Shelby33

papertiger said:


> How did at least one of the campaigns (the one featuring children) get this passed at the brainstorming stage?
> Why does someone in the/a Bal team know so much about all this sh*t?
> Why isn't Demna CREATIVE DIRECTOR apologising to everyone who works at Balenciaga for putting all their jobs in jeopardy?
> Why muddy the name of the BDSM community (who have strict codes based on consent)?
> 
> Why are children in a campaign to sell to adults at all?
> 
> I went to Kering HQ in London today and posted a handwritten letter inside a Christmas card. Something along the lines of how disappointed I am with the management of this crisis, before and after they got 'found out'.
> 
> Saturday in London and every store had a queue outside today, I observed not a single customer in Bal.
> 
> I am going to continue to wear the BAL I have, although I haven't purchased anything for a long time. I don't see what customers who buy a product on its own merits maybe years and years ago should be made to feel like a leper.


Agree 100%. 
Also, the reason someone knows about this sh*t? They looked for it.


----------



## addiCCted

Shelby33 said:


> I also do not think that anyone who owns something from Bal should be judged. I think it is horrible that Bal SAs are being threatened. It is unacceptable and not productive for the message they are trying to send. It screws things up for the rest of us, I don't want to appear crazy and vindictive. I don't want to be compared to Q for stating my opinion. It's such a predictable cop out.
> I realize other houses have had their scandals but the topic here is Bal.
> Clean house, get rid of Demna is great, I hope they do. But there were many other people who signed off on this as well.


This is exactly “whataboutism” yet again. Every time someone or some brand is under fire it’s always, “well what about xyz, they did blah blah blah, don’t come for me unless you come for them”.   Maybe it’s time we deal with it issue by issue.


TraceySH said:


> People are just trying to cancel the people trying to cancel the brand. Labeling very intelligent, aware, successful people as Qanon (without merit) is just lazy stereotyping. People don’t want to be educated anymore. They just want someone or something they worship telling them what to think.
> 
> ….and that’s probably why this happened in the first place.


and that’s the tactic people doing bad things always do, damage control.  How can we shift the spotlight? How can we create reasonable doubt? How can we spin? Many may not be aware that PR firms have a lot of connections with all media including newspapers, magazines, influencers, celebrities etc. that is how they shift public perception. We should all keep in mind the information we take in, who is the source, what is their motive, how do they stand to benefit from saying xyz. Also just to add, just bc some nobody said something online doesn’t make it not true. Vice versa just bc some “credible expert” said it does not make it true either. People can make mistakes. 

How many times have we heard people take the word of an older relative vs a child? Similar scenario bc there is an assumption of credibility and trust in the adult va the child.


----------



## Shelby33

TraceySH said:


> People are just trying to cancel the people trying to cancel the brand. Labeling very intelligent, aware, successful people as Qanon (without merit) is just lazy stereotyping. People don’t want to be educated anymore. They just want someone or something they worship telling them what to think.
> 
> ….and that’s probably why this happened in the first place.


I don't want to "cancel" any brand, I would just respect them a lot more if they said they made a horrible error in judgement.  I don't like Demna but maybe he could put his energy into designing some innovative, useful items. Right now his energy is being used to troll customers and see how far he can go.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## piosavsfan

This is happening at Fashion Valley Mall in San Diego today. This is an area right between Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus.


----------



## Shelby33

piosavsfan said:


> This is happening at Fashion Valley Mall in San Diego today. This is an area right between Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus.
> View attachment 5664145
> View attachment 5664146
> View attachment 5664147


Doesn't look to bad.. I don't agree with a few of the signs but looks under control


----------



## RitaLA

papertiger said:


> How did at least one of the campaigns (the one featuring children) get this passed at the brainstorming stage?
> Why does someone in the/a Bal team know so much about all this sh*t?
> Why isn't Demna CREATIVE DIRECTOR apologising to everyone who works at Balenciaga for putting all their jobs in jeopardy?
> Why muddy the name of the BDSM community (who have strict codes based on consent)?
> 
> Why are children in a campaign to sell to adults at all?
> 
> I went to Kering HQ in London today and posted a handwritten letter inside a Christmas card. Something along the lines of how disappointed I am with the management of this crisis, before and after they got 'found out'.
> 
> Saturday in London and every store had a queue outside today, I observed not a single customer in Bal.
> 
> I am going to continue to wear the BAL I have, although I haven't purchased anything for a long time. I don't see what customers who buy a product on its own merits maybe years and years ago should be made to feel like a leper.


" went to Kering HQ in London today and posted a handwritten letter inside a Christmas card" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow wow wow
I applaud you for doing that! Thank you so much!!!!!!  Thank you for taking a step to try to be heard. They need to know that we are not ok with this and we will never be. NO NO NO We have a voice and we will keep speaking up


----------



## CrackBerryCream

RitaLA said:


> Just like you're doing? LOL
> By the way, *Christie's* is owned by Groupe Artémis, François-Henri Pinault's holding company.


Yes, everyone is supporting their own opinion at the end of the day. Mine is not to try to attribute a meaning to things where there might be none. 

Is the art in question distasteful? In my opinion yes, but it doesn't mean Pinault is supportive of everything being sold at Christie's. At the end of the day he will buy/hold whichever company makes him money and hire the people he thinks will make him money.


----------



## RitaLA

piosavsfan said:


> This is happening at Fashion Valley Mall in San Diego today. This is an area right between Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus.
> View attachment 5664145
> View attachment 5664146
> View attachment 5664147


I got goosebumps when I saw this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## RitaLA

CrackBerryCream said:


> Yes, everyone is supporting their own opinion at the end of the day. Mine is not to try to attribute a meaning to things where there might be none.
> 
> Is the art in question distasteful? In my opinion yes, but it doesn't mean Pinault is supportive of everything being sold at Christie's. At the end of the day he will buy/hold whichever company makes him money and hire the people he thinks will make him money


This doesn't align with logic. Sorry. No dialogue here. Enjoy your weekend!


----------



## CrackBerryCream

RitaLA said:


> This doesn't align with logic. Sorry. No dialogue here. Enjoy your weekend!


Maybe not your logic, but everyone works on different assumptions and someone else with experience in such investments might chime in. From my ordinary, non-billionaire opinion I'd invest in companies with a high reputation (which Christie's has) and the right numbers (which I assume they have), which promise enough growth and profit in the future.


----------



## reflection212

Does anyone know what this purple object is on the right side of the advertisement picture? I can’t find a clearer picture. Someone said it could be a sexual object.


----------



## MooMooVT

Jaxholt15 said:


> Many of you are certainly quick to determine you will never purchase from Balenciaga or the Kering Group.  If you do some research what brand doesn’t have scandal?  Chanel has Nazi affiliations, they say Coco Chanel had a relationship with a Nazi officer.  Hermes boutique caught for selling fakes as real bags.  Nike slammed for low wages and labor practices.  Dolce and Gabbana China fashion show scandal over alleged racism.  The list goes on and on.  If you are all set to abandon every brand with bad marketing choices you better learn to sew! I do not condone any of the bad marketing/scandals I am simply saying most brands have scandal that they overcome.


Agreed. This too shall pass. I've owned a LOT of Volkswagen's and VW auto group vehicles - and their history is objectively worse than all these. The people in charge of Bal's campaigns need to go. The company/people involved need to be held accountable, but the company doesn't need to fold.


----------



## papertiger

CrackBerryCream said:


> Yes, everyone is supporting their own opinion at the end of the day. Mine is not to try to attribute a meaning to things where there might be none.
> 
> Is the art in question distasteful? In my opinion yes, but it doesn't mean Pinault is supportive of everything being sold at Christie's. At the end of the day he will buy/hold whichever company makes him money and hire the people he thinks will make him money.



I'm not about boycotting (canceling) Kering's companies at all, but as the parent company of Balenciaga, they hold sway. I wouldn't want to stop anyone from buying what they want. I've only heard a lip-service type of 'apology' from Kering, and Bal's own was ridiculous considering the material ("We strongly condemn abuse of children in any form. We stand for children safety and well-being.") 

Why use children in a campaign directed for and at adult consumers anyway? Why would you picture a child in an adult's bedroom posing? It's clearly an adult's bedroom. Who do they think their customers/would-be are? What the companies are issuing as PR statements and what we saw via campaign(s) do not tally (IMO). 

Ghesquière joined in on Insta Fri "When I left @kering in 2012 I felt disconnected and hurt by [their] values and dishonesty," - 

As far as I'm concerned LVMH are no angels, far from it, but Kering actually came up with their name (rather than PPR) to show how caring they were. I thought it was all about accountability and transparency (Kering). They need to be held to their own promises. Those ads were not caring, but they are Kering's (IMO).


----------



## dangerouscurves

Jaxholt15 said:


> Many of you are certainly quick to determine you will never purchase from Balenciaga or the Kering Group.  If you do some research what brand doesn’t have scandal?  Chanel has Nazi affiliations, they say Coco Chanel had a relationship with a Nazi officer.  Hermes boutique caught for selling fakes as real bags.  Nike slammed for low wages and labor practices.  Dolce and Gabbana China fashion show scandal over alleged racism.  The list goes on and on.  If you are all set to abandon every brand with bad marketing choices you better learn to sew! I do not condone any of the bad marketing/scandals I am simply saying most brands have scandal that they overcome.


I'm not buying Dolce and Gabbana anymore. I'm sure we will all try to buy things more with conscience now. Time is changing, more and more are aware of these things.


----------



## CrackBerryCream

papertiger said:


> I'm not about boycotting (canceling) Kering's companies at all, but as the parent company of Balenciaga, they hold sway. I wouldn't want to stop anyone from buying what they want. I've only heard a lip-service type of 'apology' from Kering, and Bal's own was ridiculous considering the material ("We strongly condemn abuse of children in any form. We stand for children safety and well-being.")
> 
> Why use children in a campaign directed for and at adult consumers anyway? Why would you picture a child in an adult's bedroom posing? It's clearly an adult's bedroom. Who do they think their customers/would-be are? What the companies are issuing as PR statements and what we saw via campaign(s) do not tally (IMO).
> 
> Ghesquière joined in on Insta Fri "When I left @kering in 2012 I felt disconnected and hurt by [their] values and dishonesty," -
> 
> As far as I'm concerned LVMH are no angels, far from it, but Kering actually came up with their name (rather than PPR) to show how caring they were. I thought it was all about accountability and transparency (Kering). They need to be held to their own promises. Those ads were not caring, but they are Kering's (IMO).


Interesting to know about Kering's name, I wasn't aware previously. I agree that they should take actual responsibility (which in my opinion includes exchanging the Balenciaga management).

What I'm arguing against is insinuating a deeper meaning to Pinault's ownership of Christie's, which happens to have sold distasteful art by Jake and Dinos Chapman. They are also sold on other major auction houses, e.g. Bonhams, Artsy. If there's any meaning to be derived it's that people nowadays are desensitized.


----------



## millivanilli

papertiger said:


> How did at least one of the campaigns (the one featuring children) get this passed at the brainstorming stage?
> Why does someone in the/a Bal team know so much about all this sh*t?
> Why isn't Demna CREATIVE DIRECTOR apologising to everyone who works at Balenciaga for putting all their jobs in jeopardy?
> Why muddy the name of the BDSM community (who have strict codes based on consent)?
> 
> Why are children in a campaign to sell to adults at all?
> 
> I went to Kering HQ in London today and posted a handwritten letter inside a Christmas card. Something along the lines of how disappointed I am with the management of this crisis, before and after they got 'found out'.
> 
> Saturday in London and every store had a queue outside today, I observed not a single customer in Bal.
> 
> I am going to continue to wear the BAL I have, although I haven't purchased anything for a long time. I don't see what customers who buy a product on its own merits maybe years and years ago should be made to feel like a leper.


you are officially my hero. Thank you.


----------



## TraceySH

880 said:


> Wow, put that way, it becomes even more clear that the child is an object. Thank you for this insight
> 
> When I read some of the posts above, I simply think we all pick where we draw the line. I’m fine with chanel bc the Wertheimers thought it good business to forgive her; pay her taxes; and support her for the rest of her life. I’m not fine with Hugo boss bc the company supplied Nazi uniforms. Siimilarky, some on this thread will wear their old balenciaga, some won’t. The more I understand what I’m looking at (child with bondage bear), the more I wish B would replace Demna. and, yes, I think a lot of creatives in fashion, as in life, are to put it mildly, not nice people.


It's was all a very cohesive vision once I saw it like that....


----------



## papertiger

millivanilli said:


> you are officially my hero. Thank you.



A slightly stupid hero, they know a lot more about me  than I know about any of them. Anyway, it was strongly but politely worded. 

I think companies are increasingly become immune to online banter and SM controversy, especially if it's between people that have never even thought about making a purchase. 

In among my research, I saw a on YT-commentator threatening to stop wearing a FAKE Hourglass. I mean please, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 t would be funny if it weren't so 'sad'. I switched it over to see a dog doing yoga with his owner for more gravitas.

This is a bag/fashion forum, potential clients abound, I think Bal/Kering should know what people that care and have been contributing to their multi-billionaire lifestyle think. I have a lot of money invested in (NG-era) clothing/footwear/bag. I am a huge fan of the legacy of Cristóbal Balenciaga too, this sullies his name. 

IMO, a company _pretends_ to care is worse than not caring. I buy their products not their BS.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## caruava

My comments relate to passing judgement of people who choose to use the B items. Not the campaign, which most of us reasonably minded people agree is abhorrent.

I'm of Chinese ethnicity. In 2020 or 2021 I purchased my first D&G rtw piece. A friend pointed out a racist campaign that I was not aware about. At first I felt immense guilt, but I wasn't aware at the time and I know I do not support racism. I ultimately decided it was not going to stop me from wearing it nor would I bin it.

If someone were to judge me for wearing it, same as if someone were to judge someone for shopping at B or wearing B (be it new or older items), it's a reflection on them, not the wearer. It seems nowadays it's so common to openly past judgement with so much confidence and conviction on so many matters without hesitation.

My closing line applied to life in general... If people kept their thoughts to themselves at times, they'd appear more intelligent.


----------



## Coco.lover

It's disgusting but I'll continue to wear what I bought. I like it and they already got the money. Wont be buying anything in the future though.


----------



## trunkdevil

V0N1B2 said:


> Well obviously it’s a dildo. Used by pedophiles to violate children.
> Wait.
> Hold on.
> Let’s see if I can zoom in.
> Could it possibly be the tail of a stuffed animal thrown on the floor that didn’t quite make into the frame?
> I mean, what do YOU see?
> Do you want to see a sex  toy? Do you want to see part of a stuffed animal? Maybe you see something else entirely.
> ————————————
> I don’t live the BDSM lifestyle, nor am I a pedophile, so I don’t interpret every item in the photo as some nefarious object with hidden meaning. Where some saw the BAALENCIAGA tape as some kind of sex thing that someone would use to cover their slave’s eyes, I saw two As in baa baa - you know, sheep following the trends. I personally would never associate a balaclava with child pornography or BDSM. Many people wear them in cold climates. So do cat burglars from the old movies. I didn’t see dog collars and leashes in the photos either. I saw the teddy bear purse with the leather harness that I saw countless men wearing in gay bars 30 years ago. I see jewellry, belts, shoes, pillows, sunglasses… things the brand is selling. Am I to believe that a little white bunny has some kind of subliminal message to signal the pedophiles? GTFOH.  A silver reusable cup with a straw that can’t point in any direction but up, means what… gravity? Should they have used a plastic bendable straw instead? Equating dragon and crow wall decals with  the raping of children? I don’t know man, but it makes me wonder who the real sickos are.
> Oh and BTW, if you don’t want to be associated with conspiracy theorists, don’t proclaim that PIZZAGATE is real. I mean, c’mon.
> 
> And with that, I guess it’s time to put another thread on ignore. At the rate TPF is going these days, there won’t be much left to read here.


OP’s question was reasonable - most people are scrutinizing every detail in this campaign and rightfully so. There is nothing “random” about any of the items or placements. This was a well planned, twisted idea by those involved.
Obviously you are blissfully unaware that Baal is actually a Canaanite deity. Whom children were ritualistically sacrificed to. Dare I mention one of Balenciaga’s lead designers had her Instagram exposed - showing Satanic, sacrificial and images with children implying violence(bloody beds, tape, distress). But yeah. Guess Balenciaga just accidentally misspelled their brand name.. opps! Another innocent coincidence. 

And how dare anyone find any of this disturbing.. shame on you for making that assumption!!


----------



## reflection212

I found a clearer picture. Maybe it’s just a bear with a big tail?


----------



## 880

V0N1B2 said:


> Well obviously it’s a dildo. Used by pedophiles to violate children.
> Wait.
> Hold on.
> Let’s see if I can zoom in.
> Could it possibly be the tail of a stuffed animal thrown on the floor that didn’t quite make into the frame?
> I mean, what do YOU see?
> Do you want to see a sex  toy? Do you want to see part of a stuffed animal? Maybe you see something else entirely.
> ————————————
> I don’t live the BDSM lifestyle, nor am I a pedophile, so I don’t interpret every item in the photo as some nefarious object with hidden meaning. Where some saw the BAALENCIAGA tape as some kind of sex thing that someone would use to cover their slave’s eyes, I saw two As in baa baa - you know, sheep following the trends. I personally would never associate a balaclava with child pornography or BDSM. Many people wear them in cold climates. So do cat burglars from the old movies. I didn’t see dog collars and leashes in the photos either. I saw the teddy bear purse with the leather harness that I saw countless men wearing in gay bars 30 years ago. I see jewellry, belts, shoes, pillows, sunglasses… things the brand is selling. Am I to believe that a little white bunny has some kind of subliminal message to signal the pedophiles? GTFOH.  A silver reusable cup with a straw that can’t point in any direction but up, means what… gravity? Should they have used a plastic bendable straw instead? Equating dragon and crow wall decals with  the raping of children? I don’t know man, but it makes me wonder who the real sickos are.
> Oh and BTW, if you don’t want to be associated with conspiracy theorists, don’t proclaim that PIZZAGATE is real. I mean, c’mon.
> 
> And with that, I guess it’s time to put another thread on ignore. At the rate TPF is going these days, there won’t be much left to read here.


Interesting food for thought. I was initially made uncomfortable by the image. When I learned about Demna and the other person, and I heard about their social media, I think that’s what drove it over the pale For me. The pedophile codes sent me even further beyond bc I think even if a Demna thought, hey let’s push the boundaries here, the imagery is deliberate and horrible. But that’s just my opinion and yeah, I agree Dildo or the tail of a toy. .  . And I agree about pizzagate,  conspiracy, qanon, is BS. *If people are indignant that your opinion is different, they don’t belong on a public thread engaging in civil discourse. IMO only of course

IMO it’s okay to disagree with posts, but it’s not okay to focus into personal attack that’s rude. We will just  know who to blame when the thread is shut down: the members who prove that TPF should come with a users manual on how to behave.*

(And, as I said, I also have public interest bona fides from defending abused and neglected children, although i did not have multiple clients confessing to me that their parents engaged in present day ritual sacrifice of children as mentioned on this thread. Of course if I did, and if I were a mandated reporter, I would have done so and thereby played a tiny role in exposing the wide network of devil worshiping child killers.

ETA: when I returned to TPF after a long hiatus, I found out about the ignore button for the very first time.


----------



## RitaLA

trunkdevil said:


> OP’s question was reasonable - most people are scrutinizing every detail in this campaign and rightfully so. There is nothing “random” about any of the items or placements. This was a well planned, twisted idea by those involved.
> Obviously you are blissfully unaware that Baal is actually a Canaanite deity. Whom children were ritualistically sacrificed to. Dare I mention one of Balenciaga’s lead designers had her Instagram exposed - showing Satanic, sacrificial and images with children implying violence(bloody beds, tape, distress). But yeah. Guess Balenciaga just accidentally misspelled their brand name.. opps! Another innocent coincidence.
> 
> And how dare anyone find any of this disturbing.. shame on you for making that assumption!!


Well said!!!  Thank you for adding your thoughts!


----------



## dangerouscurves

V0N1B2 said:


> Well obviously it’s a dildo. Used by pedophiles to violate children.
> Wait.
> Hold on.
> Let’s see if I can zoom in.
> Could it possibly be the tail of a stuffed animal thrown on the floor that didn’t quite make into the frame?
> I mean, what do YOU see?
> Do you want to see a sex  toy? Do you want to see part of a stuffed animal? Maybe you see something else entirely.
> ————————————
> I don’t live the BDSM lifestyle, nor am I a pedophile, so I don’t interpret every item in the photo as some nefarious object with hidden meaning. Where some saw the BAALENCIAGA tape as some kind of sex thing that someone would use to cover their slave’s eyes, I saw two As in baa baa - you know, sheep following the trends. I personally would never associate a balaclava with child pornography or BDSM. Many people wear them in cold climates. So do cat burglars from the old movies. I didn’t see dog collars and leashes in the photos either. I saw the teddy bear purse with the leather harness that I saw countless men wearing in gay bars 30 years ago. I see jewellry, belts, shoes, pillows, sunglasses… things the brand is selling. Am I to believe that a little white bunny has some kind of subliminal message to signal the pedophiles? GTFOH.  A silver reusable cup with a straw that can’t point in any direction but up, means what… gravity? Should they have used a plastic bendable straw instead? Equating dragon and crow wall decals with  the raping of children? I don’t know man, but it makes me wonder who the real sickos are.
> Oh and BTW, if you don’t want to be associated with conspiracy theorists, don’t proclaim that PIZZAGATE is real. I mean, c’mon.
> 
> And with that, I guess it’s time to put another thread on ignore. At the rate TPF is going these days, there won’t be much left to read here.


One doesn't need to interpret it. It's very obvious. Not caring about the controversy is one thing but to actually mocking it....(?)


----------



## TraceySH

V0N1B2 said:


> Well obviously it’s a dildo. Used by pedophiles to violate children.
> Wait.
> Hold on.
> Let’s see if I can zoom in.
> Could it possibly be the tail of a stuffed animal thrown on the floor that didn’t quite make into the frame?
> I mean, what do YOU see?
> Do you want to see a sex  toy? Do you want to see part of a stuffed animal? Maybe you see something else entirely.
> ————————————
> I don’t live the BDSM lifestyle, nor am I a pedophile, so I don’t interpret every item in the photo as some nefarious object with hidden meaning. Where some saw the BAALENCIAGA tape as some kind of sex thing that someone would use to cover their slave’s eyes, I saw two As in baa baa - you know, sheep following the trends. I personally would never associate a balaclava with child pornography or BDSM. Many people wear them in cold climates. So do cat burglars from the old movies. I didn’t see dog collars and leashes in the photos either. I saw the teddy bear purse with the leather harness that I saw countless men wearing in gay bars 30 years ago. I see jewellry, belts, shoes, pillows, sunglasses… things the brand is selling. Am I to believe that a little white bunny has some kind of subliminal message to signal the pedophiles? GTFOH.  A silver reusable cup with a straw that can’t point in any direction but up, means what… gravity? Should they have used a plastic bendable straw instead? Equating dragon and crow wall decals with  the raping of children? I don’t know man, but it makes me wonder who the real sickos are.
> Oh and BTW, if you don’t want to be associated with conspiracy theorists, don’t proclaim that PIZZAGATE is real. I mean, c’mon.
> 
> And with that, I guess it’s time to put another thread on ignore. At the rate TPF is going these days, there won’t be much left to read here.


I think you are their perfect customer! Rock  on!


----------



## RitaLA

TraceySH said:


> I think you are their perfect customer! Rock  on!


Applause


----------



## mrsinsyder

V0N1B2 said:


> Well obviously it’s a dildo. Used by pedophiles to violate children.
> Wait.
> Hold on.
> Let’s see if I can zoom in.
> Could it possibly be the tail of a stuffed animal thrown on the floor that didn’t quite make into the frame?
> I mean, what do YOU see?
> Do you want to see a sex  toy? Do you want to see part of a stuffed animal? Maybe you see something else entirely.
> ————————————
> I don’t live the BDSM lifestyle, nor am I a pedophile, so I don’t interpret every item in the photo as some nefarious object with hidden meaning. Where some saw the BAALENCIAGA tape as some kind of sex thing that someone would use to cover their slave’s eyes, I saw two As in baa baa - you know, sheep following the trends. I personally would never associate a balaclava with child pornography or BDSM. Many people wear them in cold climates. So do cat burglars from the old movies. I didn’t see dog collars and leashes in the photos either. I saw the teddy bear purse with the leather harness that I saw countless men wearing in gay bars 30 years ago. I see jewellry, belts, shoes, pillows, sunglasses… things the brand is selling. Am I to believe that a little white bunny has some kind of subliminal message to signal the pedophiles? GTFOH.  A silver reusable cup with a straw that can’t point in any direction but up, means what… gravity? Should they have used a plastic bendable straw instead? Equating dragon and crow wall decals with  the raping of children? I don’t know man, but it makes me wonder who the real sickos are.
> Oh and BTW, if you don’t want to be associated with conspiracy theorists, don’t proclaim that PIZZAGATE is real. I mean, c’mon.
> 
> And with that, I guess it’s time to put another thread on ignore. At the rate TPF is going these days, there won’t be much left to read here.


I saw a stuffed animal tail and couldn’t figure out the question until I read your post lol


----------



## HAZE MAT

I have decided that this is my last post on this thread and I need not comment much further.

I am a contemporary artist and fashion designer and I do like the driving concept behind Balenciaga's brilliant dissection of American culture (at least a fringe element) through the ad. It is pretty postmodern and works well as an anti-ad ad.

Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor; but in case, at this point, I feel that I am going to be speaking to deaf ears and I will remain to support Demna as much as I can.

They have nothing to apologize at this point. In any case, Balenciaga should think hard and just makes ads specifically for Americans and then ads for the rest of the world. That will solve the problem. (Look at the news coverage for this flap up; we aren't getting much out of American news coverage).

Their most brilliant idea: "Supporting Balenciaga’s Spring/Summer 2023 collection, the ‘Garde-Robe’ campaign, which featured the likes of Bella Hadid and Nicole Kidman, saw Balenciaga opt for an “office” theme that displayed a host of legal documents across the set, with a page from a Supreme Court ruling of _United States v. Williams _being spotted. The document included several references to child pornography, with the case ultimately deeming the promotion of child pornography illegal and not protected under freedom of speech."

If there is any other fashion news which has such intellectual depth like Balenciaga, please tell me. Anyways I'm finally out of this room.

EDIT: In order to understand what the ad is really about, you must look at Bliss Foster's video about the ad regarding clones. It's a very cynical look at our world today where celebrity is all about cloning. Like Kim is a clone of Kanye, etc.



I will end this on a quote by Jean BAUDRILLARD about cloning and sexuality: "What, if not a death drive, would push sexed beings to regress to a form of reproduction prior to sexuation (besides, isn't it this form of scissiparity, this reproduction and proliferation through pure contiguity that is for us, in the depths of our imaginary, death and the death drive - what denies sexuality and wants to annihilate it, sexuality being the carrier of life, that is to say of a critical and mortal form of reproduction?) and that, at the same time, would push them metaphysically to deny all alterity, all alteration of the Same in order to aim solely for the perpetuation of an identity, a transparency of the genetic inscription no longer even subject to the vicissitudes of procreation?"

SECOND POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the ruling, we have https://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2008/06/what-were-they.html

Balenciaga ads tend to be very hypertextual and refer one to another. Basically the child ad is a commentary on that ruling shown in another ad. In any case, from the article we quote "The Court's ratification of a flat ban on child pornography had a relatively minimal impact on the First Amendment. Admittedly, the ruling did cause serious problems for some photographers, ranging from parents taking innocuous photos of their children to fine art photographers whose works included nude photos of children (among the more well-known examples are David Hamilton, Jock Sturges, and Sally Mann). But on the whole, it was relatively easy to draw a bright line between legal and illegal images, and law enforcement made substantial progress in fighting child pornography.

Most of those gains, however, have been wiped out by computers, the Internet, and digital cameras, all of which have made the production and distribution of child pornography vastly easier and far more difficult to combat. These new technologies have also blurred the previously bright line between legal and illegal images: many websites feature very young-looking but still adult models; some individuals use software to blend two or more legal images into composite child pornography; and others use animation software to create completely artificial (but increasingly realistic) child pornography images."

Demna is just brilliant. He understands the pulse of our digital age where children are being exploited. He is a refugee and knows that the current situation in the Ukraine is where we are seeing violence against children happen again and again. (https://thehill.com/policy/internat...n-have-been-raped-tortured-by-russian-forces/)

Once again, we tend to be complaining about an ad and Demna is pointing out that we are all armchair hypocrites for raising arms about child exploitation while ignoring where the real violence against children is happening.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

HAZE MAT said:


> I have decided that this is my last post on this thread and I need not comment much further.
> 
> I am a contemporary artist and fashion designer and I do like the driving concept behind Balenciaga's brilliant dissection of American culture (at least a fringe element) through the ad. It is pretty postmodern and works well as an anti-ad ad.
> 
> Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor; but in case, at this point, I feel that I am going to be speaking to deaf ears and I will remain to support Demna as much as I can.
> 
> They have nothing to apologize at this point. In any case, Balenciaga should think hard and just makes ads specifically for Americans and then ads for the rest of the world. That will solve the problem. (Look at the news coverage for this flap up; we aren't getting much out of America coverage).
> 
> Their most brilliant idea: "Supporting Balenciaga’s Spring/Summer 2023 collection, the ‘Garde-Robe’ campaign, which featured the likes of Bella Hadid and Nicole Kidman, saw Balenciaga opt for an “office” theme that displayed a host of legal documents across the set, with a page from a Supreme Court ruling of _United States v. Williams _being spotted. The document included several references to child pornography, with the case ultimately deeming the promotion of child pornography illegal and not protected under freedom of speech."
> 
> If there is any other fashion news which has such intellectual depth like Balenciaga, please tell me. Anyways I'm finally out of this room.


----------



## mrsinsyder

I’d honestly not thought much of the ad when I first saw it and just figured it was more of the poor taste envelope pushing nonsense that a lot of brands are doing now.

I worked on the law enforcement side of child human trafficking for many many years and never encountered any of the cabal-pizzagate-etc stuff that is apparently symbolized in the ad. Most of the stuff I saw was kids and families and people in poverty, not the Jeffrey Epstein idea of trafficking that the media has focused on a lot over the last few years. We looked for diamond tattoos and pimps names written on necks, not rabbits or bears. I’m also probably horribly desensitized to a lot of stuff in this realm. 

Regardless, the ad was clearly offensive and upsetting to a lot of people and IMO Balenciaga hasn’t done a great job of handling it from that aspect. I’ve never been a Bal fan either way, tbh I’ve always found the brand a bit gauche recently anyway, so I guess they’ve lost a customer they never would have had to begin with.


----------



## Dany_37

HAZE MAT said:


> I have decided that this is my last post on this thread and I need not comment much further.
> 
> I am a contemporary artist and fashion designer and I do like the driving concept behind Balenciaga's brilliant dissection of American culture (at least a fringe element) through the ad. It is pretty postmodern and works well as an anti-ad ad.
> 
> Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor; but in case, at this point, I feel that I am going to be speaking to deaf ears and I will remain to support Demna as much as I can.
> 
> They have nothing to apologize at this point. In any case, Balenciaga should think hard and just makes ads specifically for Americans and then ads for the rest of the world. That will solve the problem. (Look at the news coverage for this flap up; we aren't getting much out of America coverage).
> 
> Their most brilliant idea: "Supporting Balenciaga’s Spring/Summer 2023 collection, the ‘Garde-Robe’ campaign, which featured the likes of Bella Hadid and Nicole Kidman, saw Balenciaga opt for an “office” theme that displayed a host of legal documents across the set, with a page from a Supreme Court ruling of _United States v. Williams _being spotted. The document included several references to child pornography, with the case ultimately deeming the promotion of child pornography illegal and not protected under freedom of speech."
> 
> If there is any other fashion news which has such intellectual depth like Balenciaga, please tell me. Anyways I'm finally out of this room.


I respect your point of view


----------



## mrsinsyder

HAZE MAT said:


> I have decided that this is my last post on this thread and I need not comment much further.
> 
> I am a contemporary artist and fashion designer and I do like the driving concept behind Balenciaga's brilliant dissection of American culture (at least a fringe element) through the ad. It is pretty postmodern and works well as an anti-ad ad.
> 
> Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor; but in case, at this point, I feel that I am going to be speaking to deaf ears and I will remain to support Demna as much as I can.
> 
> They have nothing to apologize at this point. In any case, Balenciaga should think hard and just makes ads specifically for Americans and then ads for the rest of the world. That will solve the problem. (Look at the news coverage for this flap up; we aren't getting much out of America coverage).
> 
> Their most brilliant idea: "Supporting Balenciaga’s Spring/Summer 2023 collection, the ‘Garde-Robe’ campaign, which featured the likes of Bella Hadid and Nicole Kidman, saw Balenciaga opt for an “office” theme that displayed a host of legal documents across the set, with a page from a Supreme Court ruling of _United States v. Williams _being spotted. The document included several references to child pornography, with the case ultimately deeming the promotion of child pornography illegal and not protected under freedom of speech."
> 
> If there is any other fashion news which has such intellectual depth like Balenciaga, please tell me. Anyways I'm finally out of this room.


You said it would be your last post but I would like to hear what you believed the intended message of the ad to be. Mostly because I can’t figure it out and just saw it as cheap, low effort shock value-type stuff. I’d like to see it from another perspective if I was able to better understand what their point was.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## 880

HAZE MAT said:


> I have decided that this is my last post on this thread and I need not comment much further.
> 
> I am a contemporary artist and fashion designer and I do like the driving concept behind Balenciaga's brilliant dissection of American culture (at least a fringe element) through the ad. It is pretty postmodern and works well as an anti-ad ad.
> 
> Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor; but in case, at this point, I feel that I am going to be speaking to deaf ears and I will remain to support Demna as much as I can.
> 
> They have nothing to apologize at this point. In any case, Balenciaga should think hard and just makes ads specifically for Americans and then ads for the rest of the world. That will solve the problem. (Look at the news coverage for this flap up; we aren't getting much out of America coverage).
> 
> Their most brilliant idea: "Supporting Balenciaga’s Spring/Summer 2023 collection, the ‘Garde-Robe’ campaign, which featured the likes of Bella Hadid and Nicole Kidman, saw Balenciaga opt for an “office” theme that displayed a host of legal documents across the set, with a page from a Supreme Court ruling of _United States v. Williams _being spotted. The document included several references to child pornography, with the case ultimately deeming the promotion of child pornography illegal and not protected under freedom of speech."
> 
> If there is any other fashion news which has such intellectual depth like Balenciaga, please tell me. Anyways I'm finally out of this room.


@HAZE MAT, I may not agree with all of your points above, but I welcome your point of view. I agree think that the US is a very different market than Europe, and I think the Balenciaga decision makers should have done much more in the way of vetting this campaign. As I posted earlier. I do see the irony in the visuals, and I felt that the ad itself had artistic merit. But, that was almost irrelevant, as for many, the juxtaposition was a bridge too far. Thank you for providing context to the office ad; I’ve really only seen the child with the bear.

OT, but in answer, one of my favorite fashion sources is owned and run by a woman who has become a friend: Song in Vienna. She curates what I consider more artistic and avant garde fashion in an art fashion concept store. While I’ve admired some balenciaga fashion, it was always too louche and ironic for me to carry with any aplomb. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Decades ago, I wore some Issey; some Comme des Garçons; and some Dries Van Noten and Ann Deulmeister. I still have some old dries somewhere. now I wear mid century modern vintage dead stock (Donald brooks, adel Simpson, and Norell) mixed with chanel, dior, hermes, and brunello. I’ve gone towards custom leather from duret.com in Paris, and MtM Japanese sneakers (from Lafotte NY). Recently I’ve become much more enamored of French designed furniture (Pierre Augustine Rose and Sors and Piet Boon) than clothes.

Loewe RTW and some Spanish designers might be interesting but I don’t know much about them. Courreges is nice, but limited and a throw back to its archives.

ETA: Im not equipped to debate Demna‘s talent; I differ from you in that I think he should be fired, not simply bc his ad campaign is so offensive to the US Market, but bc he could not calibrate to that market and adjust accordingly. I also blame the executives who approved it. This storm could have easily been foreseen. kering seems to misstep more than Richmont group these days, and during Covid, the US and Asian markets grew exponentially, so I don’t think it’s a stretch to have the ad campaigns align with the top markets.


----------



## Jaxholt15

mrsinsyder said:


> I saw a stuffed animal tail and couldn’t figure out the question until I read your post lol


Me too!  Stuffed animal tail.  This seems to have all the makings of a modern day witch hunt!


----------



## mrsinsyder

Jaxholt15 said:


> Me too!  Stuffed animal tail.  This seems to have all the makings of a modern day witch hunt!


I immediately saw a tipped over Barney but that may also just speak to the generation I’m from 

That’s the thing, we all see things through the experiences and perspectives that are unique to us. This ad seems to be no different.


----------



## 880

mrsinsyder said:


> I immediately saw a tipped over Barney but that may also just speak to the generation I’m from
> 
> That’s the thing, we all see things through the experiences and perspectives that are unique to us. This ad seems to be no different.


I think @V0N1B2 ’s post shared your POV


----------



## haute okole

I heard about the campaign and thus did not want to observe the pictures at length or give it much thought.  What bothered me more was that the ad quoted the Supreme Court case U.S.v. Williams.  In short, the conservative justice  Scalia wrote that virtual pornographic images of children are protected under the First Amendment if it does not  “involve harms to children.”  Of course, my hero, Ruth Badger Ginsberg strongly dissented.

So Balenciaga knew exactly what it was doing by printing these pictures and intentionally produced virtual pornographic images of children and reminded the American public that they were within their rights under the 1st AmendmenT.


----------



## mrsinsyder

haute okole said:


> I heard about the campaign and thus did not want to observe the pictures at length or give it much thought.  What bothered me more was that the ad quoted the Supreme Court case U.S.v. Williams.  In short, the conservative justices like Souter and Scalia wrote that virtual pornographic images of children are protected under the First Amendment if it does not  “involve harms to children.”  Of course, my hero, Ruth Badger Ginsberg strongly dissented.
> 
> So Balenciaga knew exactly what it was doing by printing these pictures and intentionally produced virtual pornographic images of children and reminded the American public that they were within their rights under the 1st AmendmenT.
> 
> View attachment 5664472


Yeah, anyone acting like that case was coincidentally included has got to be kidding. While I wasn’t originally bothered by the whole thing, when I read about the case being in the stack of papers I was like “eww ok they made this purposely creepy.”


----------



## addiCCted

For people who want more info on the Supreme Court case US v Williams (2006)









						United States v. Williams
					

The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld a provision of a federal child pornography law that makes it a crimes to advertise, promote or present child pornography even if the underlying material does not qualify. In United States v. Williams, the Court rejected a First Amendment challenge that the law...




					www.mtsu.edu
				




The main argument, if I understood correctly, was if someone offered child porn to someone else even though he didn’t actually possess it, is he free to say it? In other words, was it illegal to say you had child porn even though you didn’t physically possess such illegal contraband. The original court said it’s not protected free speech, was repealed and then Supreme Court came back in and settled it and said that it was not protected free speech,

Interesting is the dissenting opinion by Souter and Ginsberg. They say that it undermines free speech. The case that is really disturbing (imho) is the Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition where it was determined virtual child porn is ok bc no real children are involved. Maybe that’s too simplified. They argue that it shouldn’t be illegal for someone who just looks underage to be involved in pornographic material 









						Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
					

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: If speech is neither obscene nor child pornography, it is protected from attempts to categorically suppress child pornography even if it is related to it. Statutes that are overly broad in defining what speech is suppressed are unconstitutional.




					supreme.justia.com
				





Please excuse and correct any misinterpretation on my behalf. I am not a lawyer.


----------



## haute okole

addiCCted said:


> For people who want more info on the Supreme Court case US v Williams (2006)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Williams
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld a provision of a federal child pornography law that makes it a crimes to advertise, promote or present child pornography even if the underlying material does not qualify. In United States v. Williams, the Court rejected a First Amendment challenge that the law...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mtsu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main argument, if I understood correctly, was if someone offered child porn to someone else even though he didn’t actually possess it, is he free to say it? In other words, was it illegal to say you had child porn even though you didn’t physically possess such illegal contraband. The original court said it’s not protected free speech, was repealed and then Supreme Court came back in and settled it and said that it was not protected free speech,
> 
> Interesting is the dissenting opinion by Souter and Ginsberg. They say that it undermines free speech. The case that is really disturbing (imho) is the Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition where it was determined virtual child porn is ok bc no real children are involved. Maybe that’s too simplified. They argue that it shouldn’t be illegal for someone who just looks underage to be involved in pornographic material
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
> 
> 
> Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: If speech is neither obscene nor child pornography, it is protected from attempts to categorically suppress child pornography even if it is related to it. Statutes that are overly broad in defining what speech is suppressed are unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please excuse and correct any misinterpretation on my behalf. I am not a lawyer.


----------



## jellyv

@haute okole @mrsinsyder ^Again, as discussed earlier in the thread, the legal documents imagery was* not *in the bear ad campaign, though the original NY Post garbled that.


----------



## haute okole

Yes, it is a very complicated read, even for attorneys.  Scalia was in the majority in this opinion and upheld the First Amendment with regard to child porn when a child is not harmed.  That is the actual effect the law has.  The fact scenario is Not explained well by the author of this opinion, who was Scalia.  The case upholds that child pornography violates the First Amendment when a child is harmed, but Scalia said, under this fact scenario, Williams‘ type of child pornography is PROTECTED under the First Amendment.  I was mistaken, Souter and RBG, dissented and said Child Pornography should not be protected speech under the First Amendment.


----------



## mrsinsyder

jellyv said:


> @haute okole @mrsinsyder ^Again, as discussed earlier in the thread, the legal documents imagery was* not *in the bear ad campaign, though the original NY Post garbled that.
> 
> View attachment 5664497


I know it wasn’t; to me it speaks to an undercurrent throughout their recent advertising that I find… icky.


----------



## haute okole

I was unaware that they were not on the actual campaign.  I apologize for the confusion.  I was only made aware of US v Williams case from the news.


----------



## 880

addiCCted said:


> For people who want more info on the Supreme Court case US v Williams (2006)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Williams
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld a provision of a federal child pornography law that makes it a crimes to advertise, promote or present child pornography even if the underlying material does not qualify. In United States v. Williams, the Court rejected a First Amendment challenge that the law...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mtsu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main argument, if I understood correctly, was if someone offered child porn to someone else even though he didn’t actually possess it, is he free to say it? In other words, was it illegal to say you had child porn even though you didn’t physically possess such illegal contraband. The original court said it’s not protected free speech, was repealed and then Supreme Court came back in and settled it and said that it was not protected free speech,
> 
> Interesting is the dissenting opinion by Souter and Ginsberg. They say that it undermines free speech. The case that is really disturbing (imho) is the Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition where it was determined virtual child porn is ok bc no real children are involved. Maybe that’s too simplified. They argue that it shouldn’t be illegal for someone who just looks underage to be involved in pornographic material
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
> 
> 
> Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: If speech is neither obscene nor child pornography, it is protected from attempts to categorically suppress child pornography even if it is related to it. Statutes that are overly broad in defining what speech is suppressed are unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please excuse and correct any misinterpretation on my behalf. I am not a lawyer.


I only read a few blurbs, but see @haute okole ’s post above #570 quoting Souter, and I believe coming to the opposite conclusion As above.

Scalias majority opinion was that an offer to exchange child pornography is not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Thus, upholding the constitutionality of the federal statute prohibiting the pandering of child pornography (the statute does not violate the first amendment). Or, in other words, child porn is not protected speech. Scalia was a strict constitutionalist, and the decision was based on the general principle that there is no First Amendment protection for offers to engage in illegal transactions.

The problem was that in keeping with prior child porn case, Ashcroft (that ruled a prior child porn statute was overly broad and did violate the First Amend ent), an offer to receive virtual child porn or simulated child porn is protected under the First Amendment. Scalia‘s exception, in accordance with Ashcroft, was that virtual pornography is protected free speech as it’s not harmful to the child.

Souter and Ginsberg dissented bc all child pornography is intrinsically harmful. . . which is the crux of the quote below and of NY vs. Ferber. In fact, Souter warned that this decision (based on no trigger of the concern for child safety over first amendment protection) would be problematic in many ways beyond porn.


"The tension with existing constitutional law is obvious," Souter wrote. " Free Speech Coalition reaffirmed that nonobscene virtual pornographic images are protected, because they fail to trigger the concern for child safety that disentitles child pornography to First Amendment protection." He also warned that the decision "might have an unsettling
significance well beyond the subject of child pornography." In Free Speech Coalition, the Court had ruled that that virtual pornography did not involve the same harms to children as pornography involving real children. This distinguished it from New York v. Ferber (1982), in which the Court had justified a child pornography exception to the First Amendment's broad free speech protections based on actual harm to The child

@mrsinsyder , as per Scalia the crime of child porn = when the speaker intends the listener that the subject depicts real children. Scalia  actually reasoned that with virtual porn, (computer generated or animated)  no real child was harmed.

ETA: I find constit law very dry, so may have missed an important point, so i would welcome correction lol


----------



## mrsinsyder

haute okole said:


> Yes, it is a very complicated read, even for attorneys.  Scalia was in the majority in this opinion and upheld the First Amendment with regard to child porn when a child is not harmed.  That is the actual effect the law has.  The fact scenario is Not explained well by the author of this opinion, who was Scalia.  The case upholds that child pornography violates the First Amendment when a child is harmed, but Scalia said, under this fact scenario, Williams type of child pornography is PROTECTED under the First Amendment.  I was mistaken, Souter and RBG, dissented and said Child Pornography should not be protected speech under the First Amendment.


I’m trying to understand what type of child pornography wouldn’t be harmful to the child. I’m guessing it would be stuff that isn’t actual pornography (since that would inherently be harmful).


----------



## haute okole

mrsinsyder said:


> I’m trying to understand what type of child pornography wouldn’t be harmful to the child. I’m guessing it would be stuff that isn’t actual pornography (since that would inherently be harmful).


That is what RBG and the other dissenter believed, child pornography is inherently harmful to children.  NY v. FERBER, the foundational case re: child pornography and the First Amendment.  I hope this Balenciaga case brings to light this wierd Williams carve out and the current Supreme Court revisits and reverses Williams.  Then something good will come out of this controversy.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Kevinaxx

mrsinsyder said:


> I’m trying to understand what type of child pornography wouldn’t be harmful to the child. I’m guessing it would be stuff that isn’t actual pornography (since that would inherently be harmful).


Honestly ANY exploitation of children is disgusting imho with sexual/porn at the very top.  I’ve also seen people use children on the streets begging for $. I can only imagine the type of physiological damage that does to a child, nevermind the very top disgusting acts.


----------



## 880

mrsinsyder said:


> I’m trying to understand what type of child pornography wouldn’t be harmful to the child. I’m guessing it would be stuff that isn’t actual pornography (since that would inherently be harmful).


I edited bc somewhere I read virtual pornography computer generated or animated, not of a real child

@HAZE MAT , now that I’ve read US v. Williams, I’m beginning to understand Balenciaga may have intended this ad campaign more as social commentary calling out as ridiculous the Scalia carve out and sparking healthy debate. I agree with you that this may not be possible in the US at this time. I appreciate your SECOND POSTSCRIPT, post #539.  

@Kevinaxx , I think your alarm is in line with the Souter dissent in US v. Williams. 

I’m out


----------



## 7th House

A1aGypsy said:


> I adore my moto bags. I mean, truly. But this is so mind boggling. How they could think any of this was even remotely appropriate. It’s bonkers.
> 
> I just don’t think I can carry them in good conscience right now.
> 
> Also, where are the parents?


I question this too. Where are the parents and why did they let this happen?


----------



## dangerouscurves

HAZE MAT said:


> I have decided that this is my last post on this thread and I need not comment much further.
> 
> I am a contemporary artist and fashion designer and I do like the driving concept behind Balenciaga's brilliant dissection of American culture (at least a fringe element) through the ad. It is pretty postmodern and works well as an anti-ad ad.
> 
> Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor; but in case, at this point, I feel that I am going to be speaking to deaf ears and I will remain to support Demna as much as I can.
> 
> They have nothing to apologize at this point. In any case, Balenciaga should think hard and just makes ads specifically for Americans and then ads for the rest of the world. That will solve the problem. (Look at the news coverage for this flap up; we aren't getting much out of American news coverage).
> 
> Their most brilliant idea: "Supporting Balenciaga’s Spring/Summer 2023 collection, the ‘Garde-Robe’ campaign, which featured the likes of Bella Hadid and Nicole Kidman, saw Balenciaga opt for an “office” theme that displayed a host of legal documents across the set, with a page from a Supreme Court ruling of _United States v. Williams _being spotted. The document included several references to child pornography, with the case ultimately deeming the promotion of child pornography illegal and not protected under freedom of speech."
> 
> If there is any other fashion news which has such intellectual depth like Balenciaga, please tell me. Anyways I'm finally out of this room.
> 
> EDIT: In order to understand what the ad is really about, you must look at Bliss Foster's video about the ad regarding clones. It's a very cynical look at our world today where celebrity is all about cloning. Like Kim is a clone of Kanye, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I will end this on a quote by Jean BAUDRILLARD about cloning and sexuality: "What, if not a death drive, would push sexed beings to regress to a form of reproduction prior to sexuation (besides, isn't it this form of scissiparity, this reproduction and proliferation through pure contiguity that is for us, in the depths of our imaginary, death and the death drive - what denies sexuality and wants to annihilate it, sexuality being the carrier of life, that is to say of a critical and mortal form of reproduction?) and that, at the same time, would push them metaphysically to deny all alterity, all alteration of the Same in order to aim solely for the perpetuation of an identity, a transparency of the genetic inscription no longer even subject to the vicissitudes of procreation?"
> 
> SECOND POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the ruling, we have https://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2008/06/what-were-they.html
> 
> Balenciaga ads tend to be very hypertextual and refer one to another. Basically the child ad is a commentary on that ruling shown in another ad. In any case, from the article we quote "The Court's ratification of a flat ban on child pornography had a relatively minimal impact on the First Amendment. Admittedly, the ruling did cause serious problems for some photographers, ranging from parents taking innocuous photos of their children to fine art photographers whose works included nude photos of children (among the more well-known examples are David Hamilton, Jock Sturges, and Sally Mann). But on the whole, it was relatively easy to draw a bright line between legal and illegal images, and law enforcement made substantial progress in fighting child pornography.
> 
> Most of those gains, however, have been wiped out by computers, the Internet, and digital cameras, all of which have made the production and distribution of child pornography vastly easier and far more difficult to combat. These new technologies have also blurred the previously bright line between legal and illegal images: many websites feature very young-looking but still adult models; some individuals use software to blend two or more legal images into composite child pornography; and others use animation software to create completely artificial (but increasingly realistic) child pornography images."
> 
> Demna is just brilliant. He understands the pulse of our digital age where children are being exploited. He is a refugee and knows that the current situation in the Ukraine is where we are seeing violence against children happen again and again. (https://thehill.com/policy/internat...n-have-been-raped-tortured-by-russian-forces/)
> 
> Once again, we tend to be complaining about an ad and Demna is pointing out that we are all armchair hypocrites for raising arms about child exploitation while ignoring where the real violence against children is happening.



Ich komme aus Deutschland and live in Bonn and these ads still doesn't sit with me. In fact the law here are really tough on child pornography and child abuse. Though Europeans are more open minded when it comes to sex, they don't think what a Balenciaga did is OK.
As stated over and over by us, it's not only these campaigns now that they're out in the open. Other people have unvovered more sinister stuff with Demna and his crew.


----------



## LVLoveaffair

Yhte123 said:


> I know that the moto bag is from the Ghesquiere era.
> 
> The brand is literally trying to distance their involvement with this and suing anyone to get people off their backs. “We’re sorry for any offense”? The whole apology was so insincere and patronizing. They have done nothing at all and been silent. I’m not surprised they left twitter given their ties! The brand is tainted. If they fire the creative director it’s be an empty gesture since they still maintain the rest of the staff that green lit this campaign.
> 
> I didn’t know not supporting a brand even through their old designs because they implicitly advocated for pedophilia is ludicrous. Interesting!
> 
> Sorry not sorry. But at the end of the day, wearing anything recognizably Balenciaga is tacit apathy towards their inhuman behavior. It’s saying I’m fine with not giving them my money from now on, but absolutely fine keeping them relevant. Wearing their designs will allow them to maintain their popularity. It doesn’t matter what era of the brand it is from.


I agree! I wouldn’t carry any Balenciaga - even the older bags since it’s still “supporting” the brand and perversion right now. The masses don’t know or care about which bag came out in which year….they just see the brand.


----------



## LVLoveaffair

millivanilli said:


> German press is writing about it, too.
> 
> Here's the link
> https://www.faz.net/aktuell/stil/mo.../f25a46e8-6ccd-11ed-a257-52d1e0-18488545.html
> And here's a screenshot:
> 
> View attachment 5660571
> 
> 
> the headlines translates as following:
> 
> Balenciaga in a crisis.Children with Bondage Teddybears
> 
> I let deppl translate the text:
> 
> Balenciaga apologizes for an ad campaign depicting children with fetish bags. Was this a deliberately staged scandal by the Parisian luxury brand?
> Demna was lucky again. When a ****storm threatened to descend on fashion brand Balenciaga and its chief designer this week - not much happened, except for a bit of excitement on Twitter. For too much news came in between in public: the debate about the World Cup, for example, and for fashion fans then also the surprising departure of Alessandro Michele from Gucci.
> Discussions about Demna, who in his role as designer does without his last name Gvasalia, are certainly scandalous. A Balenciaga Christmas campaign features young children in homey settings, with teddy bears wearing a fetish leather harness of the kind used in sadomasochistic bondage practices. Children in such a context? "I understand that a big part of Balenciaga's marketing is the shock factor," wrote one Twitter user, "but this is just disgusting."
> 
> Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
> 
> and I found this intel.
> View attachment 5660572
> 
> 
> 
> I will never ever buy from them again. NEVER.


The bondage teddys are not placed on a bed by mistake!


----------



## Shelby33

reflection212 said:


> I found a clearer picture. Maybe it’s just a bear with a big tail?
> 
> View attachment 5664317
> 
> 
> View attachment 5664318


I agree, I think it is a stuffed animal.


----------



## Aliceinred

reflection212 said:


> Does anyone know what this purple object is on the right side of the advertisement picture? I can’t find a clearer picture. Someone said it could be a sexual object.
> 
> View attachment 5664200


Could it be a Barney the dinosaur stuffed animal?


----------



## Shelby33

Aliceinred said:


> Could it be a Barney the dinosaur stuffed animal?


And... years ago I was so happy I would never have to see Barney again


----------



## Shelby33

HAZE MAT said:


> I have decided that this is my last post on this thread and I need not comment much further.
> 
> I am a contemporary artist and fashion designer and I do like the driving concept behind Balenciaga's brilliant dissection of American culture (at least a fringe element) through the ad. It is pretty postmodern and works well as an anti-ad ad.
> 
> Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor; but in case, at this point, I feel that I am going to be speaking to deaf ears and I will remain to support Demna as much as I can.
> 
> They have nothing to apologize at this point. In any case, Balenciaga should think hard and just makes ads specifically for Americans and then ads for the rest of the world. That will solve the problem. (Look at the news coverage for this flap up; we aren't getting much out of American news coverage).
> 
> Their most brilliant idea: "Supporting Balenciaga’s Spring/Summer 2023 collection, the ‘Garde-Robe’ campaign, which featured the likes of Bella Hadid and Nicole Kidman, saw Balenciaga opt for an “office” theme that displayed a host of legal documents across the set, with a page from a Supreme Court ruling of _United States v. Williams _being spotted. The document included several references to child pornography, with the case ultimately deeming the promotion of child pornography illegal and not protected under freedom of speech."
> 
> If there is any other fashion news which has such intellectual depth like Balenciaga, please tell me. Anyways I'm finally out of this room.
> 
> EDIT: In order to understand what the ad is really about, you must look at Bliss Foster's video about the ad regarding clones. It's a very cynical look at our world today where celebrity is all about cloning. Like Kim is a clone of Kanye, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I will end this on a quote by Jean BAUDRILLARD about cloning and sexuality: "What, if not a death drive, would push sexed beings to regress to a form of reproduction prior to sexuation (besides, isn't it this form of scissiparity, this reproduction and proliferation through pure contiguity that is for us, in the depths of our imaginary, death and the death drive - what denies sexuality and wants to annihilate it, sexuality being the carrier of life, that is to say of a critical and mortal form of reproduction?) and that, at the same time, would push them metaphysically to deny all alterity, all alteration of the Same in order to aim solely for the perpetuation of an identity, a transparency of the genetic inscription no longer even subject to the vicissitudes of procreation?"
> 
> SECOND POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the ruling, we have https://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2008/06/what-were-they.html
> 
> Balenciaga ads tend to be very hypertextual and refer one to another. _*Basically the child ad is a commentary on that ruling shown in another ad.*_ In any case, from the article we quote "The Court's ratification of a flat ban on child pornography had a relatively minimal impact on the First Amendment. Admittedly, the ruling did cause serious problems for some photographers, ranging from parents taking innocuous photos of their children to fine art photographers whose works included nude photos of children (among the more well-known examples are David Hamilton, Jock Sturges, and Sally Mann). But on the whole, it was relatively easy to draw a bright line between legal and illegal images, and law enforcement made substantial progress in fighting child pornography.
> 
> Most of those gains, however, have been wiped out by computers, the Internet, and digital cameras, all of which have made the production and distribution of child pornography vastly easier and far more difficult to combat. These new technologies have also blurred the previously bright line between legal and illegal images: many websites feature very young-looking but still adult models; some individuals use software to blend two or more legal images into composite child pornography; and others use animation software to create completely artificial (but increasingly realistic) child pornography images."
> 
> Demna is just brilliant. He understands the pulse of our digital age where children are being exploited. He is a refugee and knows that the current situation in the Ukraine is where we are seeing violence against children happen again and again. (https://thehill.com/policy/internat...n-have-been-raped-tortured-by-russian-forces/)
> 
> Once again, we tend to be complaining about an ad and Demna is pointing out that we are all armchair hypocrites for raising arms about child exploitation while ignoring where the real violence against children is happening.



If what I bolded above s true, why did Balenciaga say they had "no idea" those court papers were there, and subsequently try to sue the production company?

Your statement "*Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor" - *

Demna was supposed to receive an award this week from Business of Fashion- Voices, which they have rescinded. Business of Fashion's HQ is in London.

Balenciaga in London was vandalized according to this article. 








						Balenciaga Stores Vandalized Following Ad Campaign Featuring BDSM And Children - Travel Noire
					

Fashion giant Balenciaga continues to find itself in hot water following its highly questionable ad campaign . Public anger moved from social...




					travelnoire.com


----------



## millivanilli

1.) Advertising has caused quite a bit of trouble even in oh-so-enlightened artistic Europe.
2.) to my knowledge the ad was explicitly placed in the US, so it was for the US American market - we can assume that a company the size of Balenciaga knows its customers and takes cultural differences into account . 
3) Exploiting children is indeed something that we humans with sense and reason do not find cool, worldwide and over time.
4) Europe in particular - yes, I understand, the Eurocentric view of things, which does not at least stand up to scrutiny - has not necessarily distinguished itself with "artistic freedom" in recent years and decades. I like to remind here for the German area of Böhmermann, Charlie Hebdo etc.. We were oh so shocked, but children in an obvious BDSM context are "art"? Come on.
5.)I'll never understand how anyone could think that a broad-based advertising campaign that costs vast sums of money was just put together that way. Even an ordinary Nestle pizza photo is planned down to the smallest detail - no advertising is " just hold a camera on it and snap a photo, see what comes around". Thus, this overlap in the Balenciaga Tape is certainly also not an "accident".

The argument that the advertising would cause an uproar in the U.S., but operates in Europe under "art" is only one thing: racism and sheer arrogance towards the U.S. Americans.  It shows that we Europeans - once again - can only do one thing: point the finger at others and raise ourselves above them at. any. price. And be it a photo that has clearly, worldwide, caused shock and disgust.

Sometimes I am ashamed to be a European, because this arrogance is foreign to me.


----------



## Shelby33

Is it true that these kids were children of Balenciaga employees?


----------



## Gringach

I leave in Switzerland so kind of European.. And like to think that I am an opened minded person.
However, I got shocked and offended by these adds. The whole thing with this court case documents is just disgusting.
And when I saw the « art » that this sick person called Lota something is promoting, it repulsed me so much that I did not sleep well for a few days. I cannot believe such people are allowed to share their sick mind freely. And I don’t care if she is not working with Balenciaga at this stage, this whole thing is totally awful and they worked with which seems to be a terrible person at some point.
Maybe those that are trying this form « art » don’t have children? Because I have two kids and I am still shocked by what I saw.
I loved my two small city bags but I am so upset I might sell them as I am not sure I will be able to carry them anymore.
And by the way, I would like to mention that I HATE the work of Demna for Balenciaga. I am really sorry for what he did to this brand and hoped he would get fired with his team but unfortunately, it seems like he will be able to keep doing his crap..
Voilà, I had to write this as I my two Bbags were my two favorites bags in my small bag collection but this guy destroyed everything about Balenciaga in my view..


----------



## papertiger

Shelby33 said:


> Is it true that these kids were children of Balenciaga employees?



Apparently (that's what I heard from a YT vid). I'm not linking that vid because I do not (want) to support the Chanel but I am supposing the content-creator got the info pretty easily from the Net.

However, from the DM (it doesn't say whether or not he works for BAL)









						Father of child who posed in bondage-themed Balenciaga defends shoot
					

Speaking exclusively to MailOnline, the father said he was present at the shoot, which was 'an enjoyable day out' - and insisted the bizarre pictures had been taken 'totally out of context'.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				





From the article "...the parents of the children had been 'active participants' in the day-long shoot in Paris earlier this month."


----------



## dangerouscurves

Shelby33 said:


> If what I bolded above s true, why did Balenciaga say they had "no idea" those court papers were there, and subsequently try to sue the production company?
> 
> Your statement "*Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor" - *
> 
> Demna was supposed to receive an award this week from Business of Fashion- Voices, which they have rescinded. Business of Fashion's HQ is in London.
> 
> Balenciaga in London was vandalized according to this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Balenciaga Stores Vandalized Following Ad Campaign Featuring BDSM And Children - Travel Noire
> 
> 
> Fashion giant Balenciaga continues to find itself in hot water following its highly questionable ad campaign . Public anger moved from social...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> travelnoire.com


Riiight?!?! If it was for the sake of art then Balenciaga and Kering would admit they knew it and would elaborate further that's it's art. RIIIGHT?!?!


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## jellyv

dangerouscurves said:


> Riiight?!?! If it was for the sake of art then Balenciaga and Kering would admit they knew it and would elaborate further that's it's art. RIIIGHT?!?!


I realize this is rhetorical but: Clearly their strategy is not to defend it but to apologize and attempt distancing, as discussed previously. We may recognize this as PR necessity rather than remorse, but that's how they're rolling.


----------



## chloehandbags

HAZE MAT said:


> I have decided that this is my last post on this thread and I need not comment much further.
> 
> I am a contemporary artist and fashion designer and I do like the driving concept behind Balenciaga's brilliant dissection of American culture (at least a fringe element) through the ad. It is pretty postmodern and works well as an anti-ad ad.
> 
> Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor; but in case, at this point, I feel that I am going to be speaking to deaf ears and I will remain to support Demna as much as I can.
> 
> They have nothing to apologize at this point. In any case, Balenciaga should think hard and just makes ads specifically for Americans and then ads for the rest of the world. That will solve the problem. (Look at the news coverage for this flap up; we aren't getting much out of American news coverage).


No it won't. 

I'm British and I am also horrified by this.


----------



## DILF

We stopped by a *very high end* shopping center late last night to run some holiday errands. The center has extended holiday hours and opens until 11 p.m. this time of year. In the corridor where all the LVMH & Kering fashion and jewellery boutiques were located (C, D, G, LV, etc.), all boutiques were open late until 11 EXCEPT B, whose doors were closed. We thought this had to do with the backlash they are facing.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

haute okole said:


> I heard about the campaign and thus did not want to observe the pictures at length or give it much thought.  What bothered me more was that the ad quoted the Supreme Court case U.S.v. Williams.  In short, the conservative justice  Scalia wrote that virtual pornographic images of children are protected under the First Amendment if it does not  “involve harms to children.”  Of course, my hero, Ruth Badger Ginsberg strongly dissented.
> 
> So Balenciaga knew exactly what it was doing by printing these pictures and intentionally produced virtual pornographic images of children and reminded the American public that they were within their rights under the 1st AmendmenT.
> 
> View attachment 5664472


wow - we are really distorting this. Yeah Denma is a brilliant mastermind NOT


----------



## mrsinsyder

This quote from Demna has really aged poorly. 

“Sometimes people get offended by certain things . . . but there is a reason for those things when we do them. It’s never accidental,” he told the FT last month.


----------



## Annawakes

Well, Fashionphile won’t accept my pristine Bal bag I bought brand new back in July.  I wonder if they are flooded with Bal quotes.  Should’ve sold it two months ago when I was already over it.


----------



## jblended

trippinonsunshine said:


> wow - we are really distorting this. Yeah Denma is a brilliant mastermind NOT


I think it can be quite useful to hear different perspectives. Besides, it's not that much of a distortion. In my first post on this thread, I posed the same question (quoted below):


jblended said:


> Or was it meant to be a social commentary of sorts? A mirror held up to showcase how society currently exploits children without consequence? Because, let's be honest, between celebrities and influencers posting their kids all over their social media, kids are being exploited for monetary gain all the time (and there is a darker side to those pictures being on social media sites as this campaign has shown us).



The reason I wondered that was because this was clearly a running theme- from the runway with the baby carriers, to the multiple photos for different releases/campaigns- the subject seemed to be the inspiration and theme for the collection.

Even if this was meant to be social commentary, it is a terrible concept and a *horrifying* end-product. I wish Bal had explained the vision and messaging, just so we can understand how we got to this point. Everything from the concept to the campaigns to the brand's response is horrifying.

_ETA: I think it is important for us to consider how much children- who cannot consent and have no understanding of social media- are having their pictures published on social media platforms like instagram and youtube, for their parents' financial gain. I wish Bal had played on that angle, especially as Kim K- one of their ambassadors- is flippant about exploiting her children for fame/ attention/ money. It could have made for very insightful discussion.
However, the inclusion of bdsm elements,  blood splattered teddy bears, and other inappropriate imagery takes the adverts, and the whole collection, to a very dark and ugly place. It's very difficult to imagine wth they were thinking._


----------



## Shelby33

papertiger said:


> Apparently (that's what I heard from a YT vid). I'm not linking that vid because I do not (want) to support the Chanel but I am supposing the content-creator got the info pretty easily from the Net.
> 
> However, from the DM (it doesn't say whether or not he works for BAL)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father of child who posed in bondage-themed Balenciaga defends shoot
> 
> 
> Speaking exclusively to MailOnline, the father said he was present at the shoot, which was 'an enjoyable day out' - and insisted the bizarre pictures had been taken 'totally out of context'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the article "...the parents of the children had been 'active participants' in the day-long shoot in Paris earlier this month."


"He said Galimberti was 'innocent' of any wrongdoing and revealed the models were all children of Balenciaga employees who were at the shoot and had approved the campaign." 









						Father of child who posed in bondage-themed Balenciaga defends shoot
					

Speaking exclusively to MailOnline, the father said he was present at the shoot, which was 'an enjoyable day out' - and insisted the bizarre pictures had been taken 'totally out of context'.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




Does Balenciaga usually use their employee's 
children for their campaigns? It seems unusual to me. Maybe no modeling agency wanted to be involved. Just speculating...



jblended said:


> I think it can be quite useful to hear different perspectives. Besides, it's not that much of a distortion. In my first post on this thread, I posed the same question (quoted below):
> 
> 
> The reason I wondered that was because this was clearly a running theme- from the runway with the baby carriers, to the multiple photos for different releases/campaigns- the subject seemed to be the inspiration and theme for the collection.
> 
> Even if this was meant to be social commentary, it is a terrible concept and a *horrifying* end-product. I wish Bal had explained the vision and messaging, just so we can understand how we got to this point. Everything from the concept to the campaigns to the brand's response is horrifying.


I think if it were meant to be a social commentary, they would have defended that. 
Nobody from Balenciaga, to the photographers, has come out to say this. It was suggested by a forum member who surmises they should use different ads "for Americans".


----------



## dangerouscurves

HAZE MAT said:


> I have decided that this is my last post on this thread and I need not comment much further.
> 
> I am a contemporary artist and fashion designer and I do like the driving concept behind Balenciaga's brilliant dissection of American culture (at least a fringe element) through the ad. It is pretty postmodern and works well as an anti-ad ad.
> 
> Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor; but in case, at this point, I feel that I am going to be speaking to deaf ears and I will remain to support Demna as much as I can.
> 
> They have nothing to apologize at this point. In any case, Balenciaga should think hard and just makes ads specifically for Americans and then ads for the rest of the world. That will solve the problem. (Look at the news coverage for this flap up; we aren't getting much out of American news coverage).
> 
> Their most brilliant idea: "Supporting Balenciaga’s Spring/Summer 2023 collection, the ‘Garde-Robe’ campaign, which featured the likes of Bella Hadid and Nicole Kidman, saw Balenciaga opt for an “office” theme that displayed a host of legal documents across the set, with a page from a Supreme Court ruling of _United States v. Williams _being spotted. The document included several references to child pornography, with the case ultimately deeming the promotion of child pornography illegal and not protected under freedom of speech."
> 
> If there is any other fashion news which has such intellectual depth like Balenciaga, please tell me. Anyways I'm finally out of this room.
> 
> EDIT: In order to understand what the ad is really about, you must look at Bliss Foster's video about the ad regarding clones. It's a very cynical look at our world today where celebrity is all about cloning. Like Kim is a clone of Kanye, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I will end this on a quote by Jean BAUDRILLARD about cloning and sexuality: "What, if not a death drive, would push sexed beings to regress to a form of reproduction prior to sexuation (besides, isn't it this form of scissiparity, this reproduction and proliferation through pure contiguity that is for us, in the depths of our imaginary, death and the death drive - what denies sexuality and wants to annihilate it, sexuality being the carrier of life, that is to say of a critical and mortal form of reproduction?) and that, at the same time, would push them metaphysically to deny all alterity, all alteration of the Same in order to aim solely for the perpetuation of an identity, a transparency of the genetic inscription no longer even subject to the vicissitudes of procreation?"
> 
> SECOND POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the ruling, we have https://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2008/06/what-were-they.html
> 
> Balenciaga ads tend to be very hypertextual and refer one to another. Basically the child ad is a commentary on that ruling shown in another ad. In any case, from the article we quote "The Court's ratification of a flat ban on child pornography had a relatively minimal impact on the First Amendment. Admittedly, the ruling did cause serious problems for some photographers, ranging from parents taking innocuous photos of their children to fine art photographers whose works included nude photos of children (among the more well-known examples are David Hamilton, Jock Sturges, and Sally Mann). But on the whole, it was relatively easy to draw a bright line between legal and illegal images, and law enforcement made substantial progress in fighting child pornography.
> 
> Most of those gains, however, have been wiped out by computers, the Internet, and digital cameras, all of which have made the production and distribution of child pornography vastly easier and far more difficult to combat. These new technologies have also blurred the previously bright line between legal and illegal images: many websites feature very young-looking but still adult models; some individuals use software to blend two or more legal images into composite child pornography; and others use animation software to create completely artificial (but increasingly realistic) child pornography images."
> 
> Demna is just brilliant. He understands the pulse of our digital age where children are being exploited. He is a refugee and knows that the current situation in the Ukraine is where we are seeing violence against children happen again and again. (https://thehill.com/policy/internat...n-have-been-raped-tortured-by-russian-forces/)
> 
> Once again, we tend to be complaining about an ad and Demna is pointing out that we are all armchair hypocrites for raising arms about child exploitation while ignoring where the real violence against children is happening.



If that's really the case, him being a Georgian refugee who are worried about children safety especially in a situation there in Eastern Europe right now, it should have been portrayed differently. Instead, he put children in BDSM themed photoshoot  which could be interpreted a promotion of child abuse. I'm also interested to know if you're still gonna be posting what bag you'd like to have in your collection of bag you'd let go in 6 months from now.


----------



## dangerouscurves

millivanilli said:


> 1.) Advertising has caused quite a bit of trouble even in oh-so-enlightened artistic Europe.
> 2.) to my knowledge the ad was explicitly placed in the US, so it was for the US American market - we can assume that a company the size of Balenciaga knows its customers and takes cultural differences into account .
> 3) Exploiting children is indeed something that we humans with sense and reason do not find cool, worldwide and over time.
> 4) Europe in particular - yes, I understand, the Eurocentric view of things, which does not at least stand up to scrutiny - has not necessarily distinguished itself with "artistic freedom" in recent years and decades. I like to remind here for the German area of Böhmermann, Charlie Hebdo etc.. We were oh so shocked, but children in an obvious BDSM context are "art"? Come on.
> 5.)I'll never understand how anyone could think that a broad-based advertising campaign that costs vast sums of money was just put together that way. Even an ordinary Nestle pizza photo is planned down to the smallest detail - no advertising is " just hold a camera on it and snap a photo, see what comes around". Thus, this overlap in the Balenciaga Tape is certainly also not an "accident".
> 
> The argument that the advertising would cause an uproar in the U.S., but operates in Europe under "art" is only one thing: racism and sheer arrogance towards the U.S. Americans.  It shows that we Europeans - once again - can only do one thing: point the finger at others and raise ourselves above them at. any. price. And be it a photo that has clearly, worldwide, caused shock and disgust.
> 
> Sometimes I am ashamed to be a European, because this arrogance is foreign to me.


This is foreign to you and also the rest of us living in Europe. We do have people topless on the beach and we do have nudist beaches everywhere but children's well-being still EU's one of top priorities. They have arrested so many people involved in child pornography INCLUDING SOME POLITICIANS here in Germany. That's a poor excuse to say this ads were made for Eirope. We're not that 'open-minded' or that pervert.


----------



## jblended

Shelby33 said:


> I think if it were meant to be a social commentary, they would have defended that.


Yes, that is what I had assumed they would do at the start of all this but, their responses have proven otherwise.


dangerouscurves said:


> Instead, he put children in BDSM themed photoshoot which could be interpreted a promotion of child abuse.


Agreed, this is the thing that takes a controversial ad and pushes it off a cliff. The children should never have been put in a position where we can come to this kind of interpretation, imo.
(In fact, I had just added a similar thought to my last post above #581)


----------



## ccbaggirl89

Shelby33 said:


> "He said Galimberti was 'innocent' of any wrongdoing and revealed the models were all children of Balenciaga employees who were at the shoot and had approved the campaign."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father of child who posed in bondage-themed Balenciaga defends shoot
> 
> 
> Speaking exclusively to MailOnline, the father said he was present at the shoot, which was 'an enjoyable day out' - and insisted the bizarre pictures had been taken 'totally out of context'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Balenciaga usually use their employee's
> children for their campaigns? It seems unusual to me. Maybe no modeling agency wanted to be involved. Just speculating...


It seems odd, but totally possible. Bigger US stores like Target, Walmart, etc use children of employees and actual employees all the time. So perhaps they did. The father they quoted is staying 'anonymous' so that doesn't help and could be fake news to put a positive spin on the parenting angle for them.


----------



## haute okole

880 said:


> I only read a few blurbs, but see @haute okole ’s post above #570 quoting Souter, and I believe coming to the opposite conclusion As above.
> 
> Scalias majority opinion was that an offer to exchange child pornography is not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Thus, upholding the constitutionality of the federal statute prohibiting the pandering of child pornography (the statute does not violate the first amendment). Or, in other words, child porn is not protected speech. Scalia was a strict constitutionalist, and the decision was based on the general principle that there is no First Amendment protection for offers to engage in illegal transactions.
> 
> The problem was that in keeping with prior child porn case, Ashcroft (that ruled a prior child porn statute was overly broad and did violate the First Amend ent), an offer to receive virtual child porn or simulated child porn is protected under the First Amendment. Scalia‘s exception, in accordance with Ashcroft, was that virtual pornography is protected free speech as it’s not harmful to the child.
> 
> Souter and Ginsberg dissented bc all child pornography is intrinsically harmful. . . which is the crux of the quote below and of NY vs. Ferber. In fact, Souter warned that this decision (based on no trigger of the concern for child safety over first amendment protection) would be problematic in many ways beyond porn.
> 
> 
> "The tension with existing constitutional law is obvious," Souter wrote. " Free Speech Coalition reaffirmed that nonobscene virtual pornographic images are protected, because they fail to trigger the concern for child safety that disentitles child pornography to First Amendment protection." He also warned that the decision "might have an unsettling
> significance well beyond the subject of child pornography." In Free Speech Coalition, the Court had ruled that that virtual pornography did not involve the same harms to children as pornography involving real children. This distinguished it from New York v. Ferber (1982), in which the Court had justified a child pornography exception to the First Amendment's broad free speech protections based on actual harm to The child
> 
> @mrsinsyder , as per Scalia the crime of child porn = when the speaker intends the listener that the subject depicts real children. Scalia  actually reasoned that with virtual porn, (computer generated or animated)  no real child was harmed.
> 
> ETA: I find constit law very dry, so may have missed an important point, so i would welcome correction lol


And there you have the exact reason why Williams case is a good example of a BAD decision.  The slippery slope if Constitutional stretching.  If it appears to be child pornography to the community, it should not be protected speech under the First Amendment.  Eeew, those rumors about Scalia make so much sense, I won’t elaborate, just google it.  Lay people, especially artists Who make it their life’s work to be sexually outrageous and provocative, should not be trying to interpret Williams and hide behind its carve out.  Balenciaga should have stuck with Kanye, Kim and Julia Fox instead of real children.  Souter is absolutely correct in his dissenting opinion.


----------



## Love Of My Life

A picture is worth 1000 words. Balenciaga & their creative team can put whatever spin they want on this
At the end of the day, it speaks for itself & whether Bal clients will support the
creativity, edginess & brand down the road remains to be seen


----------



## maxxout

880 said:


> @HAZE MAT, I may not agree with all of your points above, but I welcome your point of view. I agree think that the US is a very different market than Europe, and I think the Balenciaga decision makers should have done much more in the way of vetting this campaign. As I posted earlier. I do see the irony in the visuals, and I felt that the ad itself had artistic merit. But, that was almost irrelevant, as for many, the juxtaposition was a bridge too far. Thank you for providing context to the office ad; I’ve really only seen the child with the bear.
> 
> OT, but in answer, one of my favorite fashion sources is owned and run by a woman who has become a friend: Song in Vienna. She curates what I consider more artistic and avant garde fashion in an art fashion concept store. While I’ve admired some balenciaga fashion, it was always too louche and ironic for me to carry with any aplomb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decades ago, I wore some Issey; some Comme des Garçons; and some Dries Van Noten and Ann Deulmeister. I still have some old dries somewhere. now I wear mid century modern vintage dead stock (Donald brooks, adel Simpson, and Norell) mixed with chanel, dior, hermes, and brunello. I’ve gone towards custom leather from duret.com in Paris, and MtM Japanese sneakers (from Lafotte NY). Recently I’ve become much more enamored of French designed furniture (Pierre Augustine Rose and Sors and Piet Boon) than clothes.
> 
> Loewe RTW and some Spanish designers might be interesting but I don’t know much about them. Courreges is nice, but limited and a throw back to its archives.
> 
> ETA: Im not equipped to debate Demna‘s talent; I differ from you in that I think he should be fired, not simply bc his ad campaign is so offensive to the US Market, but bc he could not calibrate to that market and adjust accordingly. I also blame the executives who approved it. This storm could have easily been foreseen. kering seems to misstep more than Richmont group these days, and during Covid, the US and Asian markets grew exponentially, so I don’t think it’s a stretch to have the ad campaigns align with the top markets.



Off topic, but thank you for that list of brands you’re interested in. We share similar designers such as Issey Miyake, Comme des Garçons, Dries Van Noten and Ann Demeulemeister. One of my long time favorites, Paul Harden I think has stopped working. And for the last several years, I’ve been shopping online with Yohji Yamamoto at ‘The Shop.’
In terms of Balenciaga, I have a couple of those motorcycle jackets and a lot of the early 2000 bags. But I’ve never really liked their clothing line and particularly not now.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## MooMooVT

Aaaaaannnnnnnnnddddd Balenciaga has dropped their lawsuit against the set designer and production company behind the campaigns. It was farcical to begin with and only made them look like they're deflecting - which they were.


----------



## haute okole

maxxout said:


> Off topic, but thank you for that list of brands you’re interested in. We share similar designers such as Issey Miyake, Comme des Garçons, Dries Van Noten and Ann Demeulemeister. One of my long time favorites, Paul Harden I think has stopped working. And for the last several years, I’ve been shopping online with Yohji Yamamoto at ‘The Shop.’
> In terms of Balenciaga, I have a couple of those motorcycle jackets and a lot of the early 2000 bags. But I’ve never really liked their clothing line and particularly not now.


I actually was into Balenciaga in the past.  I gifted my Balenciaga City to my now 90 year old Mom.  I hope nobody flames her for carrying it, because she has zero idea about the controversy.  Same goes for my biotech sister who is as woke as they come, but so not aware of fashion pop culture and latest cancelations.


----------



## Shelby33

ccbaggirl89 said:


> It seems odd, but totally possible. Bigger US stores like Target, Walmart, etc use children of employees and actual employees all the time. So perhaps they did. The father they quoted is staying 'anonymous' so that doesn't help and could be fake news to put a positive spin on the parenting angle for them.


Well it's not my idea of a positive parenting angle so that's a fail.
I grew up outside of Boston and when my daughter was a baby she was contracted with a modeling agency for a few shoots of baby products for Toys-R-Us and I think Sears. The other moms I met were also going through agents.
I would be very surprised if Balenciaga didn't try to hire an agency. Usually companies use agents to guard against liabilities and there are contracts.


----------



## Shelby33

haute okole said:


> I actually was into Balenciaga in the past.  I gifted my Balenciaga City to my now 90 year old Mom.  I hope nobody flames her for carrying it, because she has zero idea about the controversy.  Same goes for my biotech sister who is as woke as they come, but so not aware of fashion pop culture and latest cancelations.


Nobody should be flamed for wearing Balenciaga, whether or not they are aware of this controversy.


----------



## 880

maxxout said:


> One of my long time favorites, Paul Harden I think has stopped working.


I googled and came up with this person 








						Searching for Fashion’s Most Reclusive Designer
					

Somewhere in Brighton, a mysterious man with a cult following is making handcrafted clothing that fashion die-hards and celebrities like Jeremy Strong love.




					www.gq.com
				




if this is the one you reference, I believe the proprietor of SONG carries his stuff currently, I think it has an edgy quality that Balenciaga fashion tries to emulate. Without any ad campaign or fanfare.



haute okole said:


> I actually was into Balenciaga in the past. I gifted my Balenciaga City to my now 90 year old Mom. I hope nobody flames her for carrying it, because she has zero idea about the controversy. Same goes for my biotech sister who is as woke as they come, but so not aware of fashion pop culture and latest cancelations.


I’m sure your things are beautiful and they will enjoy them! I think it would be wasteful to cancel out balenciaga items one currently possesses, simply bc of one artistic director and the current ad campaigns. But, when Dolce and McQueen and Gucci had their own issues, I will admit that I preferred not to wear my items. I returned to some of them after about 15 years bc I was fond of the items. Hugs


----------



## Shelby33

What really sucks is that Demna is so into himself and his "art", and so is whoever else upstairs that goes along with it-They don't stop to think about the innocent employees that are affected. 
Reports of empty stores, vandalism, SAs being harassed-they are the ones who are feeling it. Can you imagine being a Balenciaga SA and having to go to work today? I would be more than a little distressed, worrying about a cavalcade of pissed off people stopping by or making a scene outside. It would be intimidating to leave work and see a crowd with signs. Even if they are well behaved, it's unnerving. 
 It's not fair to Bal owners either. I know how much many of you used to love those bags and collected citys, works, etc and I think it would be a shame if you felt judged for using  them, or felt fear!


----------



## Love Of My Life

haute okole said:


> I actually was into Balenciaga in the past.  I gifted my Balenciaga City to my now 90 year old Mom.  I hope nobody flames her for carrying it, because she has zero idea about the controversy.  Same goes for my biotech sister who is as woke as they come, but so not aware of fashion pop culture and latest cancelations.



Balenciaga of yesteryear was beautiful & exceptional & inspiring to many designers of today.
Would hope that no one in their right mind would "flame" another human being for wearing an
item that has controversary surrounding it.
There are many who have no clue as to this Balenciaga controversary. Not even sure if it has
made the "news" on various tv stations. Posters sharing their thoughts perhaps on forums,
IG & Youtube accounts speaks for itself loud & clear
But at the end of the day, Balenciaga will go on. Those that choose to wear their clothing
& handbags will likely do so & those that are offended by the ad will make the appropriate
decisions for themselves & this will likely quiet down sooner than later, sadly & Balenciaga
will survive just like other design houses & designers have.
Balenciaga in theory has covered their a***es with their comments as they chose to but
what has been learned from all this, only time will tell.


----------



## RitaLA

Shelby33 said:


> What really sucks is that Demna is so into himself and his "art", and so is whoever else upstairs that goes along with it-They don't stop to think about the innocent employees that are affected.
> Reports of empty stores, vandalism, SAs being harassed-they are the ones who are feeling it. Can you imagine being a Balenciaga SA and having to go to work today? I would be more than a little distressed, worrying about a cavalcade of pissed off people stopping by or making a scene outside. It would be intimidating to leave work and see a crowd with signs. Even if they are well behaved, it's unnerving.
> It's not fair to Bal owners either. I know how much many of you used to love those bags and collected citys, works, etc and I think it would be a shame if you felt judged for using  them, or felt fear!


Very insightful and heartbreaking, indeed.


----------



## Shelby33

RitaLA said:


> Very insightful and heartbreaking, indeed.


Well now it's been an hour or two and I think my post was a bit... Dramatic?


----------



## trippinonsunshine

Gringach said:


> I leave in Switzerland so kind of European.. And like to think that I am an opened minded person.
> However, I got shocked and offended by these adds. The whole thing with this court case documents is just disgusting.
> And when I saw the « art » that this sick person called Lota something is promoting, it repulsed me so much that I did not sleep well for a few days. I cannot believe such people are allowed to share their sick mind freely. And I don’t care if she is not working with Balenciaga at this stage, this whole thing is totally awful and they worked with which seems to be a terrible person at some point.
> Maybe those that are trying this form « art » don’t have children? Because I have two kids and I am still shocked by what I saw.
> I loved my two small city bags but I am so upset I might sell them as I am not sure I will be able to carry them anymore.
> And by the way, I would like to mention that I HATE the work of Demna for Balenciaga. I am really sorry for what he did to this brand and hoped he would get fired with his team but unfortunately, it seems like he will be able to keep doing his crap..
> Voilà, I had to write this as I my two Bbags were my two favorites bags in my small bag collection but this guy destroyed everything about Balenciaga in my view..


Yes, didn't hear? They are going to put all kinds of protocols in place to hand hold Demna, but fire him? No.


----------



## trippinonsunshine

ccbaggirl89 said:


> It seems odd, but totally possible. Bigger US stores like Target, Walmart, etc use children of employees and actual employees all the time. So perhaps they did. The father they quoted is staying 'anonymous' so that doesn't help and could be fake news to put a positive spin on the parenting angle for them.


If this father is so pro the photographer and feels so badly...speak up and give some insight as to what he believed his child was participating in. Oh and stand up proud. Provide your name.


----------



## dangerouscurves

It's not even about the children in those photos, it's the message these ads are sending. They really are tiptoeing around the issue instead of addressing it, which is why putting children in ads for adults with 'toys' and stuffs that are not for children?


----------



## RitaLA

Shelby33 said:


> Well now it's been an hour or two and I think my post was a bit... Dramatic?


I personally didn't read it as dramatic. I think you were being empathic and expressed your opinion on how you think others might be feeling at this moment. Let's simply say that you were being human.


----------



## addiCCted




----------



## Love Of My Life

trippinonsunshine said:


> Yes, didn't hear? They are going to put all kinds of protocols in place to hand hold Demna, but fire him? No.


Doubt Demna will be fired.. Agree that protocols will be put into place & he has been forewarned
 Let's see how Balenciaga handles all this as the couture collection will be presented January in Paris
 & lots of $$$$ at stake from now until then that Balenciaga is not going to forfeit, JMO
 This will likely will die much quicker than we would anticipate
 Apologies (checked)  Staff meetings as to how to handle clients in free standing B boutiques here in US
 (protests, etc) the store may even go back to by appointment only, so clients can be discreet
 Business will go on.. you bet!!


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## DILF

Love Of My Life said:


> There are many who have no clue as to this Balenciaga controversary. Not even sure if it has
> made the "news" on various tv stations.


Where I am located, it has made the nightly national news. In addition, most major North American news outlets have reported on the controversy - just like the sensational reporting on the Chanel advent calendar, circa 2021.


----------



## Love Of My Life

DILF said:


> Where I am located, it has made the nightly national news. In addition, most major North American news outlets have reported on the controversy - just like the sensational reporting on the Chanel advent calendar, circa 2021.


I'm in the NYC area & haven't heard a word on the news & have been looking for it, so out of curiosity
 what national news outlet has covered this? NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN?
Thinking maybe Inside Edition will cover or TMZ?
Just got finished reading an interesting editorial by Marilyn Kirschner "Look on Line" with a comment
from Ralph Rucci that was posted on his IG account the other day


----------



## piosavsfan

Shelby33 said:


> What really sucks is that Demna is so into himself and his "art", and so is whoever else upstairs that goes along with it-They don't stop to think about the innocent employees that are affected.
> Reports of empty stores, vandalism, SAs being harassed-they are the ones who are feeling it. Can you imagine being a Balenciaga SA and having to go to work today? I would be more than a little distressed, worrying about a cavalcade of pissed off people stopping by or making a scene outside. It would be intimidating to leave work and see a crowd with signs. Even if they are well behaved, it's unnerving.
> It's not fair to Bal owners either. I know how much many of you used to love those bags and collected citys, works, etc and I think it would be a shame if you felt judged for using  them, or felt fear!


Yesterday when I saw the protest at the mall, I was glad that I wasn't carrying one of my Balenciagas, I would have felt very uncomfortable and who knows if I would have been harassed. I don't want to get rid of my bags but I feel weird using them right now.


----------



## lorihmatthews

MooMooVT said:


> Aaaaaannnnnnnnnddddd Balenciaga has dropped their lawsuit against the set designer and production company behind the campaigns. It was farcical to begin with and only made them look like they're deflecting - which they were.


I made most of my points on page 13 of this thread so I don't want to repeat them. Dropping the lawsuit infers that they don't have a leg to stand on because they signed off on all the creative prior to it launching. I knew it, and so did Balenciaga.


----------



## ccbaggirl89

Love Of My Life said:


> I'm in the NYC area & haven't heard a word on the news & have been looking for it, so out of curiosity
> what national news outlet has covered this? NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN?
> Thinking maybe Inside Edition will cover or TMZ?
> Just got finished reading an interesting editorial by Marilyn Kirschner "Look on Line" with a comment
> from Ralph Rucci that was posted on his IG account the other day


TMZ has covered it (on their show) a few times since the controversy started.


----------



## ccbaggirl89

Kanye, on his IG post today, is calling it "Balenciagagate"


----------



## bernpl

Love Of My Life said:


> I'm in the NYC area & haven't heard a word on the news & have been looking for it, so out of curiosity
> what national news outlet has covered this? NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN?
> Thinking maybe Inside Edition will cover or TMZ?
> Just got finished reading an interesting editorial by Marilyn Kirschner "Look on Line" with a comment
> from Ralph Rucci that was posted on his IG account the other day



Most people have read about it on news on their Apple phone last week after Thanksgiving. I happen to find it when I was in search of a white Balenciaga baseball cap. I have seen it headline on my phone a few times this past week. Also,  I have seen on Fox News in Los Angeles when they have shown protests outside the Rodeo boutique.


----------



## Roie55

trippinonsunshine said:


> BALENCIAGA TAKES THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WITH THE OBJECTIVE TO LEARN
> FROM OUR MISTAKES AS AN ORGANIZATION.
> NEW CONTROL INSTANCES:
> OUR CURRENT PROCESS FOR CONTENT VALIDATION HAS FAILED, AND WE
> RECOGNIZE THE NEED TO DO BETTER
> ON THE INTERNAL SIDE, WE NOMINATE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AN IM-
> AGE BOARD RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING THE NATURE OF OUR CONTENT
> FROM CONCEPT TO FINAL ASSETS, INCLUDING LEGAL, SUSTAINABILITY AND
> DIVERSITY EXPERTISE
> ON THE EXTERNAL SIDE, WE HAVE APPOINTED A BEST-IN-CLASS AGENCY
> TO ASSESS AND EVALUATE OUR CONTENT
> ORGANIZATION:
> WE HAVE REORGANIZED OUR IMAGE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE FULL ALIGN-
> MENT WITH OUR CORPORATE GUIDELINES
> LAWSUIT:
> BALENCIAGA HAS DECIDED NOT TO PURSUE LITIGATION
> LEARN AND CONTRIBUTE:
> WE WANT TO LEARN, HELP AND CONTRIBUTE TO PROTECT CHILDREN
> WE ARE STARTING TRAININGS ON RESPONSIBLE COMMUNICATION ACROSS
> OUR TEAMS
> TOGETHER WITH MY TEAM, WE WILL GO ON "LISTENING TOUR" TO ENGAGE
> WITH ADVOCACY GROUPS WHO AIM TO PROTECT CHILDREN
> DONATION:
> WE HAVE SET ASIDE A SIGNIFICANT FUND FOR GRANTS TO ORGANIZATIONS
> SO THAT WE CAN HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN PROTECTING CHILDREN
> I WANT TO PERSONALLY REITERATE MY SINCERE APOLOGIES FOR THE OFFENSE
> CAUSED AND TAKE MY RESPONSIBILITY.
> AT BALENCIAGA, WE STAND TOGETHER FOR CHILDREN SAFETY AND DO NOT
> TOLERATE ANY KIND OF VIOLENCE AND HATRED MESSAGE.
> CÉDRIC CHARBIT
> PRESIDENT AND CEO
> 
> What a load of crap! You need to appoint an "image board" to know right from wrong when using children in campaigns? No you need an image board to assess legal ramifications --disgusting. You drop the lawsuit not to assume full responsibility and screen every individual internally responsible for allowing this to be approved/released. You again reiterate appointing a "best in class agency to evaluate content" -- what is wrong with you people? If you took accountability and heads rolled over there who were responsible and a clear public message was sent that would be a start. You retain the designer !!!!!
> 
> Typical corporate PR statement. Assign a board, coordinate trainings, throw pretend money that you receive tax incentive at the issue and my personal favorite --go on a listening tour... I hope you get an earful of insight.  BTW- lose the caps..
> 
> Set aside significant fund for grants ? How much?
> At Balenciaga we stand together for children safety and do not tolerate any kind of violence or hatred message.... Obtuse!
> 
> Every time they open their mouths, I get more angry.


John Galliano was dropped from Dior within a few days wasnt it? Here there is no mention of the designer or the stylists being dropped, in a situation where they need to be long gone.


----------



## Nancy in VA

I have been reading deeper into it - and it is much, much more than their ad campaign - now I want to sell all my Balenciaga and would be embarrassed to wear it - I have some old moto bags - I wonder if the prices have gone way down?


----------



## southernbelle43

I do not have any of their bags thank goodness, and I am thrilled that there an uproar over this. It is time for companies and people to realize that actions, decisions, etc., have consequences.


----------



## Nancy in VA

The CEO of the company that owns Balenciaga Kering - also makes life size child sex toys - it is so sick and disgusting.  Well - they are calling it "art" - sick people


----------



## mrsinsyder

Nancy in VA said:


> The CEO of the company that owns Balenciaga Kering - also makes life size child sex toys - it is so sick and disgusting.


Source?


----------



## alice87

Yhte123 said:


> The Alexander wang era? The man has been shown to grope, drug, and sexually harass models, literally sexual misconduct .
> 
> just imo not directed towards anyone, the Moto bag is iconic and most people familiar with fashion will immediately know it’s Balenciaga. Wearing these bags is normalizing the brand and keeps them in the culture. Almost as disgusting as the company. It’s like people who listen to RKelly’s music after what has happened.
> 
> Not to mention supporting Kering’s other brands is indirectly supporting Balenciaga since Kering will gladly funnel money from Gucci or Bottega to rescue Balenciaga
> 
> 
> They’re lying and I don’t believe it. There’s just too much that I don’t think it was a coincidence or the producers fault. They should just close doors. The name is tainted now.


If you are going to blame people who likes the bags before the scandal, when why would you support other brands who had such not nice histories or comments or behaviors towards certain populations?


----------



## Nancy in VA

Sorry - did not really check my sources but I have seen this mentioned in other news outlets that his company owns the company that makes the life size sex dolls and calls it art - I personally believe it - but who knows - I also believe Balenciaga knew exactly what they were doing and if you do not believe that you are very naive


----------



## Nancy in VA

OriginalBalenciaga said:


> The article you linked to is about the fact that he owns Christies auction house...?


Yes - his company is selling it - even if it is an auction house - which I am not sure of- what is the difference?  Are auction houses allowed to sell child porn?


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Nancy in VA

Well - we all have our opinions but what exactly was Balenciaga trying to do?  We all know they go over these ads with a fine tooth comb - how about the one with the legal papers about child porn?  Was that a mistake too?  Come on...


----------



## Shelby33

It's sad that any company has to revisit protocols in 2022 regarding the photographing of children, but now that I think about it I'm not sure if they actually mentioned what these new "protocols" will be.
I have not seen this on any news channels but I haven't watched TV much. I think though I saw it on either CNN or our local news when they let Kanye go.
My mom found out because she follows an interior decorator on YouTube whose name is Justine Leconte. She made a video discussing the campaign.
There are so many people who watch YouTube, with a wide variety of interests. I'm sure other channels have had something to say.

ETA just watched her video, I don't think it's  interior design, maybe just fashion.


----------



## Shelby33

880 said:


> As per below, from quanon, proud boy, and not reputable source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> agree with @OriginalBalenciaga and @preppie re the importance of vetting sources
> 
> i do agree with @Nancy in VA post 619, that absolutely Balenciaga knew what they were doing in the ad campaign. In fact Demna has stated that every decision made is deliberate.
> 
> (whether it was social commentary in the light of US vs. Williams, or bc Demna and Lotte have questionable motives, or both, the fall out is the same and foreseeable)
> 
> (and for reasons of fallout and crisis management , relating to company PR, if not morality, that  Demna and Lotte should be fired. . . Though of course that’s something that likely will be behind closed doors) and


I agree we should be citing only MSM and just focus on what Bal actually did but also what about Adidas, have they not commented?


----------



## 880

Shelby33 said:


> I agree we should be citing only MSM and just focus on what Bal actually did but also what about Adidas, have they not commented?


I wasn’t sure if there was a controversy between balenciaga and adidas so I googled and didn’t find anything? Re whether there should be protocols in place, not sure if with a conservative, pro constitution Supreme Court, we will end up with anything that addresses serious concerns. IMO Scalia’s insistence that virtual pornography is protected by First Amendment bc it doesn’t harm an actual child is really problematic in terms of child safety. Then again, the US strict constitutional/ strong First Amendment Protection seems to be more of a cover or protection for disturbing ad campaigns like Balenciaga than the  more liberal POV. 

I did see that adidas launched an investigation into something with Yeezy and Kanye West here, but didn’t go further to se eif there was some link between Kanye west and balenciaga









						Adidas launches probe into misconduct allegations against Kanye West
					

Adidas AG on Thursday said it has launched an investigation into allegations of inappropriate behavior by Kanye West, after the German sporting goods maker last month ended its partnership with the rapper and fashion designer.




					www.reuters.com
				




perhaps if Balenciaga terminated Demna, then they would act in a similar fashion, but termination doesnt seem likely


----------



## jblended

880 said:


> I wasn’t sure if there was a controversy between balenciaga and adidas so I googled and didn’t find anything?


The court documents were in the Adidas x Bal collab campaign...the Adidas stripes are on the bag, iirc. I don't think Adidas has commented at all, though they should have because they are involved and would also have signed off on the campaign. 
I think the majority have focused on Bal because of the teddy bear pic (holiday gift campaign) _on top of _the court docs in the other Adidas collab pic.


----------



## BPC

mrsinsyder said:


> Where is it shown that Christie's is selling child porn? That's a pretty serious allegation, one that could even put TPF in an awkward place of responsibility for that information being posted on the site.



Christie did sell "works" by Jake and Dino Chapman. They're dolls and they're vile.
Seems they were sold before the Artemis group bought Christies though. 

And even if they were sold after, to accuse the owner of selling child porn is crazy. I deeply doubt he oversaw it personally. 

Also, Christies is not the only auction house to sell dolls for that collection, Phillips did as well but no one's saying anything about them. 

The witch hunt has started folks.


----------



## alice87

TraceySH said:


> My best friends are the largest art dealers in the country so yeah, I’ve got plenty of backdrop and lots of interesting stories… that’s for sure.
> 
> 
> No. I don’t.
> 
> 
> Well I disagree entirely. And that’s ok. Mass produced fashion isn’t art. Never will be. Again, IMO.


I agree. Mass produced dies after the season, and nobody remember that was done, and it does not stand out year after year. Art takes place in history and is remembered.


----------



## alice87

SpeedyJC said:


> My husband owned an art gallery in Manhattan and at the end of the day it was all about sales.
> 
> I have friends who are artists. Do you know how expensive it is to even be an artist? I was just talking over dinner to an artist from Brooklyn about this. Paints, Canvas , renting out a studio to be able to paint large pieces in ect ect. She loves being an artist but of course its about sales for her it has to be or she would not be able to afford to do this as a profession nor be able to afford to pay her bills, rent buy food.
> 
> Being an artist as your profession is about money. Unless you are talking about hobbyist who do not rely on art as main income. Sounds like you have a rather romantic idea of what art and I mean the serious art trade is actually about.


Does your friend works is pictured at the museum? Calling yourself an artist does not hold a place in history. It is a trade for her.


----------



## Shelby33

addiCCted said:


> I will have to disagree with using only msm as source. I’ll be open to seeing what the alternative source is saying but I would need to be able to verify the accusations somehow using other credible primary source info.
> 
> I say that bc let’s imagine a scenario where a small lowly whistleblower is coming out to accuse a giant reputable person/company. Where would the public credibitly automatically lean towards? But how many times has the truth come from  from these “un influential” people.
> 
> We have to use discernment.



MSM usually has a verified source. I'm more comfortable with that as I would not want to repeat things that may or may not be true, or may have been taken out of context.


----------



## Shelby33

BPC said:


> Christie did sell "works" by Jake and Dino Chapman. They're dolls and they're vile.
> Seems they were sold before the Artemis group bought Christies though.
> 
> And even if they were sold after, to accuse the owner of selling child porn is crazy. I deeply doubt he oversaw it personally.
> 
> Also, Christies is not the only auction house to sell dolls for that collection, Phillips did as well but no one's saying anything about them.
> *
> The witch hunt has started folks.*


Exactly what I am trying to avoid.


----------



## DeryaHm

Love Of My Life said:


> I'm in the NYC area & haven't heard a word on the news & have been looking for it, so out of curiosity
> what national news outlet has covered this? NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN?
> Thinking maybe Inside Edition will cover or TMZ?
> Just got finished reading an interesting editorial by Marilyn Kirschner "Look on Line" with a comment
> from Ralph Rucci that was posted on his IG account the other day


I have only heard about it here. Certainly no protestors outside the EH Balenciaga


----------



## PRinLA

piosavsfan said:


> Yesterday when I saw the protest at the mall, I was glad that I wasn't carrying one of my Balenciagas, I would have felt very uncomfortable and who knows if I would have been harassed. I don't want to get rid of my bags but I feel weird using them right now.


There was a small protest outside my local Balenciaga store over the weekend. I don’t feel comfortable wearing mine either and had *JUST* purchased an orange croc stamped Hourglass a week before this all happened. I returned it. 

When I returned the SA mentioned I was the third that morning.


----------



## DILF

PRinLA said:


> When I returned the SA mentioned I was the third that morning.


That’s wild. So this has a real impact on their sales?


----------



## PRinLA

DILF said:


> That’s wild. So this has a real impact on their sales?


I believe so, although that is only my personal experience. I live in LA and couldn’t go a few hours without someone talking to me about it.

I remember the Gucci sweater, the Prada Monkey and even McQueen’s controversial shows “Highland R*pe” and “Yellow Rain” but they all pale by comparison with the reaction to Balenciagas campaigns. It’s actually really unfortunate for it’s legacy to be tarnished like this. 

I understand the outrage and condemnation. Even if not as sinister and malicious as some may believe Demna loved to push the envelope and very recently claimed nothing he does is an “Accident.” He went too far.


----------



## Mariambagaholic

enough is enough I’m tired of their fake apology..it was not a mistake that was a decision, they should be held accountable all of them.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## PRinLA

Mariambagaholic said:


> enough is enough I’m tired of their fake apology..it was not a mistake that was a decision, they should be held accountable all of them.


Agreed wholeheartedly.  The apology fell flat. I was just relaying Demna’s spin.


----------



## Brooklynite

With all their "courage" to painstakingly "create" this campaign, there is no courage to own up. So they know that this is disgusting and people are against it.
Gucci just fired their head designer so kering can't afford losing another big name. But this can't continue imho. If they hold another runway presentation in my city I will personally show up to protest. 
Just change the brand name to Demna the Pedophile. Better than damaging what Mr. C. Balenciaga created so many years ago.


----------



## LVLoveaffair

Shelby33 said:


> If what I bolded above s true, why did Balenciaga say they had "no idea" those court papers were there, and subsequently try to sue the production company?
> 
> Your statement "*Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor" - *
> 
> Demna was supposed to receive an award this week from Business of Fashion- Voices, which they have rescinded. Business of Fashion's HQ is in London.
> 
> Balenciaga in London was vandalized according to this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Balenciaga Stores Vandalized Following Ad Campaign Featuring BDSM And Children - Travel Noire
> 
> 
> Fashion giant Balenciaga continues to find itself in hot water following its highly questionable ad campaign . Public anger moved from social...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> travelnoire.com


People are sick of it! Kudos to them


----------



## SpeedyJC

alice87 said:


> Does your friend works is pictured at the museum? Calling yourself an artist does not hold a place in history. It is a trade for her.


My friend is an artist.

I am really not sure what point you are trying to make to be honest.


----------



## Jaxholt15

There is so much more to Balenciaga than this offensive ad campaign.  I have always loved fashion and Balenciaga has been a favorite.  I refuse to stop wearing Balenciaga because of this incident and I am sorry but I cannot understand some of your comments in regard to never wearing the brand again or the things you already own.  I can certainly understand stating your distaste for the ad campaign and I cannot believe that the powers that be at Balenciaga have not heard you and learned from it.


----------



## Swanky

To each their own, if someone doesn't feel comfortable wearing their Bal, great! If some feel ok about wearing what they purchased, great! No one is right or wrong in feeling how they feel about that.


----------



## TraceySH

It would actually be rather easy for them to just explain it all. The court papers, the bruised bear eyes, the bondage gear, the misspelling in the tape, the bloody baby, whatever. No one is explaining anything. Just saying “sorry you were offended”. Which leads everyone to attempt to interpret it all, which is impossible, and where the most obvious interpretation, for a lack of another from them, is what we are all saying. 

They’re not challenging it. They could make it all go away, or at least abate the outrage. They’re not. Maybe the outrage is the “artistic vision”.


----------



## haute okole

Swanky said:


> To each their own, if someone doesn't feel comfortable wearing their Bal, great! If some feel ok about wearing what they purchased, great! No one is right or wrong in feeling how they feel about that.


And remember, there are many who have been gifted Balenciaga who don’t even know they are carrying Balenciaga, like my 90 year old Mom.  Please give people some grace and don’t assume everybody knows what we know.


----------



## _Moravia_

American haute couture designer, Ralph Rucci, is one of the few in the fashion world who has publicly called out both Balenciaga and Demna (as per his recent IG posts):


----------



## Brooklynite

_Moravia_ said:


> American haute couture designer, Ralph Rucci, is one of the few in the fashion world who has publicly called out both Balenciaga and Demna (as per his recent IG posts):



He is 100% right!


----------



## Brooklynite

880 said:


> ETA: Im not equipped to debate Demna‘s talent; I differ from you in that I think he should be fired, not simply bc his ad campaign is so offensive to the US Market, but bc he could not calibrate to that market and adjust accordingly. I also blame the executives who approved it. This storm could have easily been foreseen. kering seems to misstep more than Richmont group these days, and during Covid, the US and Asian markets grew exponentially, so I don’t think it’s a stretch to have the ad campaigns align with the top markets.



I honestly can't imagine this campaign work in any region...the only market it works for might be the pedo market, and I doubt Kering is in that business...therefore, it is obviously a failed campaign, to say the least.


----------



## slayqueen

It’s shocking how bad of a position they have put their consumers in who have spent thousands of dollars on balenciaga products. To have to wonder whether you will be associated with child abuse when rocking their purse… yeah, they’re finished. IMO, Kering and a lot of other brands need to take a hard look at if it’s worthwhile in the long run to stoke controversy. Balenciaga was on thin ice and look how quickly the GP dropped them. would never happen to chanel, but then again chanel would never do anything like this so the comparison is moot.


----------



## slayqueen

_Moravia_ said:


> American haute couture designer, Ralph Rucci, is one of the few in the fashion world who has publicly called out both Balenciaga and Demna (as per his recent IG posts):



He’s right but he’s also an unbearable, jealous man. He’s just sad his work never took off and takes it out on everyone else constantly. miserable account to follow


----------



## chloehandbags

Brooklynite said:


> I honestly can't imagine this campaign work in any region...the only market it works for might be the pedo market, and I doubt Kering is in that business...therefore, it is obviously a failed campaign, to say the least.



They pretty obviously are in that business at this point, unofficially at least, as this was tailored precisely to it.

So, it will attract them and they are probably keeping them afloat at the moment...

What's depressing is that you can so easily end up buying into all this without meaning to.

For example, I bought a necklace with the word Angel on it and was only then informed, by an acquaintance (yes, a dodgy one in that way, although not practicing, thank God), that Angel has a double meaning I wasn't aware of.

Didn't stop me wearing it, or buying other items (e.g. VS nightshirts, ironically, given the Epstein connection - this was pre all that coming out) which utilised the word, on the basis of the primary and/or the other innocent meaning, because I wasn't going to let p*dophiles change what I did, or wore, but it made me feel somewhat uneasy nonetheless.

...and then there are other things like butterflies, which are supposed to be symbolic of split personalities, which are a common symptom amongst the sexually abused.

Then there are rabbits, which relate to the white rabbit in Alice and also to bunny girls...

I wasn't going to not accept a beautiful rabbit wallet gift just because of that.

Other animals are also involved.

Then there is one eye symbolism, aforementioned spiral shapes, hand symbols and so on and on...

One way or another there are so many things with double meanings that you could struggle to find anything you could wear, or do, without it meaning something suspect to these people, so you end up having to sort of ignore it and carry on regardless and wear what you like.


----------



## chloehandbags

Actually, if you think about it logically, it would be far weirder if p*dophiles didn't stick together, promote each other and work together, given that everyone else hates what they are/do.

The big surprise would be if they didn't.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## _Moravia_

slayqueen said:


> He’s right but he’s also an unbearable, jealous man. He’s just sad his work never took off and takes it out on everyone else constantly. miserable account to follow



This thread isn't about debating the merits of Ralph Rucci's professional career nor his IG account (points that I thoroughly disagree with you on). This doesn't negate the fact that he is one of the only individuals in the fashion industry that has called out Balenciaga/Demna while others have been content to remain silent.


----------



## Jaxholt15

Swanky said:


> To each their own, if someone doesn't feel comfortable wearing their Bal, great! If some feel ok about wearing what they purchased, great! No one is right or wrong in feeling how they feel about that.


Of course it is your choice.  My point is the fact that Balenciaga is a long standing fashion house with a successful history.  I hate to see it all burned to the ground because current powers that be at Balenciaga made stupid decisions.  It is rare for a head designer to last more than a few years, wouldn‘t mind if Demna was gone sooner rather than later.


----------



## Love Of My Life

Business of Fashion, rescinded its Global Award to have been presented to Balenciaga/Denma (annual gala)
describing the Balenciaga images as "wholly inconsistent with our values"


----------



## canto bight

I have been thinking about this for over a week and I go back and forth between absolutely nauseated to being in denial.

The denial part of me wants to think:  This was a poorly received (and rightfully so) attempt at being edgy and pushing the envelope artistically and that several people made really poor decisions when this campaign was approved.  Because there's no way actual criminals committing heinous acts against children would ever be so dumb to so openly advertise their sickness, right?

When the denial slips away, I feel so disgusted and sad because I am forced to think of the terrible way some adults destroy children behind closed doors.


----------



## mrsinsyder

chloehandbags said:


> They pretty obviously are in that business at this point, unofficially at least, as this was tailored precisely to it.
> 
> So, it will attract them and they are probably keeping them afloat at the moment...
> 
> What's depressing is that you can so easily end up buying into all this without meaning to.
> 
> For example, I bought a necklace with the word Angel on it and was only then informed, by an acquaintance (yes, a dodgy one in that way, although not practicing, thank God), that Angel has a double meaning I wasn't aware of.
> 
> Didn't stop me wearing it, or buying other items (e.g. VS nightshirts, ironically, given the Epstein connection - this was pre all that coming out) which utilised the word, on the basis of the primary and/or the other innocent meaning, because I wasn't going to let p*dophiles change what I did, or wore, but it made me feel somewhat uneasy nonetheless.
> 
> ...and then there are other things like butterflies, which are supposed to be symbolic of split personalities, which are a common symptom amongst the sexually abused.
> 
> Then there are rabbits, which relate to the white rabbit in Alice and also to bunny girls...
> 
> I wasn't going to not accept a beautiful rabbit wallet gift just because of that.
> 
> Other animals are also involved.
> 
> Then there is one eye symbolism, aforementioned spiral shapes, hand symbols and so on and on...
> 
> One way or another there are so many things with double meanings that you could struggle to find anything you could wear, or do, without it meaning something suspect to these people, so you end up having to sort of ignore it and carry on regardless and wear what you like.


I was one of our state’s CSEC (commercial sexual exploitation of children) subject matter experts for years and tbh I’d never heard this stuff about bunnies, spirals, eyes, etc., in my work, ever. Certain pimps/gangs would use certain symbols but there wasn’t much that was looked at as some universal sign of trafficking. 

It’s hard for me to decipher how much of this stuff becomes weird conspiracies. I sometimes think trafficking has taken on this weird Hollywood mystique that isn’t really as rooted in reality as it might seem.


----------



## Mcaldwell190

Balenciaga has not fired any of their perverts. What? The entire company was in it? Never again anything balenciaga, will not support them unless an entirely new crew comes around. Gross.


----------



## misswallstreet

What’s everyone doing with their balenciaga items?


----------



## BPC

misswallstreet said:


> What’s everyone doing with their balenciaga items?



My oldest Bal bag is from 2003, my youngest is 2012. 
I won't throw out a collection that cost tens of thousands of dollars because I might get judged by some random on the street. 
Go ahead, it's not like I'll lose sleep over it.


----------



## misswallstreet

BPC said:


> My oldest Bal bag is from 2003, my youngest is 2012.
> I won't throw out a collection that cost tens of thousands of dollars because I might get judged by some random on the street.
> Go ahead, it's not like I'll lose sleep over it.


Agreed… I have a couple of handbags from 2012 and 2015. I don’t wanna get rid of them but I don’t wanna get cancelled for wearing them either


----------



## ccbaggirl89

Mcaldwell190 said:


> Balenciaga has not fired any of their perverts. What? The entire company was in it? Never again anything balenciaga, will not support them unless an entirely new crew comes around. Gross.


Well, the message to me is that they fully support it. I mean, if this creative director was going in a direction they didn't like, or didn't want associated with their brand, then let him go; let him go develop his own bizarro fashion line and at least cut him from the Kering org. It says so much about Bal and Kering that absolutely no one was fired and the lawsuit was apparently dropped (it was bogus anyway).


----------



## Monera

misswallstreet said:


> What’s everyone doing with their balenciaga items?


I'm not throwing them out or selling them but I probably won't wear them for a while. Simply because it doesn't make me feel happy to look at them or use them at the moment, or maybe ever. They're just going to keep sitting in my closet for now. A couple years from now if I'm still not using them I might get rid of it. All of mine are pre-2012 and don't have the name or logo on the outside, if I had some heavily branded bags I'd probably feel differently. I definitely won't buy anything new from the brand and give them any money. 

Idk. I still wear my Alexander Wang Rockie and I think what he (allegedly) did is disgusting and awful. But the bag didn't do those things. At the end of the day it's just a piece of leather and doesn't have motives of its own, good or evil. I'll keep it around until I stop enjoying it, whatever the reason for that is.


----------



## Norm.Core

misswallstreet said:


> What’s everyone doing with their balenciaga items?


I’m with @BPC. My oldest Bal is from 2001 and the most recent one is from 2010... all from Nicholas Ghesquière’s era as Bal creative director. I will not shy away from wearing my cherished Bals and for anybody who will confront me about it, then let’s have it. I am open to dialogue and you can have an opinion as long as you acknowledge that I also have mine. 

Right now, I’m actually wearing my Weekender, the biggest moto version. Because my bag didn’t cause this outrage... it was Demna’s blunder of a campaign. I am disappointed that all they can muster is an empty apology from Demna and the Bal CEO.


----------



## chloehandbags

canto bight said:


> I have been thinking about this for over a week and I go back and forth between absolutely nauseated to being in denial.
> 
> The denial part of me wants to think:  This was a poorly received (and rightfully so) attempt at being edgy and pushing the envelope artistically and that several people made really poor decisions when this campaign was approved.  Because there's no way actual criminals committing heinous acts against children would ever be so dumb to so openly advertise their sickness, right?
> 
> When the denial slips away, I feel so disgusted and sad because I am forced to think of the terrible way some adults destroy children behind closed doors.


Satanists believe that you have to be honest about what you're doing.

So, you basically can do what you like ("do as thou wilt"), according to them, as long as you advertise what you plan to do and/or what you're into in advance.

Not only that, but some people are very bad at hiding their perversions and have an impulse to tell other people what they are all the time.

Presumably, they get a kick out of it?


----------



## chloehandbags

mrsinsyder said:


> I was one of our state’s CSEC (commercial sexual exploitation of children) subject matter experts for years and tbh I’d never heard this stuff about bunnies, spirals, eyes, etc., in my work, ever. Certain pimps/gangs would use certain symbols but there wasn’t much that was looked at as some universal sign of trafficking.
> 
> It’s hard for me to decipher how much of this stuff becomes weird conspiracies. I sometimes think trafficking has taken on this weird Hollywood mystique that isn’t really as rooted in reality as it might seem.


Don't think I can answer without deletion, due to it being off topic, but the bunny thing is referenced in Alice in Wonderland (which has connections with p*dophilia, due to its author being that way inclined) and Hugh Hefner openly called all the women he kind of collected throughout his life "bunny girls", so we know the latter isn't "conspiracy theory", at least.

It really happened, in front of us all.

It was even televised.


----------



## PikaboICU

The revolution wont be televised...

That said; I've been away from this forum for several years, stopped back in to read about this nightmare. I read this entire thread.. Some of it was informative, some disgusting and some a little bit of a reach.
I own so may Bal pieces I've lost count, most of them in purples. I have  jackets, countless bags and wallets, keychains & bracelets the list goes on and ON. My oldest is a 2004 eggplant city, newest is a 2013 ultra violet, of the more than 100 pieces I own NOT ONE of them was purchased directly from Bal.

If I destroy them, throw them out, sell them, whom am I hurting? Not Bal, they already got their money long ago.
I'm only hurting myself, getting rid of an item I love & enjoy that was made & sold LONG before this,, this,, whatever horrific descriptive you want to use.
Retroactive punishment? Is that a thing? Of whom? My 10 yr old bag?  Bal has not done anything in the last 7 or 8 yrs that I would buy and now I wouldn't buy even if I had liked it. Their new stuff is trash and now their staff is trash too.
If anyone wants to come at me on the street and confront me or I even hear a whisper, they best be prepared to back it up.

Pedos and those that support or push that agenda should all be covered in razor cuts and dumped in a barrel of lemon juice to start. They forfeit the right to breathe the air the rest of us are breathing. The end.
But an intelligent person can separate the horrors of men (and women) from inanimate objects that existed before the monsters were relevant.
Lastly, I was so very ,VERY sad to read about CeeJay, hers was an opinion on this subject, I was hoping to read.
RIP CeeJay, give em hell..

Store away for now, sell, dump, donate or carry on; this is a personal choice and do NOT let anyone cause you guilt or shame for your choice.
Y'all be good to each other now.. CHEERS


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Love Of My Life

Many will continue to question, has Balenciaga learned anything about this campaign &
the ramifications that it has had on the brand?
The apologies.. many are just not buying into all of it
Time will tell & with a couture collection coming up in January, it will be interesting to
see how the clientele respond to the show as it will be several weeks since all this
controversary began
If Denma was to be fired it would have happened by now as well as if he was going to resign that
would have happened too, JMO


----------



## roomservicemenu

HAZE MAT said:


> I have decided that this is my last post on this thread and I need not comment much further.
> 
> I am a contemporary artist and fashion designer and I do like the driving concept behind Balenciaga's brilliant dissection of American culture (at least a fringe element) through the ad. It is pretty postmodern and works well as an anti-ad ad.
> 
> Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor; but in case, at this point, I feel that I am going to be speaking to deaf ears and I will remain to support Demna as much as I can.
> 
> They have nothing to apologize at this point. In any case, Balenciaga should think hard and just makes ads specifically for Americans and then ads for the rest of the world. That will solve the problem. (Look at the news coverage for this flap up; we aren't getting much out of American news coverage).
> 
> Their most brilliant idea: "Supporting Balenciaga’s Spring/Summer 2023 collection, the ‘Garde-Robe’ campaign, which featured the likes of Bella Hadid and Nicole Kidman, saw Balenciaga opt for an “office” theme that displayed a host of legal documents across the set, with a page from a Supreme Court ruling of _United States v. Williams _being spotted. The document included several references to child pornography, with the case ultimately deeming the promotion of child pornography illegal and not protected under freedom of speech."
> 
> If there is any other fashion news which has such intellectual depth like Balenciaga, please tell me. Anyways I'm finally out of this room.
> 
> EDIT: In order to understand what the ad is really about, you must look at Bliss Foster's video about the ad regarding clones. It's a very cynical look at our world today where celebrity is all about cloning. Like Kim is a clone of Kanye, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I will end this on a quote by Jean BAUDRILLARD about cloning and sexuality: "What, if not a death drive, would push sexed beings to regress to a form of reproduction prior to sexuation (besides, isn't it this form of scissiparity, this reproduction and proliferation through pure contiguity that is for us, in the depths of our imaginary, death and the death drive - what denies sexuality and wants to annihilate it, sexuality being the carrier of life, that is to say of a critical and mortal form of reproduction?) and that, at the same time, would push them metaphysically to deny all alterity, all alteration of the Same in order to aim solely for the perpetuation of an identity, a transparency of the genetic inscription no longer even subject to the vicissitudes of procreation?"
> 
> SECOND POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the ruling, we have https://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2008/06/what-were-they.html
> 
> Balenciaga ads tend to be very hypertextual and refer one to another. Basically the child ad is a commentary on that ruling shown in another ad. In any case, from the article we quote "The Court's ratification of a flat ban on child pornography had a relatively minimal impact on the First Amendment. Admittedly, the ruling did cause serious problems for some photographers, ranging from parents taking innocuous photos of their children to fine art photographers whose works included nude photos of children (among the more well-known examples are David Hamilton, Jock Sturges, and Sally Mann). But on the whole, it was relatively easy to draw a bright line between legal and illegal images, and law enforcement made substantial progress in fighting child pornography.
> 
> Most of those gains, however, have been wiped out by computers, the Internet, and digital cameras, all of which have made the production and distribution of child pornography vastly easier and far more difficult to combat. These new technologies have also blurred the previously bright line between legal and illegal images: many websites feature very young-looking but still adult models; some individuals use software to blend two or more legal images into composite child pornography; and others use animation software to create completely artificial (but increasingly realistic) child pornography images."
> 
> Demna is just brilliant. He understands the pulse of our digital age where children are being exploited. He is a refugee and knows that the current situation in the Ukraine is where we are seeing violence against children happen again and again. (https://thehill.com/policy/internat...n-have-been-raped-tortured-by-russian-forces/)
> 
> Once again, we tend to be complaining about an ad and Demna is pointing out that we are all armchair hypocrites for raising arms about child exploitation while ignoring where the real violence against children is happening.





“European audience”, Europe is a continent with 44 different countries all having their own cultures, languages and history. What European audiences are you talking about exactly? What country? Do you mean all of them?


----------



## chloehandbags

chloehandbags said:


> Don't think I can answer without deletion, due to it being off topic, but the bunny thing is referenced in Alice in Wonderland (which has connections with p*dophilia, due to its author being that way inclined) and Hugh Hefner openly called all the women he kind of collected throughout his life "bunny girls", so we know the latter isn't "conspiracy theory", at least.
> 
> It really happened, in front of us all.
> 
> It was even televised.


Also, I should add that I know "Angel" is a word they use to describe certain unfortunate children, as I was told it was straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.

He had no reason to lie.


----------



## heatherB

HAZE MAT said:


> I have decided that this is my last post on this thread and I need not comment much further.
> 
> I am a contemporary artist and fashion designer and I do like the driving concept behind Balenciaga's brilliant dissection of American culture (at least a fringe element) through the ad. It is pretty postmodern and works well as an anti-ad ad.
> 
> Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor; but in case, at this point, I feel that I am going to be speaking to deaf ears and I will remain to support Demna as much as I can.
> 
> They have nothing to apologize at this point. In any case, Balenciaga should think hard and just makes ads specifically for Americans and then ads for the rest of the world. That will solve the problem. (Look at the news coverage for this flap up; we aren't getting much out of American news coverage).
> 
> Their most brilliant idea: "Supporting Balenciaga’s Spring/Summer 2023 collection, the ‘Garde-Robe’ campaign, which featured the likes of Bella Hadid and Nicole Kidman, saw Balenciaga opt for an “office” theme that displayed a host of legal documents across the set, with a page from a Supreme Court ruling of _United States v. Williams _being spotted. The document included several references to child pornography, with the case ultimately deeming the promotion of child pornography illegal and not protected under freedom of speech."
> 
> If there is any other fashion news which has such intellectual depth like Balenciaga, please tell me. Anyways I'm finally out of this room.
> 
> EDIT: In order to understand what the ad is really about, you must look at Bliss Foster's video about the ad regarding clones. It's a very cynical look at our world today where celebrity is all about cloning. Like Kim is a clone of Kanye, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I will end this on a quote by Jean BAUDRILLARD about cloning and sexuality: "What, if not a death drive, would push sexed beings to regress to a form of reproduction prior to sexuation (besides, isn't it this form of scissiparity, this reproduction and proliferation through pure contiguity that is for us, in the depths of our imaginary, death and the death drive - what denies sexuality and wants to annihilate it, sexuality being the carrier of life, that is to say of a critical and mortal form of reproduction?) and that, at the same time, would push them metaphysically to deny all alterity, all alteration of the Same in order to aim solely for the perpetuation of an identity, a transparency of the genetic inscription no longer even subject to the vicissitudes of procreation?"
> 
> SECOND POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the ruling, we have https://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2008/06/what-were-they.html
> 
> Balenciaga ads tend to be very hypertextual and refer one to another. Basically the child ad is a commentary on that ruling shown in another ad. In any case, from the article we quote "The Court's ratification of a flat ban on child pornography had a relatively minimal impact on the First Amendment. Admittedly, the ruling did cause serious problems for some photographers, ranging from parents taking innocuous photos of their children to fine art photographers whose works included nude photos of children (among the more well-known examples are David Hamilton, Jock Sturges, and Sally Mann). But on the whole, it was relatively easy to draw a bright line between legal and illegal images, and law enforcement made substantial progress in fighting child pornography.
> 
> Most of those gains, however, have been wiped out by computers, the Internet, and digital cameras, all of which have made the production and distribution of child pornography vastly easier and far more difficult to combat. These new technologies have also blurred the previously bright line between legal and illegal images: many websites feature very young-looking but still adult models; some individuals use software to blend two or more legal images into composite child pornography; and others use animation software to create completely artificial (but increasingly realistic) child pornography images."
> 
> Demna is just brilliant. He understands the pulse of our digital age where children are being exploited. He is a refugee and knows that the current situation in the Ukraine is where we are seeing violence against children happen again and again. (https://thehill.com/policy/internat...n-have-been-raped-tortured-by-russian-forces/)
> 
> Once again, we tend to be complaining about an ad and Demna is pointing out that we are all armchair hypocrites for raising arms about child exploitation while ignoring where the real violence against children is happening.



Brilliant or human trash? I believe or may have been you who mentioned Terry Richardson earlier. Clearly many people thought he was brilliant to start, but he was clearly trash.


----------



## Brooklynite

Love Of My Life said:


> Many will continue to question, has Balenciaga learned anything about this campaign &
> the ramifications that it has had on the brand?
> The apologies.. many are just not buying into all of it
> Time will tell & with a couture collection coming up in January, it will be interesting to
> see how the clientele respond to the show as it will be several weeks since all this
> controversary began
> If Denma was to be fired it would have happened by now as well as if he was going to resign that
> would have happened too, JMO


I just learned that it was not just this campaign. This designer has featured babies, toddlers, dolls in runway shows, as recent as in September. Really nauseating.


----------



## Noorasi

Yes, the Balenciaga Mud Show for SS23 featured for example a male model carrying a baby doll and a bag with bloody blankets for the baby. It was not a toy looking doll, but one of those life-like expensive baby dolls with a very sad face. At the time I saw it as part of their end-of-the-world aesthetic of models stomping in mud like zombies. Of course now that they've continued to push the boundaries with the theme of suffering children, it looks less and less like a random misstep and has become a major vision that is being showcased and studied in their commercial materials. 

It does look like exploring bad things that can happen to children has become part of their brand's current identity. As we've discussed, everyone's free to make their own decisions on whether that's an artistic discourse or something more sinister.


----------



## dangerouscurves

Our purchases maybe just a drop in the ocean but we have to boycott it collectively to make it more effective. Just remember, we all have the power.
At the end of the day, bags and shoes are their bread and butter and we were their costumers for them. Not these celebrities who are given for publicity.


----------



## jimmyshoogirl

Took me a few days to get through this thread. Whew. It’s a lot.

I don’t own any thing Balenciaga to not wear or get rid of, so what can I actually do? Aside from being mad and going back and forth on here or attacking someone from wearing the brand (which is hella weird). Is there a petition to sign to get rid of the director and his crew? Is there a email for the higher ups to spam? The only real action I’ve seen is @papertiger (kudos!!) writing a letter and the protesting.

ETA: I guess one thing I can do is stop buying my 7 year old son Addidas. He has tons


----------



## caramello

chloehandbags said:


> *Not only that, but some people are very bad at hiding their perversions and have an impulse to tell other people what they are all the time.
> 
> Presumably, they get a kick out of it?*



THIS! or they're trying to get a kick out of our reaction of whether we 'believe them' or not.

I just want to say I came on to this forum to see if TPFers were discussing this topic and having a deeper conversation about it as consumers of luxury items. I'm so glad for the open discussion as some of it has gotten into deeper layers and has been eye opening and shocking but nonetheless I'm glad I'm more informed.


----------



## PRinLA

misswallstreet said:


> Agreed… I have a couple of handbags from 2012 and 2015. I don’t wanna get rid of them but I don’t wanna get cancelled for wearing them either


I think it is completely unfair to judge or cancel someone for purchasing items that occurred before this mess. Balenciaga has an incredibly rich history and I feel like it’s throwing away the baby with the bath water to just never wear our items that we purchased and loved before.

Furthermore, I’ve been keeping an eye on Adidas news throughout the course of this incident and they just kept it pushing, churning out news content of their Bad Bunny Collab etc. I haven’t heard a peep of condemnation for their involvement with the second campaign. It sometimes feels like selective outrage. 

Just my two cents. I understand and believe anyone is justified to think, believe and react however they wish to this but I do think it’s ridiculous to fault consumers in any capacity for items already purchased.


----------



## addiCCted

I have some balenciaga items from many moons ago and whilst I agree we shouldn’t retroactively condemn the product and people in the past, I will not be wearing these items in the near future. It’s a small maybe ineffectual protest but I don’t want to encourage more support for their brand. Also every time I look at my bags it just reminds me of this campaign. I have other nice things that can come out and play.


----------



## QuelleFromage

I'm certainly not planning on judging anyone by the brands they wear. Plenty of people are unaware of this situation, and the Bal sneakers in particular are popular across a really wide audience.


----------



## mrsinsyder

Balenciaga photographer surprised by anger at kids with BDSM teddies
					

Gabriele Galimberti, 45, took the photos used by Balenciaga in their latest campaign, showing children with S&M teddies. He said parents were present and thought the bears were punk.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## LVLoveaffair

haute okole said:


> And remember, there are many who have been gifted Balenciaga who don’t even know they are carrying Balenciaga, like my 90 year old Mom.  Please give people some grace and don’t assume everybody knows what we know.


I agree but it’s hard to unsee some things. One comment can undo a lot in recent years. There’s so much boycotting anyway. I teach Kindergarten so this is a sore spot for sure.


----------



## Yikkie

I've long been over Balenciaga and all I could say now, is that I'm glad I've sold every single piece I owned.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## rowdy3

Yesterday my gf and I were at the millenia mall and she had her Balenciaga bag. We noticed a few dirty looks and 1 woman came up to my gf and asked if she was ok with kids being sexualized for money and would she pimp her kids out. Crazy people!


----------



## bernpl

rowdy3 said:


> Yesterday my gf and I were at the millenia mall and she had her Balenciaga bag. We noticed a few dirty looks and 1 woman came up to my gf and asked if she was ok with kids being sexualized for money and would she pimp her kids out. Crazy people!



Wow. I have 2 older bags and 1 new, bracelets, sunglasses, Balenciaga hats and shoes (old and new). I was planning to just keep them for a while since I probably can’t sell them right now. I was hoping to wear the unbranded items in the future or gift them to my niece but the logo stuff (hats, sunglasses) are out of the question especially with stories like this. Was her bag branded?  Sorry about the incident.


----------



## BPC

rowdy3 said:


> Yesterday my gf and I were at the millenia mall and she had her Balenciaga bag. We noticed a few dirty looks and 1 woman came up to my gf and asked if she was ok with kids being sexualized for money and would she pimp her kids out. Crazy people!


I would have told her to F* off. 

I've used my bags every time I've gone out and no one's said anything. Granted I'm in a rural area most of the time these days, but I was in the city (Manhattan) Monday all day and no one even looked twice.


----------



## PikaboICU

BPC said:


> I would have told her to F* off.
> 
> I've used my bags every time I've gone out and no one's said anything. Granted I'm in a rural area most of the time these days, but I was in the city (Manhattan) Monday all day and no one even looked twice.



THIS.. Only I would have probably done worse.

I don't own anything branded or even anything newer than 2013 and that's long before the current monsters were relevant.
Judging people and having the self-righteous, holier than thou ego to confront them for carrying a 10-20 year old bag is beyond insanity. 
There isn't a person out there whose home is free of all things that have had controversy or could be deemed questionable. 

The items I own were made & sold LONG before this current group of people were associated with Bal. If people go down this path of retroactive outrage & condemnation, where does it end? If this happened to Gucci or Louboutin I wouldn't judge people for wearing items they had collected through the years. That's asinine. 
I wouldn't buy from Bal now, wouldn't even go near their items. That's how a boycott works. This new iteration, created by the Internet & social media, of retroactive cancelling is pointless. I doesn't hurt Bal or any other company. 

Boycott away.. I plan to but come correct.. Don't give Bal any of your money. Blaming others that are also outraged accomplishes nothing. People that owned Bal before this demon errrr,,, Demna,,, was part of it are not to blame and they do NOT deserve outrage or condemnation. There is no crystal ball to gaze into to predict how far a brand will fall in 10-20 years, what abyss they will dive into to. Punish the current monsters, I hope they go bankrupt but don't punish innocent people that are completely divorced from the current Bal brand.


----------



## dangerouscurves




----------



## Aliceinred

rowdy3 said:


> Yesterday my gf and I were at the millenia mall and she had her Balenciaga bag. We noticed a few dirty looks and 1 woman came up to my gf and asked if she was ok with kids being sexualized for money and would she pimp her kids out. Crazy people!


That’s crazy.  Why would someone go out and verbally attack another person who had no input on the situation?  Reminds me of the paint throwing on fur activists in the 80’s.  Just be sure you aren’t followed if you are carrying Bal- the woman’s behavior was extreme


----------



## Love Of My Life

rowdy3 said:


> Yesterday my gf and I were at the millenia mall and she had her Balenciaga bag. We noticed a few dirty looks and 1 woman came up to my gf and asked if she was ok with kids being sexualized for money and would she pimp her kids out. Crazy people!


 It's unfortunate to be subjected to that but best to ignore as this situation could have escalated easily, JMO
 You kept your cool!!


----------



## caruava

rowdy3 said:


> Yesterday my gf and I were at the millenia mall and she had her Balenciaga bag. We noticed a few dirty looks and 1 woman came up to my gf and asked if she was ok with kids being sexualized for money and would she pimp her kids out. Crazy people!



This is what I hate about today's world and why I keep to myself. So many people have their opinion they need to shove down others throats. It's not good enough to be aware of 1 issue, you get pulled up for not being across something else. "what about...??!" 

People just attack others at every turn. Don't get me wrong, I think the internet is amazing. We can find out what's happening on the other side of the world instantly, but at the same time it's turned some people into righteous and stupid monsters. 

Hope your gf can shake that incident off. It's hard when it's in your face.


----------



## LemonDrop

rowdy3 said:


> Yesterday my gf and I were at the millenia mall and she had her Balenciaga bag. We noticed a few dirty looks and 1 woman came up to my gf and asked if she was ok with kids being sexualized for money and would she pimp her kids out. Crazy people!


This is sad. If it wasn't for the fact that I have a twitter addiction I wouldn't even know about this drama. I have a tiny Balenciaga bag but am not a big fan. Even on tPF. I only searched for this thread because of what I saw on twitter. I bet of the 100 people that carry or wear a Balenciaga item - 80 have no idea about this scandal. Could you imagine if you had no idea and a stranger began yelling at you about pimping out children?


----------



## mrsinsyder

LemonDrop said:


> This is sad. If it wasn't for the fact that I have a twitter addiction I wouldn't even know about this drama. I have a tiny Balenciaga bag but am not a big fan. Even on tPF. I only searched for this thread because of what I saw on twitter. I bet of the 100 people that carry or wear a Balenciaga item - 80 have no idea about this scandal. Could you imagine if you had no idea and a stranger began yelling at you about pimping out children?


I hope she keeps that same energy for anyone wearing Nike, using an apple product, shopping at Zara, drinking Nestle water, etc. etc. Few companies are unproblematic anymore.


----------



## RitaLA

dangerouscurves said:


>



Great video!!!!!  Thank you for sharing.  It's showing the views of so many different people.  Great holistic view.


----------



## RitaLA

rowdy3 said:


> Yesterday my gf and I were at the millenia mall and she had her Balenciaga bag. We noticed a few dirty looks and 1 woman came up to my gf and asked if she was ok with kids being sexualized for money and would she pimp her kids out. Crazy people!


Pretty sad. This lady could have approached the topic in a different way or not brought it up at all.


----------



## wonderboii

Please let me know I’m not feeling alone here, but since all of this horrible mess I’ve been purposefully not using any of my balenciaga bags. I have bags, hats, shoes (haven’t worn B shoes in years). 

I’m definitely not throwing out, destroying, or getting rid of anything because I love my bags. I’ve been a fan of the brand since I was in elementary school and dreamed of owning a city bag. 

But not sure how long I can wait out on using any of my bags because they are some of my favorites in my collection. 

Luckily for me, never been a fan of the huge logo bags. I do have a mini city with the logo strap but I can just put the logo side against my body. But all my others have no logo/name. 

Also, side story - I was checking out a Nordstrom rack recently (I was using a givenchy bag) and the cashier asked me if I heard about the balenciaga controversy and I told her yes and basically left it at that.  She said she was going to be throwing away her balenciaga sunglasses and asked me if I wanted them(weird lol and I said no thank you).


----------



## PikaboICU

wonderboii said:


> Please let me know I’m not feeling alone here, but since all of this horrible mess I’ve been purposefully not using any of my balenciaga bags. I have bags, hats, shoes (haven’t worn B shoes in years).
> 
> I’m definitely not throwing out, destroying, or getting rid of anything because I love my bags. I’ve been a fan of the brand since I was in elementary school and dreamed of owning a city bag.
> 
> But not sure how long I can wait out on using any of my bags because they are some of my favorites in my collection.
> 
> Luckily for me, never been a fan of the huge logo bags. I do have a mini city with the logo strap but I can just put the logo side against my body. But all my others have no logo/name.
> 
> Also, side story - I was checking out a Nordstrom rack recently (I was using a givenchy bag) and the cashier asked me if I heard about the balenciaga controversy and I told her yes and basically left it at that.  She said she was going to be throwing away her balenciaga sunglasses and asked me if I wanted them(weird lol and I said no thank you).



I've already posted a couple soliloquies on this subject a couple pages back so I wont subject the readers to another but..

If you love your bags, wear them & enjoy them, I have been and plan to continue. Your bags had nothing to do with this disgusting direction Bal has taken. Personally, I wont be buying anything from Bal in the future, that's how a boycott works. We punish the offender by not purchasing their products, we don't punish ourselves retroactively.  

If anyone dares judge or confront you, my response would be: clean your own house first. There have been so many controversies through the years, every household is bound to have a few products from companies with something in their history. I believe the majority of Bal owners (and I am, I have around 100 pieces in my collection) are outraged & disgusted by this but we shouldn't punish ourselves or each other for what they did. Bal needs to pay the price for this NOT us. 

Do what makes YOU happy. Life is seriously too short to punish yourself for the sins of others.


----------



## jennifermonney

really surprised what they were thinking doing marketing like that, have to throw away all my shoes and clothing now


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## MeBagaholic

wonderboii said:


> Please let me know I’m not feeling alone here, but since all of this horrible mess I’ve been purposefully not using any of my balenciaga bags. I have bags, hats, shoes (haven’t worn B shoes in years).
> 
> I’m definitely not throwing out, destroying, or getting rid of anything because I love my bags. I’ve been a fan of the brand since I was in elementary school and dreamed of owning a city bag.
> 
> But not sure how long I can wait out on using any of my bags because they are some of my favorites in my collection.
> 
> Luckily for me, never been a fan of the huge logo bags. I do have a mini city with the logo strap but I can just put the logo side against my body. But all my others have no logo/name.
> 
> Also, side story - I was checking out a Nordstrom rack recently (I was using a givenchy bag) and the cashier asked me if I heard about the balenciaga controversy and I told her yes and basically left it at that.  She said she was going to be throwing away her balenciaga sunglasses and asked me if I wanted them(weird lol and I said no thank you).


I have one pair of their sock shoes i dont want to wear anymore especially with the name hmmm maybe i can spray paint red xxx on it and make it no name hmmm


----------



## wonderboii

PikaboICU said:


> I've already posted a couple soliloquies on this subject a couple pages back so I wont subject the readers to another but..
> 
> If you love your bags, wear them & enjoy them, I have been and plan to continue. Your bags had nothing to do with this disgusting direction Bal has taken. Personally, I wont be buying anything from Bal in the future, that's how a boycott works. We punish the offender by not purchasing their products, we don't punish ourselves retroactively.
> 
> If anyone dares judge or confront you, my response would be: clean your own house first. There have been so many controversies through the years, every household is bound to have a few products from companies with something in their history. I believe the majority of Bal owners (and I am, I have around 100 pieces in my collection) are outraged & disgusted by this but we shouldn't punish ourselves or each other for what they did. Bal needs to pay the price for this NOT us.
> 
> Do what makes YOU happy. Life is seriously too short to punish yourself for the sins of others.


Very well put and great perspective. 
Thank you!


----------



## wonderboii

MeBagaholic said:


> I have one pair of their sock shoes i dont want to wear anymore especially with the name hmmm maybe i can spray paint red xxx on it and make it no name hmmm


Sounds like a good plan to me - especially if you enjoy wearing them!


----------



## Debbie65

I personally do appreciate that Balenciaga was bold enough to take a chance with this campaign showing their evil.  Just think if they just continued to keep it quiet?  They say it's a mistake.  Mistake?  How, when there is no way will you just allow "anyone" Balanciaga to just take over your brand without you seeing what was being done.  The lady that looked like she was covered in blood holding 2 bloody babies...what was the purpose of that?  It's evil. The children with the bears, staged to pose a certain way, staged to have a certain look on their faces was done to serve a purpose.  The mispelling in Balenciaga to be BAALenciaga was not a mispelling, it was spelled correctly for their purpose.  The subliminal messages in the campaign were to serve a purpose, all purposes I am not about. This was done in our faces in broad daylight so to speak. There is a reason why we are not hearing celebrities using their platform to call Balenciaga out.  They are in agreement with this company or they are being controlled by this company, which shows us how much power the people behind Balanciaga has.  Not saying anything and remaining quiet IS saying everything you celebrities  Thanks for making it crystal clear as now I can make a confident decision NOT to support this company nor people that do.  Thanks to both for showing so much transparency. I can now say good bye and I won't be seeing you later


----------



## highrider9o9

Jaxholt15 said:


> Of course it is your choice.  My point is the fact that Balenciaga is a long standing fashion house with a successful history.  I hate to see it all burned to the ground because current powers that be at Balenciaga made stupid decisions.  It is rare for a head designer to last more than a few years, wouldn‘t mind if Demna was gone sooner rather than later.


As horrendous as this all is, I don’t necessarily believe that there will be a long-standing impact on the brand. They’ll replace the creative team, rebrand, all that stuff, and people will continue to buy and others will probably end up buying again down the line, that’s how this always works. I mean people still go to church every Sunday….


----------



## Alice1979

highrider9o9 said:


> As horrendous as this all is, I don’t necessarily believe that there will be a long-standing impact on the brand. They’ll replace the creative team, rebrand, all that stuff, and people will continue to buy and others will probably end up buying again down the line, that’s how this always works. I mean people still go to church every Sunday….


I would agree. I was at Woodbury Commons this past weekend and there was a long line outside the Bal store going in. People are still buying their merchandise. My bf who never heard of Balenciaga before saw the Yahoo news and first told me about it. He now knows about the brand, so I guess even bad publicity is still publicity.


----------



## pquiles

BagsRGreat said:


> I think that if I had a Balenciaga bag or a collection of them, which I thankfully do not, I would throw all of them in the trash can after dumping the grease from my Thanksgiving turkey onto them. I am livid about this brand thinking it is okay to do this kind of depraved advertising with hidden symbols of the sexual abuse of children in multiple ads. Disgusting. What an appalling company.


I can certainly understand your feelings about this for sure... I personally won't burn or throw away my items I paid my hard earned cash to buy.  But, I won't be wearing them any time soon either.



Yhte123 said:


> Balenciaga’s headquarters is in Kering. They share staff too.
> 
> So I will be giving up my Balenciaga and Gucci bags and avoiding other Kering brands from now on, but thank god I only have three Gucci bags and one Bal moto (that are going to be sent to the realreal soon after this).
> 
> Honestly, this situation has reminded me of the racism of Gucci (the black face sweater??) and how they stood behind their creative director and staff instead of reprimanding and firing them. Not to mention the rumors of racism of the staff at Bottega and YSL too.
> 
> Also notice how quiet Kering is right now to avoid blowback affecting their other brands?? They have to problem injecting themselves in when something good is happening to one of their brands. Absolutely Despicable.
> 
> I’m side-eyeing any person I see supporting Balenciaga and any other Kering brands.


Wait a minute... I have been tending to other things so I totallly missed the YSL and Bottega racism thing.  Considering a whole lot of black luxury influencers were pushing their products in the past year



JessicaF90 said:


> ..only on balenciaga.com and at the Madison Avenue, New York Balenciaga store immediately following the show... https://www.balenciaga.com/en-us/spring-23


Easy to avoid buying almost ALL of this.... even without the scandal & even if I could afford it.



A1aGypsy said:


> I adore my moto bags. I mean, truly. But this is so mind boggling. How they could think any of this was even remotely appropriate. It’s bonkers.
> 
> I just don’t think I can carry them in good conscience right now.
> 
> Also, where are the parents?


I was thinking the. same. Where are the freaking parents



RitaLA said:


> This is not about being edgy or controversial! This is about the sexualization of children. Are our consciousness and ethics so seared that we are incapable of seeing the gravity of this? Do we really think a brand would expose itself to a child sexualization/pedophilia theme for the sake of being relevant or controversial?  Think about the thought process that goes behind a plan to actually get court documents on child pornography and place behind a bag. Did you see the paintings of Michael Boressman that was placed behind the model on the desk? He promotes child violence. Guys, wake up


Sexualization of young models have always been the norm in the industry.  Models careers normally start in early teens and the bodies are normally very curve-less.  This is even before waif was a thing.  Designers created clothing where models walked the runway with their aerola and buttocks showing... whilst male models are mostly clothed.  It got to a point where it was normalized. 
We are no longer immuneto the BS... NEED TO WAKE up and stop supporting this crap.  But...I am not throwing away any of my stuff... I just won't be wearing it or talking about it anytime soon.


----------



## Chloe1004

MooMooVT said:


> I agree with all but this... for now. I'm willing to give Kering's other brands a pass until we know more. But I'd like a statement from Kering at a minimum, if not their brands.


I am late to reading this thread so maybe others have mentioned this later. But doesn’t Kering group also sell child statues/dolls with very disturbing things on their faces/noses?


----------



## papertiger

Chloe1004 said:


> I am late to reading this thread so maybe others have mentioned this later. But doesn’t Kering group also sell child statues/dolls with very disturbing things on their faces/noses?


Kering don't sell anything other than other companies


----------



## Mcaldwell190

BPC said:


> My oldest Bal bag is from 2003, my youngest is 2012.
> I won't throw out a collection that cost tens of thousands of dollars because I might get judged by some random on the street.
> Go ahead, it's not like I'll lose sleep over it.


Not sure what I would do but for now I would hide the Balenciagas in the back of the closet. They are a disgrace.


----------



## BPC

Mcaldwell190 said:


> Not sure what I would do but for now I would hide the Balenciagas in the back of the closet. They are a disgrace.


Sure, do whatever makes you most comfortable.


----------



## A1aGypsy

Gucci just did an ad campaign with Harry Styles posed next to a child’s mattress. It’s all so odd.


----------



## Noorasi

Yeah the new Gucci campaign with Harry Styles wearing a teddy bear t-shirt and carrying around a children's mattress... Presumably the campaign was shot around the same time as the Balenciaga's campaign, but Gucci had all the time to see the Balenciaga scandal unravel and yet they still decided to run a campaign with a theme like this.

I don't really mind the Gucci campaign since it's just Harry alone, but is this really the kind of attention they had to go seeking right now?


----------



## Lola24

I will continue to use my 2 old moto pieces/shoes/couple classic RTW items but I have't liked them since Nicolas Ghesquière left anyway and to me it's about the design and quality, I never paid attention to marketing stunts.  That being said I think what they did was ridiculously outrageous, what on earth, so much sensitivity these days with so many topics that make any respectful person want to tread lightly around and then some probably young marketing group thought this was a good idea??? WOW!!!  Certainly nail in the coffin for me to even casually walk into the store these days, although the high heel crocks and crock phone case had already turned me off.


----------



## Lola24

Also for me, I follow the designers/directors I like for the brands and designs I'm attracted to.... When I read articles like what I quoted below it lends to some of my decision making.  I truly have not cared for the brand since he left and his side of the story supports my reasoning as well.  I supported him as a designer/creative director and will continue to appreciate and enjoy his pieces I own, I do not feel that is supporting the current Balenciaga brand.  Yes he mentions our beloved moto as what the brand wanted to continue to face forward but he's totally right, that was an over 10 year design at that time!  Sure keep it as a staple but let him get his creativity out there instead of stifling him as a creative director for the ONE design because it makes them the most money.  



"In an candid interview with new publication System, the 42-year-old talks about the reasons behind his shock departure from Balenciaga, which saw Alexander Wang ushered in as his replacement.

“I never had a partner, and I ended up feeling too alone,” Ghesquière admits. “I had a marvellous studio and design team who were close to me, but it started becoming a bureaucracy and gradually became more corporate, until it was no longer even linked to fashion.”

“Everything became an asset for the brand, trying to make it ever more corporate – it was all about branding,” he says. “I began to feel as though I was being sucked dry, like they wanted to steal my identity while trying to homogenise things. It just wasn’t fulfilling anymore.”

The designer confesses that he starting feeling alienated and unhappy when the Balenciaga business team failed to predict which catwalk pieces would sell well, instead going straight for the most easily merchandisable product.

“The strongest pieces that we made for the catwalk got ignored by the business people,” Ghesquière says. “They forgot that in order to get to that easily sellable biker jacket, it had to go via a technically mastered piece that had been shown on the catwalk… There was no esteem, interest, or recognition for the research that I’d done.”

Intriguingly, Ghesquière mentions how he’s not the only designer who feels this way. “What’s interesting is how my split from Balenciaga has encouraged people to get in touch with me,” he notes. “They’ve said, ‘Me too, I’m in the same situation. I want to leave too.'”

Hmmmm… Just who would those designers be? Leave your guesses in the comments."


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Debbie65

Lola24 said:


> I will continue to use my 2 old moto pieces/shoes/couple classic RTW items but I have't liked them since Nicolas Ghesquière left anyway and to me it's about the design and quality, I never paid attention to marketing stunts.  That being said I think what they did was ridiculously outrageous, what on earth, so much sensitivity these days with so many topics that make any respectful person want to tread lightly around and then some probably young marketing group thought this was a good idea??? WOW!!!  Certainly nail in the coffin for me to even casually walk into the store these days, although the high heel crocks and crock phone case had already turned me off.


I went to Neimans yesterday and saw a good about of Balanciaga items on sale on the sale display.  I know it's the end of the season sale but seems like everyone just walked on by them.


----------



## RitaLA

I am seeing that this issue goes beyond Balenciaga. It seems to be a Kering "theme." I watched Alexandra Gucci's video where she is suing her mother, grandmother, and stepfather for a long history of sexual abuse. Pretty sad. She is very outspoken about the issue and advocating against Kering and all the child sexualization content they have been producing. Eye-opening, to say the least.


----------



## Mcaldwell190

That’s crazy, and they are playing with fire. I am hiding my Gucci as well. Bet LV and Chanel are loving this and I bet they will make better choices in their marketing because we are now paying attention.  Eew


----------



## RitaLA

Mcaldwell190 said:


> That’s crazy, and they are playing with fire. I am hiding my Gucci as well. Bet LV and Chanel are loving this and I bet they will make better choices in their marketing because we are now paying attention.  Eew


I personally think it's heartbreaking because I enjoy a lot of these brands.  I wish fashion could go back to being fun, and artistic and carrying some naivete to it, being playful without being "destructive." Some might disagree with me because they do not see Balenciaga's ads as destructive. To each their own. My Gucci and Saint Laurent bags have been all sold now. People will criticize me. Totally fine. @Mcaldwell190 - the following statement is not in response to your post =) 
My decision to sell my bags is based on my personal stance and the way I feel. If others disagree, they have that right. It's what I think and people can have their opinions. They are free to express how they feel and so am I.


----------



## BPC

RitaLA said:


> I personally think it's heartbreaking because I enjoy a lot of these brands.  I wish fashion could go back to being fun, and artistic and carrying some naivete to it, being playful without being "destructive." Some might disagree with me because they do not see Balenciaga's ads as destructive. To each their own. *My Gucci and Saint Laurent bags have been all sold now. People will criticize me. Totally fine.* @Mcaldwell190 - the following statement is not in response to your post =)
> *My decision to sell my bags is based on my personal stance and the way I feel. If others disagree, they have that right.* It's what I think and people can have their opinions. They are free to express how they feel and so am I.



I don't see any criticism of anyone who decides to sell, or not use their bags. In fact, it seems to be expected by many here.
The judgement seems to be more for those that continue to use them.


----------



## Mcaldwell190

BPC said:


> I don't see any criticism of anyone who decides to sell, or not use their bags. In fact, it seems to be expected by many here.
> The judgement seems to be more for those that continue to use them.


I agree. Everyone should make their own decisions. But I do agree it is just so sad how far down the rabbit hole everything has gone. I am not selling my Gucci or YSL, but definitely not buying from them again. I will stick to the likes of Ferragamo and will cross my fingers that they don’t succumb to the perversion out there. What’s happened is truly shocking and almost scary. How naive are we as consumers? What else is going on? I am a little paranoid now.


----------



## Swanky

A thread about the Gucci campaign was started in Gucci. While some crossover is understandable, let’s try and keep the thread about Bal, and head to Gucci to discuss that campaign.


----------



## Shelby33

Was this posted? 









						adidas Is "Re-Evaluating" Its Partnership with Balenciaga
					

The brands are "pausing" all co-created product launches "until further notice."




					hypebeast.com


----------



## ChampagneandChakras

Mcaldwell190 said:


> I agree. Everyone should make their own decisions. But I do agree it is just so sad how far down the rabbit hole everything has gone. I am not selling my Gucci or YSL, but definitely not buying from them again. I will stick to the likes of Ferragamo and will cross my fingers that they don’t succumb to the perversion out there. What’s happened is truly shocking and almost scary. How naive are we as consumers? What else is going on? I am a little paranoid now.


I would argue naivate vs. hypnotism. I think society as a whole is numb/hypnotized. We see no issue eating bacon after we see horrible abuse of piglets in factory farms, no issue with child porn advertising, no issue with idolizing dumb ass moronic celebrities who never worked a day in their lives, no issue with “designer dogs” from puppy mills, and the list goes on.


----------



## Designer Patroit

Debbie65 said:


> I went to Neimans yesterday and saw a good about of Balanciaga items on sale on the sale display.  I know it's the end of the season sale but seems like everyone just walked on by them.


Walk on bye!


----------



## Mcaldwell190

ChampagneandChakras said:


> I would argue naivate vs. hypnotism. I think society as a whole is numb/hypnotized. We see no issue eating bacon after we see horrible abuse of piglets in factory farms, no issue with child porn advertising, no issue with idolizing dumb ass moronic celebrities who never worked a day in their lives, no issue with “designer dogs” from puppy mills, and the list goes on.


You are not kidding. Makes you think and try to evaluate life altogether. Perhaps a watershed moment for some although I will not hold my breath. Our own government lies to our faces every day left and right and we don’t do anything either. Sometimes I think the devil is walking the earth. <<shudder>>


----------



## WillWork4Fashion

I loved Balenciaga during the height of the moto bag craze. The leather was so vibrant and textured and felt like a piece of luxury. Those days seem completely disconnected from what the brand is today. Balenciaga today comes across as vacant, mass market and without an identity. Balenciaga as a brand has become so fragile that whoever is in charge is able to project whatever vision they have and erase the brand’s heritage. Balenciaga is like the friend who has no idea who they want to be when they grow up, and only cares about being cool today. That is how such a stupid ad campaign happened.


----------



## redwings

An ad doesn’t bother me. I don’t really care for ads. I would argue that Barbies are worse but millions of Barbies are circulating the world.

What bothers me is the outrage over the ads when there are children out there abused in secret or in certain societies. Child marriages still takes place in certain parts of our world and no one really blows that up, compared to one miserable ad in the first world which garners outrage.

With or without the ad, child abuse has and had been present since humans came to existence. Let’s do our part instead of focusing on social media, focus on the real cases of neglected children and abuse.

I myself volunteer to tutor or sponsor children from underprivileged or abusive backgrounds to give them a fighting chance to break away from the cycle of poverty. On our own, one can’t save everyone but at least if one kid becomes a law abiding tax paying citizen, determined to overcome their circumstance,  that’s good enough for me.

So if you really want to do something, don’t make noise over some stupid ad campaign. Do something real about it - contribute. Small drops of water can turn into oceans. If social media is your thing, highlight the real problems going on out there. Just don’t buy the merchandise that offends.

(edit: some one thinks I am putting down others. Not my intention but I won’t apologise for it when someone over analysed or misinterpreted my opinion and takes offence at an assumed intention which I never had).


----------



## Shelby33

redwings said:


> An ad doesn’t bother me. I don’t really care for ads.
> 
> What bothers me is the outrage over the ads when there are children out there abused in secret or in certain societies. Child marriages still takes place in certain parts of our world and no one really blows that up, compared to one miserable ad in the first world which garners outrage.
> 
> With or without the ad, child abuse has and had been present since humans came to existence. Let’s do our part instead of focusing on social media, focus on the real cases of neglected children and abuse.
> 
> I myself volunteer to tutor or sponsor children from underprivileged or abusive backgrounds to give them a fighting chance to break away from the cycle of poverty. On our own, one can’t save everyone but at least if one kid becomes a law abiding tax paying citizen, determined to overcome their circumstance,  that’s good enough for me.
> 
> So if you really want to do something, don’t make noise over some stupid ad campaign. Do something real about it - contribute. Small drops of water can turn into oceans. If social media is your thing, highlight the real problems going on out there. Just don’t buy the merchandise that offends.


How do you know that people here are not doing that? How many have taken in foster children, how many have counseled these children  and adults who experienced sexual abuse? You think that these ads are ok? It's OK because it's "not as bad" as what happens elsewhere? It is not ok anywhere. 
I don't think you are the only one who is "doing something" about it. Though I very much appreciate what you do, don't put down others because they aren't making an announcement about how they work to help and change lives for the better.


----------



## redwings

Shelby33 said:


> How do you know that people here are not doing that? How many have taken in foster children, how many have counseled these children  and adults who experienced sexual abuse? You think that these ads are ok? It's OK because it's "not as bad" as what happens elsewhere? It is not ok anywhere.
> I don't think you are the only one who is "doing something" about it. Though I very much appreciate what you do, don't put down others because they aren't making an announcement about how they work to help and change lives for the better.



I am referring to the outrage.

Like I said. I don’t care about the ads. Censorship in countries may restrict those ads from appearing.

If I look at twitter, the ad is going to be far more commented on, than the people highlighting the REAL issues.

It’s called making stupid people/ brands more famous, instead of making media more responsive to the real crap in the world. If ads are so influential on people’s behaviour enough to take their attention away from current affairs of the world, then there’s a visible breakdown in humanity‘s intelligence.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## Shelby33

redwings said:


> I am referring to the outrage.
> 
> Like I said. I don’t care about the ads. Censorship in countries may restrict those ads from appearing.
> 
> If I look at twitter, the ad is going to be far more commented on, than the people highlighting the REAL issues.
> 
> It’s called making stupid people/ brands more famous, instead of making media more responsive to the real crap in the world. If ads are so influential on people’s behaviour enough to take their attention away from current affairs of the world, then there’s a visible breakdown in humanity‘s intelligence.


Social media is powerful though. Even if it causes only a few people to become more informed, and try to do something, anything, I'm ok with that.
I don't think anyone forgot about the current affairs of the world. It is possible to care about both.


----------



## redwings

Shelby33 said:


> Social media is powerful though. Even if it causes only a few people to become more informed, and try to do something, anything, I'm ok with that.
> I don't think anyone forgot about the current affairs of the world. It is possible to care about both.



Barbie dolls are still in circulation despite years of media outrage and they are the worst items to sexualise young girls. Mattel is still making money out of those.

We can shut down Balenciaga teddy bears but the bigger culprit is out there.


----------



## Shelby33

redwings said:


> Barbie dolls are still in circulation despite years of media outrage and they are the worst items to sexualise young girls. Mattel is still making money out of those.
> 
> We can shut down Balenciaga teddy bears but the bigger culprit is out there.


Not sure about Barbie sexualizing kids, but that's not what this thread is about.


----------



## redwings

Shelby33 said:


> Not sure about Barbie sexualizing kids, but that's not what this thread is about.



Thread is about teddy bears donning bondage gear photographed with children holding them as a form of sexualisation. Is it not? Those bears are far more expensive than the affordable barbie which hit the masses.

Barbies are a similar form of toy targeted at young children, girls specifically, but more affordable. Balenciaga ads tend to stick to Balenciaga boutiques or during targeted advertising. Barbie advertising hit prime children show times more.

So if we protest against the sexualisation of children in the ad of an overpriced brand, shouldn’t we protest against all?


----------



## PikaboICU

redwings said:


> Thread is about teddy bears donning bondage gear photographed with children holding them as a form of sexualisation. Is it not? Those bears are far more expensive than the affordable barbie which hit the masses.
> 
> Barbies are a similar form of toy targeted at young children, girls specifically, but more affordable. Balenciaga ads tend to stick to Balenciaga boutiques or during targeted advertising. Barbie advertising hit prime children show times more.
> 
> So if we protest against the sexualisation of children in the ad of an overpriced brand, shouldn’t we protest against all?



Barbie is pretty far off topic for this thread. You could start a thread in general chat for that.
This is about Balenciaga.

Side Note: I grew up with Barbies and I'm not over sexualized & my self esteem is just fine.  I think parenting plays a fairly large role in how children perceive themselves through the imagery of ads & toys.


----------



## Shelby33

redwings said:


> Thread is about teddy bears donning bondage gear photographed with children holding them as a form of sexualisation. Is it not? Those bears are far more expensive than the affordable barbie which hit the masses.
> 
> Barbies are a similar form of toy targeted at young children, girls specifically, but more affordable. Balenciaga ads tend to stick to Balenciaga boutiques or during targeted advertising. Barbie advertising hit prime children show times more.
> 
> So if we protest against the sexualisation of children in the ad of an overpriced brand, shouldn’t we protest against all?


I have not seen any ads with children holding Barbie Dolls dressed in bondage gear? 
From what I understand, Barbie dolls provide unrealistic portrayals of women, even in India they are white, blue eyed and blond. I see how this is a problem and how it could affect a child's confidence perhaps? 
I'm not the person to ask, I hated them and put some in a toaster oven and started a fire.


----------



## redwings

PikaboICU said:


> Barbie is pretty far off topic for this thread. You could start a thread in general chat for that.
> This is about Balenciaga.
> 
> Side Note: I grew up with Barbies and I'm not over sexualized & my self esteem is just fine.  I think parenting plays a fairly large role in how children perceive themselves through the imagery of ads & toys.


Not really. Balenciaga is accused of promoting sexualisation of children. Why should stop at one brand only?

Demna achieved his shock jock value by people singling out Balenciaga. If all brands who even dare hint at sexualising kids, lump the scummy brands  and paedophiles up together with Balenciaga,  and drag them all down to out-of-business hell.

Balenciaga can survive alone on controversy. But when it is lumped in with questionable brands and people of disrepute, it can’t crawl out. Simple as that. Make Demna and all the directors unemployable - isn’t that the punishment you all would like to see?

Side note: lucky I never cared for Balenciaga. Only had one motobag from ages ago.


----------



## PikaboICU

redwings said:


> Not really. Balenciaga is accused of promoting sexualisation of children. Why should stop at one brand only?
> 
> Demna achieved his shock jock value by people singling out Balenciaga. If all brands who even dare hint at sexualising kids, lump the scummy brands  and paedophiles up together with Balenciaga,  and drag them all down to out-of-business hell.
> 
> Balenciaga can survive alone on controversy. But when it is lumped in with questionable brands and people of disrepute, it can’t crawl out. Simple as that. Make Demna and all the directors unemployable - isn’t that the punishment you all would like to see?
> 
> Side note: lucky I never cared for Balenciaga. Only had one motobag from ages ago.



Because _this_ is the Balenciaga board and _this_ thread is about Balenciaga. 
The mods have repeatedly asked to stick to that topic to avoid tangents & drama.


----------



## redwings

PikaboICU said:


> Because _this_ is the Balenciaga board and _this_ thread is about Balenciaga.
> The mods have repeatedly asked to stick to that topic to avoid tangents & drama.


I am talking about Demna.

Is he not part of Balenciaga? How would we want to see Balenciaga punished? They took down the pics. He apologised. Next? Demna’s and all their senior directors’ resignations?


----------



## PikaboICU

redwings said:


> Not really. Balenciaga is accused of promoting sexualisation of children. *Why should stop at one brand only?*



I was responding to that and the fact Barbie was brought into the convo.
I'm not getting any further down the rabbit hole with this.

It's delved into accusations of individuals rather than focusing on what the brand allowed to happen & those that participated.


----------



## Lakotan

It is interesting that some of the people commenting here never cared about Bals in the first place. For many of us die hard Bal fans, our bags are precious, searching for beautiful oldies was a joy that helped me relieve stress from my high pressure job. I never owned any logo-stamped designer bags, I hate logos. I collected Bals because they had beautiful silky, smooshy, puffy leather in beautiful colors, were lightweight, not too formal and had no logos. That brand largely died after Nicholas G left. I have not bought a new Bal since 2012. When Demna took charge, many of us commented on the cheapening of the brand and some of his outrageous in your face buy it if you are so stupid designs. So, to me, current Balenciaga has nothing to do with my beloved oldies. To blame me for carrying my Bals is irrational and cruel. I am just as disgusted and disturbed by the recent ads as most of you, but boycotting preDemna Bals is not justified, IMO.


----------



## redwings

PikaboICU said:


> I was responding to that and the fact Barbie was brought into the convo.
> I'm not getting any further down the rabbit hole with this.
> 
> It's delved into accusations of individuals rather than focusing on what the brand allowed to happen & those that participated.


The first ones on the chopping board are always the creative directors and other senior directors who would see and then approve the ad.

Demna stands out because he _is_ the creative director. If he said a firm no, do you think the ad will go ahead with photography and publishing?

Now the true victims are those two poor kids in the pictures. Imagine when they grow up and learn about the controversy.


----------



## PikaboICU

redwings said:


> The first ones on the chopping board are always the creative directors and other senior directors who would see and then approve the ad.
> 
> Demna stands out because he _is_ the creative director. If he said a firm no, do you think the ad will be photographed and published?
> 
> Now the true victims are those two poor kids on the pictures. Imagine when they grow up and learn about the controversy.




Again with the "YOU"  why on earth do you believe I am in favor of Demna, the photos or any of their actions? I haven't bought ONE THING from Bal since he came aboard. In fact, I own nothing newer than 2014, I'm totally divorced from the current brand.

I believe people should boycott BUT life is too short to punish ourselves or each other for the sins of others.
I will not be attacked or shamed for using/keeping my old bags that had nothing to do with this direction Bal has taken. 
Those kids have parents and they were there. Some of the blame falls on them too.


----------



## redwings

PikaboICU said:


> Again with the "YOU"  why on earth do you believe I am in favor of Demna, the photos or any of their actions? I haven't bought ONE THING from Bal since he came aboard. In fact, I own nothing newer than 2014, I'm totally divorced from the current brand.
> 
> I believe people should boycott BUT life is too short to punish ourselves or each other for the sins of others.
> I will not be attacked or shamed for using/keeping my old bags that had nothing to do with this direction Bal has taken.
> Those kids have parents and they were there. Some of the blame falls on them too.



I am talking about Demna and what should be the appropriate punishment if people want something done about this controversy.

P.S.
I did mention I own a motobag from eons ago. Nicholas Ghesquiere was the designer then. So no attacks there. Not sure why you think that you are being attacked.


----------



## PikaboICU

redwings said:


> I am talking about Demna and what should be the appropriate punishment if people want something done about this controversy.
> 
> P.S.
> I did mention I own a motobag from eons ago. So no attacks there. Not sure why you think that you are being attacked.



I personally don't feel attacked but many of your posts seemed accusatory toward members here or people in general.
I responded to the other brands being brought into the convo..

I think they should all be fired. PERIOD
I believe Bal should be boycotted until all involved are fired.
But in the end; I haven't liked anything for the last 8 yrs or so and I don't believe anyone should feel guilty for enjoying what they already own.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## redwings

PikaboICU said:


> I personally don't feel attacked but many of your posts seemed accusatory toward members here or people in general.
> I responded to the other brands being brought into the convo..
> 
> I think they should all be fired. PERIOD
> I believe Bal should be boycotted until all involved are fired.
> But in the end; I haven't liked anything for the last 8 yrs or so and I don't believe anyone should feel guilty for enjoying what they already own.


That’s your opinion on the part of ‘accusatory remarks’ and I disagree with your opinion since it went off south in the opposite direction of my intentions. 

Yes. Those involved should be fired from balenciaga  - so that you and I can agree.


----------



## PikaboICU

redwings said:


> That’s your opinion on the part of ‘accusatory remarks’ and I disagree with your opinion since it went off south in the opposite direction of my intentions.
> 
> Yes. Those involved should be fired from balenciaga  - so that you and I can agree.



Well all of this is just our opinions and you are entitled to yours as I am mine.
I believe the other brands being brought up helped with confusion.

I do NOT support Bal or Demon errrr Demna. I believe a boycott is justified, I just do not agree with retroactive boycotting of individuals that loved & purchased the brand LONG before the current monsters were relevant.
So we can end on an agreement and that's a good thing. 
CHEERS and have a MERRY CHRISTMAS.


----------



## preppie

Shelby33 said:


> I have not seen any ads with children holding Barbie Dolls dressed in bondage gear?
> From what I understand, Barbie dolls provide unrealistic portrayals of women, even in India they are white, blue eyed and blond. I see how this is a problem and how it could affect a child's confidence perhaps?
> I'm not the person to ask, I hated them and put some in a toaster oven and started a fire.


Off topic, fun fact, but the original Barbie doll was modeled after Bild Lilli, a German doll marketed to adults that was based off an explicit cartoon series.

Have fun unpacking that!


----------



## ChampagneandChakras

Mcaldwell190 said:


> You are not kidding. Makes you think and try to evaluate life altogether. Perhaps a watershed moment for some although I will not hold my breath. Our own government lies to our faces every day left and right and we don’t do anything either. Sometimes I think the devil is walking the earth. <<shudder>>


Agree!


----------



## ccbaggirl89

Kim Kardashian during the Angie Martinez IRL podcast 12/26/22:

_On the Balenciaga controversy and being called out for not speaking out fast enough…

“The Balenciaga thing. It was like ‘why aren’t you speaking out?’ And I’m like wait, I’m not in this campaign. I don’t know what’s happening, let me take a minute…as soon as I saw what everyone was seeing on the Internet and the reality of the situation, I completely spoke out and gave my thoughts on child p–n and completely denounced it,” she said.

“But because I didn’t say, ‘f–k you, Balenciaga, that’s it,’ people got mad at that. So it’s like, they’re mad if I don’t speak out. They’re mad if I do speak out, and if I don’t cancel. They’re just mad that if you don’t cancel someone in today’s society, then…I know people talk about cancel culture, but it’s still happening. It’s never been my place. The point of life is to make mistakes and to grow and to involve and be better people. Obviously there is absolutely no place for an ounce to even play with anything with children. Any sexualization of children, there’s not an ounce of that should be in our brains, in our society. I get that. I couldn’t have been more clear, this is horrifying, this is disturbing.”_


----------



## PurseUOut

ccbaggirl89 said:


> Kim Kardashian during the Angie Martinez IRL podcast 12/26/22:
> 
> _On the Balenciaga controversy and being called out for not speaking out fast enough…
> 
> “The Balenciaga thing. It was like ‘why aren’t you speaking out?’ And I’m like wait, I’m not in this campaign. I don’t know what’s happening, let me take a minute…as soon as I saw what everyone was seeing on the Internet and the reality of the situation, I completely spoke out and gave my thoughts on child p–n and completely denounced it,” she said.
> 
> “But because I didn’t say, ‘f–k you, Balenciaga, that’s it,’ people got mad at that. So it’s like, they’re mad if I don’t speak out. They’re mad if I do speak out, and if I don’t cancel. They’re just mad that if you don’t cancel someone in today’s society, then…I know people talk about cancel culture, but it’s still happening. It’s never been my place. The point of life is to make mistakes and to grow and to involve and be better people. Obviously there is absolutely no place for an ounce to even play with anything with children. Any sexualization of children, there’s not an ounce of that should be in our brains, in our society. I get that. I couldn’t have been more clear, this is horrifying, this is disturbing.”_



Girl just say you are contractually obligated to promote them and go. I am starting to believe Fantasia when she says these celebrities are all smoke and mirrors and not as rich as they claim to be. Their overhead expenses are massive and they can't afford to lose a deal.


----------



## PurseUOut

How are your Balenciaga stores looking traffic-wise? I pop in a couple of times a week to Tysons Galleria and its been completely bare whenever I walk by. Most recently the day before Christmas Eve the luxury stores were PACKED except Balenciaga without one customer. I was shocked at how the outrage is transitioning into less floor traffic (idk how many order online). The Neiman's at Tysons took down all the Marc Jacobs, Coach, TB, Furla, bags etc and replaced them with a huge Balenciaga floorset. My SA said the Bal bags weren't selling so they are displaying them more prominently.


----------



## ilovenicebags

Does anyone know if this has affected overall sales and profits at bal ? The best way a consumers voice can be heard is to stop giving them your money and allowing them to profit off of you when they do things you disagree with. I don’t own any bal but was considering some bags. Glad I didn’t pull the trigger but I don’t think I ever will now. Also planning on not buying from any kering brands in the near future.


----------



## caruava

I'm still seeing customers in the stores in my regular centre I go to in Australia. I haven't seen lines but I wouldn't say they are empty. I wouldn't be flaming or judging anyone for shopping there.


----------



## PurseUOut

Interesting. Balenciaga at Tysons is the only one in the Washington DC area. There is A LOT of wealth up here so I was quite taken aback to see the store empty multiple times during the holiday shopping season.

I am not sure what normal sales cycles Bal has, but a lot of clothing items at Saks are marked down 50-70% off.


----------



## Mcaldwell190

PikaboICU said:


> I personally don't feel attacked but many of your posts seemed accusatory toward members here or people in general.
> I responded to the other brands being brought into the convo..
> 
> I think they should all be fired. PERIOD
> I believe Bal should be boycotted until all involved are fired.
> But in the end; I haven't liked anything for the last 8 yrs or so and I don't believe anyone should feel guilty for enjoying what they already own.


I agree the ones in charge should be fired. If they didn’t know what was going on, surely they should have known and were not doing their jobs, so fire them. However, I believe they knew and thought they could get away with it. There is no defending what they did and the many pictures with the same hidden clues that were posted. And no amount of pointing out the sins of others will erase theirs. Use your Balenciaga or not, it’s up to each person. As for me, until they show some corrective action, back of the closet.


----------



## Chloe1004

PurseUOut said:


> How are your Balenciaga stores looking traffic-wise? I pop in a couple of times a week to Tysons Galleria and its been completely bare whenever I walk by. Most recently the day before Christmas Eve the luxury stores were PACKED except Balenciaga without one customer. I was shocked at how the outrage is transitioning into less floor traffic (idk how many order online). The Neiman's at Tysons took down all the Marc Jacobs, Coach, TB, Furla, bags etc and replaced them with a huge Balenciaga floorset. My SA said the Bal bags weren't selling so they are displaying them more prominently.


I was there on the 23rd and I was shocked to see a few people shopping in there. I figured that not everyone is keeping up with the news.


----------



## Mcaldwell190

Chloe1004 said:


> I was there on the 23rd and I was shocked to see a few people shopping in there. I figured that not everyone is keeping up with the news.


I think they have dropped prices considerably so ppl are buying.


----------



## Swanky

I saw one person in my local
Boutique last time I shopped. I only see “old”/past season items marked down in Dallas… as per the norm


----------



## MidlifeFashionPrincess

redwings said:


> An ad doesn’t bother me. I don’t really care for ads. I would argue that Barbies are worse but millions of Barbies are circulating the world.
> 
> What bothers me is the outrage over the ads when there are children out there abused in secret or in certain societies. Child marriages still takes place in certain parts of our world and no one really blows that up, compared to one miserable ad in the first world which garners outrage.
> 
> With or without the ad, child abuse has and had been present since humans came to existence. Let’s do our part instead of focusing on social media, focus on the real cases of neglected children and abuse.
> 
> I myself volunteer to tutor or sponsor children from underprivileged or abusive backgrounds to give them a fighting chance to break away from the cycle of poverty. On our own, one can’t save everyone but at least if one kid becomes a law abiding tax paying citizen, determined to overcome their circumstance,  that’s good enough for me.
> 
> So if you really want to do something, don’t make noise over some stupid ad campaign. Do something real about it - contribute. Small drops of water can turn into oceans. If social media is your thing, highlight the real problems going on out there. Just don’t buy the merchandise that offends.
> 
> (edit: some one thinks I am putting down others. Not my intention but I won’t apologise for it when someone over analysed or misinterpreted my opinion and takes offence at an assumed intention which I never had).


The ad bothers me because I think it helps normalize terrible things, but I very much appreciate your message.


----------



## Swanky

Bears repeating!


Swanky said:


> We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop.  Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.




Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.


----------



## MidlifeFashionPrincess

Lakotan said:


> It is interesting that some of the people commenting here never cared about Bals in the first place. For many of us die hard Bal fans, our bags are precious, searching for beautiful oldies was a joy that helped me relieve stress from my high pressure job. I never owned any logo-stamped designer bags, I hate logos. I collected Bals because they had beautiful silky, smooshy, puffy leather in beautiful colors, were lightweight, not too formal and had no logos. That brand largely died after Nicholas G left. I have not bought a new Bal since 2012. When Demna took charge, many of us commented on the cheapening of the brand and some of his outrageous in your face buy it if you are so stupid designs. So, to me, current Balenciaga has nothing to do with my beloved oldies. To blame me for carrying my Bals is irrational and cruel. I am just as disgusted and disturbed by the recent ads as most of you, but boycotting preDemna Bals is not justified, IMO.


Totally agree. Enjoy your bags.


----------

