Balenciaga ads and normalizing child s****l abuse

[pinball]

I’m not linking. Google for yourself.

The fact that these ads were conceived, created and published is beyond the pale. The fact that NO ONE anywhere along the lines, INCLUDING these poor little babies PARENTS said this is just wrong tells me that child s****l abuse being normalized for society is the goal.

[Annie G]

I saw that the other day and it just made me sick.  Even the pic with the ‘model’ and not the child was beyond disturbing.

[HomeAgain]

These are bad ads.  Very not okay, IMO, which shows that their echo chamber approach to production normalized poor results.

HOWEVER, let me do the responsible thing for you, @pinball and link to a news article about it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/balenciaga-apologizes-for-ads-with-children-teddy-bear-bags-bondage-gear/

[KSera]

I don’t know that brand, but that’s bizarre that anyone thought that was an okay ad idea.  The addition of the legal brief makes it hard to interpret it as unintentional. 

[Annie G]

I just read Balenciaga has publicly apologized, and is ‘taking legal action’ against the creator of the ad campaign.  I’m having a hard time believing the bigwigs at Balenciaga didn’t approve the campaign. No way they just hired a firm and said go forth. 

[LucyStoner]

Seems like a crappy product idea and an even crappier advertising design.  I noticed that the brand blamed the creators without taking responsibility for their decision to run with the ads.  So more shoddy decision making on their part.  

[livetoread]

Heads need to roll at that company. I hope it has a board and they are paying attention. I've never been impressed with the whole "edgy" part of fashion, and if this is a ploy for attention (probably) then shame on them and shame on an entire industry that prides itself on having very little shame.

[pinball]

50 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

These are bad ads.  Very not okay, IMO, which shows that their echo chamber approach to production normalized poor results.

HOWEVER, let me do the responsible thing for you, @pinball and link to a news article about it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/balenciaga-apologizes-for-ads-with-children-teddy-bear-bags-bondage-gear/

LOL

do whatever the heck you want

just don’t hurt yourself 😉

[SKL]

I understand why you wouldn't want to link it.  However, I am not gonna google it because I don't need that sort of thing in my search history.

I think I get the gist of it from the comments here.

Societal elements all about over-protecting their pet groups, while failing to give any consideration to the safety and health of our most vulnerable.

Edited November 23, 2022 by SKL

[MercyA]

The photos were bad enough, but WTH with including a photo of Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition??? They knew *exactly* what they were doing.

Totally unacceptable in every way.

Edited November 23, 2022 by MercyA

[KSera]

18 minutes ago, SKL said:

I understand why you wouldn't want to link it.  However, I am not gonna google it because I don't need that sort of thing in my search history.

I think I get the gist of it from the comments here.

Societal elements all about over-protecting their pet groups, while failing to give any consideration to the safety and health of our most vulnerable.

Fwiw, this one is pretty easy to search without including any weird search terms and if you choose a responsible news outlet, I don’t expect you’ll see any actual pictures. I chose the CBS link that someone else also shared above, and they did not share any pictures, so I was able to read about what the issue was without having to view it. Based only on comments on this thread, I don’t think I would’ve had an accurate idea what this was talking about.

As far as your second paragraph, so far I’m not seeing anyone say that this was an okay ad. Everyone seems to be in agreement on this one.

Eta: as far as searching goes, I also use a duck duck go browser that poofs history and doesn’t track, so that helps as well. I still don’t want to see anything I don’t want to see, though (and keep my settings semi strict accordingly). 

Edited November 23, 2022 by KSera

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, HomeAgain said:

HOWEVER, let me do the responsible thing for you, @pinball and link to a news article about it

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

I understand why you wouldn't want to link it. 

I'm with SKL on this one. I don't understand the snark. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

13 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I'm with SKL on this one. I don't understand the snark. 

HomeAgain did not link to the ads.  She linked to an actual news article that explained the ads and gave context.  (None of which excused the company or the people who made the ads.)

[gardenmom5]

The company is now trying to blame the photographer. . .  nope, YOU reviewed them, YOU published them.

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, HomeAgain said:

These are bad ads.  Very not okay, IMO, which shows that their echo chamber approach to production normalized poor results.

HOWEVER, let me do the responsible thing for you, @pinball and link to a news article about it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/balenciaga-apologizes-for-ads-with-children-teddy-bear-bags-bondage-gear/

They are trying to cover their patootie.  They had zero problem with it until there was backlash.

[Elizabeth86]

Forget the company! What sick parent lets this happen?

[gardenmom5]

1 minute ago, Elizabeth86 said:

Forget the company! What sick parent lets this happen?

The same sick parents that let their kids be in "cuties".

But again, how much did the parents actually know about what was happening?

Larry Nasar was abusing girls in front of their parents without them even realizing it was happening.

[Ting Tang]

I had never heard of this.  Ugh.  I hate to say this, but it looks just like a competitive dance outfit I saw a group of girls wearing!

[Selkie]

So gross.

[Faith-manor]

I dread to agree with Ting Tang because it is so depraved that dance teachers think this stuff is okay, but agreeing that in the 2019 dance recital of the local school of dance, some girls in the 12-14 age were wearing BDSM stuff. 

I also do not believe that no on in the corporate board room knew about this. Ads and marketing are profoundly expensive and someone in authority, probably more than one, approved these. And it is entirely possible that some perv at the top knew exactly what the photos could mean or convey.

That said, I also know there is no actual movement to normalize child s.a. the vast majority of people recognize the moral repugnant nature of hurting children in this way. If anything, laws and enforcement are likely to get harsher not easier to circumvent. The issue, as with the dance school above, is that common sense is not used when considering appropriateness and messaging. So much impulsive decision making,....oh this would be so cool or so hip or so relevant...and off to the races without thinking about it, baffled when there is backlash.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Faith-manor

[Danae]

3 hours ago, pinball said:

I’m not linking. Google for yourself.

The fact that these ads were conceived, created and published is beyond the pale. The fact that NO ONE anywhere along the lines, INCLUDING these poor little babies PARENTS said this is just wrong tells me that child s****l abuse being normalized for society is the goal.

I doubt it.  I think they’re trying to push the envelope on being edgy.  Normalizing would defeat the purpose, which is to identify the brand as super-edgy.  
 

*******

After reading wildly different descriptions, I looked.  The pictures themselves are not remotely as bad as I assumed from reading the thread. The kids are dressed in normal kid clothes, even on the conservative side.  Their poses are not in any way sexualized. The teddy bears are wearing leather straps and chain-links.  And in the pic with the most outré bear the bear was on the floor in front of some other toys not even in the kid’s line of sight.  I don’t think the kids were harmed by the photo shoot.

That said, the ads are clearly a dog-whistle to child sexual abuse.  They’re just being very wink-wink about it rather than explicit.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Danae

[Selkie]

21 minutes ago, Danae said:

I doubt it.  I think they’re trying to push the envelope on being edgy.  Normalizing would defeat the purpose, which is to identify the brand as super-edgy.  
 

*******

After reading wildly different descriptions, I looked.  The pictures themselves are not remotely as bad as I assumed from reading the thread. The kids are dressed in normal kid clothes, even on the conservative side.  Their poses are not in any way sexualized. The teddy bears are wearing leather straps and chain-links.  And in the pic with the most outré bear the bear was on the floor in front of some other toys not even in the kid’s line of sight.  I don’t think the kids were harmed by the photo shoot.

That said, the ads are clearly a dog-whistle to child sexual abuse.  They’re just being very wink-wink about it rather than explicit.

I read an interesting comment someone posted about one of the photos. They said the way the child is posed and the items on the table in front of the child are placed is all meant to titillate pedos. I won't go into detail, but once I read it, I could see what they were talking about.

[Danae]

The ads are the equivalent of posing your kids in Victorian party clothes in front of a fireplace for your Christmas picture with a Playboy calendar on the wall behind them and a caption that says “Hey look, a pornographic picture with a child in it.  Get it?  HaHa!”

 

 

[Idalou]

The OP's assertion about child sexual abuse being normalized is also a constant drum banging on Fox. Tucker Carlson discusses the sexualization of kids on every show, multiple times. It's part of their anti-trans campaign. They equate gender care and the spreading of understanding gender healthcare facts with sex abuse. They called people groomers. He frequently shows pics of a Boston hospital that has gender affirming health care while talking of chemically castrating young children. Is there any surprise the hospital is constantly dealing with bomb threats?

  There is no goal in America to normalize child abuse. There is no political party with that goal. There are no health care providers, nor teachers, no librarians, no mainstream LGBTQ organizations that are trying to normalize it.

I have not seen anyone defend what the clothing designer did as being anything but indecent.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Idalou

[Selkie]

1 minute ago, Idalou said:

The OP's assertion about child sexual abuse being normalized is also a constant drum banging on Fox. Tucker Carlson discusses the sexualization of kids on every show, multiple times. It's part of their anti-trans campaign. He frequently shows pics of a Boston hospital that has gender affirming health care while talking of chemically castrating young children. Is there any surprise the hospital is constantly dealing with bomb threats?

  There is no goal in America to normalize child abuse. There is no political party with that goal. There are no health care providers, nor teachers, no librarians, no mainstream LGBTQ organizations that are trying to normalize it.

I don't know anything about that...I don't watch Fox or Tucker Carlson, and I am about as supportive of trans people as you can get. What does any of that have to do with these photos, which are blatantly pushing the idea of child s****l abuse?

[MercyA]

@Idalou, I dislike Tucker Carlson so much I can't even look at the man. I have definitely seen people outraged about things just because he (or his network) tells them to be. 

That doesn't mean there aren't pedos out there who *would* like to see abuse normalized, and that they weren't involved in this ad campaign. It could have been for shock value alone, sure. But maybe not.

[deleted] 

Edited November 24, 2022 by MercyA

[KSera]

9 minutes ago, Idalou said:

Tucker Carlson discusses the sexualization of kids on every show, multiple times. It's part of their anti-trans campaign. They equate gender care and the spreading of understanding gender healthcare facts with sex abuse. They called people groomers. He frequently shows pics of a Boston hospital that has gender affirming health care while talking of chemically castrating young children.

I have to admit it always starts feeling pretty icky to me when someone is obsessed with talking  about this. It certainly doesn’t tend to make me feel like Tucker is someone I would leave my kids around 🤢. I wish people like that would stay far, far away from talking about how youth with gender dysphoria should best be helped. They have no idea and their motives are all wrong. The equating with grooming is all the more weird to me with the higher than typical rate of asexuality among transgender young people. Makes no sense and is all for political gain by these people who care not one whit how to actually help kids struggling with this. All they’re doing is making it worse and not allowing actual science to be discussed and come to the forefront. 

[Faith-manor]

6 minutes ago, KSera said:

I have to admit it always starts feeling pretty icky to me when someone is obsessed with talking  about this. It certainly doesn’t tend to make me feel like Tucker is someone I would leave my kids around 🤢. I wish people like that would stay far, far away from talking about how youth with gender dysphoria should best be helped. They have no idea and their motives are all wrong. The equating with grooming is all the more weird to me with the higher than typical rate of asexuality among transgender young people. Makes no sense and is all for political gain by these people who care not one whit how to actually help kids struggling with this. All they’re doing is making it worse and not allowing actual science to be discussed and come to the forefront. 

I very much agree with this. The pastor at my mom's church is absolutely obsessed with this issue. 

[Idalou]

3 hours ago, Selkie said:

I don't know anything about that...I don't watch Fox or Tucker Carlson, and I am about as supportive of trans people as you can get. What does any of that have to do with these photos, which are blatantly pushing the idea of child s****l abuse?

 Because the OP said the ad shows that the goal is to normalize child abuse. Because TC is obsessed with talking about how the other side is sexualizing children. He does this constantly. Claims gender affirming treatment is child abuse. Teachers with pride flags are perverts and groomers. It never ends, and his proclamations are being repeated by others. He said that calling out this advertisement as he did  would have them( the other party followers) say he was a stochastic terrorist. In this instance that's not what stochastic terrorism is and he knows that.  He's trying to equate this indecency to the topic of gender affirming care with trans youth, to make his followers believe half the country are people ok with child abuse. That part of his routine is what some are calling stochastic terrorism.

 It's insane and gross and a lie, but so is TC.

Here's how he tied the advertisement to a rant about a certain party and admin

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1595132905822752768?t=qtSYSHsmSQWdHXX6QmW-qg&s=19

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Idalou

[LucyStoner]

3 hours ago, Idalou said:

The OP's assertion about child sexual abuse being normalized is also a constant drum banging on Fox. Tucker Carlson discusses the sexualization of kids on every show, multiple times. It's part of their anti-trans campaign. They equate gender care and the spreading of understanding gender healthcare facts with sex abuse. They called people groomers. He frequently shows pics of a Boston hospital that has gender affirming health care while talking of chemically castrating young children. Is there any surprise the hospital is constantly dealing with bomb threats?

  There is no goal in America to normalize child abuse. There is no political party with that goal. There are no health care providers, nor teachers, no librarians, no mainstream LGBTQ organizations that are trying to normalize it.

I have not seen anyone defend what the clothing designer did as being anything but indecent.

I don’t watch Fox or any tv news.  However, gauging from what I have observed with my nieces and nephew, I have become concerned about an overlap between the sex positivity movement and those who would try to use that for their own iffy objectives.  Do I think this is a mainstream force or anything I would classify as left wing/right wing?  No.  But I see it happening, as do many of the people I know who work closely with at-risk teens.  My oldest niece especially has been targeted and she internalized the message that having sexual boundaries = kink shaming among many other troubling messages about what is empowering and liberation. 

Edited November 24, 2022 by LucyStoner

[KSera]

6 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

the message that having sexual boundaries = kink shaming among many other troubling messages about what is empowering and liberation.

Have had the same thing happen here.

 

32 minutes ago, Idalou said:

He's trying to equate this indecency to the topic of gender affirming care with trans youth

Few people on any side are able to have an appropriate, meaningful conversation on this topic. But yes, the Tuckers of the world try to make everything somehow related to this.

Edited November 24, 2022 by KSera

[Selkie]

25 minutes ago, Idalou said:

 Because the OP said the ad shows that the goal is to normalize child abuse. Because TC is obsessed with talking about how the other side is sexualizing children. He does this constantly. Claims gender affirming treatment is child abuse. Teachers with pride flags are perverts and groomers. It never ends, and his proclamations are being repeated by others. He said that calling out this advertisement as he did  would have them( the other party followers) say he was a stochastic terrorist. In this instance that's not what stochastic terrorism is and he knows that.  He's trying to equate this indecency to the topic of gender affirming care with trans youth, to make his followers believe half the country are people ok with child abuse. That part of his routine is what some are calling stochastic terrorism.

 It's insane and gross and a lie, but so is TC.

Here's how he tied the advertisement to a rant about a certain party and admin

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1595132905822752768?t=qtSYSHsmSQWdHXX6QmW-qg&s=19

 

Just because Tucker Carlson says stupid things is no reason to downplay what is going on with these photos. It’s pretty obvious to me that the goal of this advertising campaign IS to normalize child s*****l abuse. 

[LucyStoner]

Just now, KSera said:

Have had the same thing happen here.

It doesn’t help that violence in porn is very much normalized and far too many kids are learning that porn is an accurate representation of sexual intimacy.  

[Ting Tang]

5 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

I dread to agree with Ting Tang because it is so depraved that dance teachers think this stuff is okay, but agreeing that in the 2019 dance recital of the local school of dance, some girls in the 12-14 age were wearing BDSM stuff. 

I also do not believe that no on in the corporate board room knew about this. Ads and marketing are profoundly expensive and someone in authority, probably more than one, approved these. And it is entirely possible that some perv at the top knew exactly what the photos could mean or convey.

That said, I also know there is no actual movement to normalize child s.a. the vast majority of people recognize the moral repugnant nature of hurting children in this way. If anything, laws and enforcement are likely to get harsher not easier to circumvent. The issue, as with the dance school above, is that common sense is not used when considering appropriateness and messaging. So much impulsive decision making,....oh this would be so cool or so hip or so relevant...and off to the races without thinking about it, baffled when there is backlash.

I just can't believe parents didn't say anything.  Or maybe it becomes groupthink/everyone is afraid to say something?  Or you are told you are the one sexualizing children, even though they're the ones that chose the costumes?  Many studios will not allow these types of costumes, but sadly, they go to the same competitions, and the exposure is still there.  😞 I personally love the creativity of costumery.  There is no need for any of it. 

[LucyStoner]

2 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

I just can't believe parents didn't say anything.  

Some parents are *really* willing to do anything/go along with basically anything to get their kid into modeling or acting. 

[rebcoola]

7 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

 

That said, I also know there is no actual movement to normalize child s.a. the vast majority of people recognize the moral repugnant nature of hurting children in this way. If anything, laws and enforcement are likely to get harsher not easier to circumvent. 

While they may not be mainstream or anyway related to dance costumes or even questionable ads.  Their are absolutely organized groups out their trying to normalize CSA. NAMBLA is a real group and their are others.

[KungFuPanda]

Am I the only person who clearly needs new glasses and thought the bears were just bikers? It’s such a bizarre choice that I’d bet money it was a calculated marketing stunt. “Ok, we’re gonna do this and you’re gonna ‘fire’ us but your ads will get a lot more views this way. We’re gonna stay just this side of legal. Yes, the lawyers signed off.”  The products, and the models, now have greater commercial exposure. The company loses nothing. The ad company definitely got paid. Issuing an apology is free but getting soccer moms to boost your ads for you is valuable. 
 

[Annie G]

8 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

Am I the only person who clearly needs new glasses and thought the bears were just bikers? It’s such a bizarre choice that I’d bet money it was a calculated marketing stunt. “Ok, we’re gonna do this and you’re gonna ‘fire’ us but your ads will get a lot more views this way. We’re gonna stay just this side of legal. Yes, the lawyers signed off.”  The products, and the models, now have greater commercial exposure. The company loses nothing. The ad company definitely got paid. Issuing an apology is free but getting soccer moms to boost your ads for you is valuable. 
 

I see your point but how is that helping Balenciaga sales? I don’t think many soccer moms are buying genuine  Balenciaga products. A t shirt starts in the $500 range.  

[KungFuPanda]

49 minutes ago, Annie G said:

I see your point but how is that helping Balenciaga sales? I don’t think many soccer moms are buying genuine  Balenciaga products. A t shirt starts in the $500 range.  

It’s upsetting The Normals so it must be edgy and cool. No bad press and all that. 

[kiwik]

I could see some moron who just said teddy bear bags = kids without looking.  It is like my grandparents generation cartoon = kids and not thinking that South Park and the Simpsons mat be different than what they are thinking of.  But not the legal brief bit - that had to be someone  making a point.

[Farrar]

I doubt the parents knew anything about the set up. Parents and kid show up to a legit job with a legit company. For all we know, the parents are also upset. It's not like they put the kid in bondage gear. I haven't seen the specific shot, just read the news article, but it's a teddy bear that they stuck in frame. I don't think it would have necessarily pinged anyone's warning bells until there was a close up. I can totally imagine the parents having no clue until they saw the pictures. And that the kid may still have no clue or context, which... good.

[Selkie]

7 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I doubt the parents knew anything about the set up. Parents and kid show up to a legit job with a legit company. For all we know, the parents are also upset. It's not like they put the kid in bondage gear. I haven't seen the specific shot, just read the news article, but it's a teddy bear that they stuck in frame. I don't think it would have necessarily pinged anyone's warning bells until there was a close up. I can totally imagine the parents having no clue until they saw the pictures. And that the kid may still have no clue or context, which... good.

The teddy bears weren't stuck in the picture, the kids are holding them and they are front and center.

[KungFuPanda]

5 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I doubt the parents knew anything about the set up. Parents and kid show up to a legit job with a legit company. For all we know, the parents are also upset. It's not like they put the kid in bondage gear. I haven't seen the specific shot, just read the news article, but it's a teddy bear that they stuck in frame. I don't think it would have necessarily pinged anyone's warning bells until there was a close up. I can totally imagine the parents having no clue until they saw the pictures. And that the kid may still have no clue or context, which... good.

It’s a pretty big bear and the kids are holding them. If they were at the shoot they saw it. Or maybe they were like me and thought “Why is that bear dressed like a biker?” I don’t know that I would ever have looked close enough to see ‘gear’ without being tipped off here. Bears don’t really have any sexy curves or angles to make it make sense so my brain just saw a bear wearing some leather and grommets and stuff. 

[Annie G]

I thought with children that young that a parent or guardian had to be on the set while the child is working. But maybe they didn’t even notice, since they were probably watching their kid, and not paying attention to the props. That’s no excuse-there’s a reason a parent or guardian is required to be there. But they probably just trusted the professionals. 
I sometimes find myself going the other way, questioning something that later turns out to be benign. For instance, a while back North West was photographed wearing a nose ring with a chain attached. Since she was wearing all black and multiple chains, my radar went up that it was inappropriate for a 9 year old. But I read the nose ring and chain is a cultural thing…not her culture, I guess, but someone’s. 
I personally think Balenciaga was trying to be edgy and they crossed a line. Not cool trying to lay blame on others though. 

[Laura Corin]

3 hours ago, Farrar said:

I doubt the parents knew anything about the set up. Parents and kid show up to a legit job with a legit company. For all we know, the parents are also upset. It's not like they put the kid in bondage gear. I haven't seen the specific shot, just read the news article, but it's a teddy bear that they stuck in frame. I don't think it would have necessarily pinged anyone's warning bells until there was a close up. I can totally imagine the parents having no clue until they saw the pictures. And that the kid may still have no clue or context, which... good.

Yes. The one time Calvin did some modelling,  I knew very little about the shoot in advance except that it was to advertise a major, well respected company. 

[shawthorne44]

The apology doesn't cut it.  I hope the company tanks.  

[livetoread]

56 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

The apology doesn't cut it.  I hope the company tanks.  

Agreed. I get annoyed at the edgy stuff the fashion industry does with adults, but involve kids and you've gone way beyond eye rolling stage. 

[Ting Tang]

On 11/24/2022 at 8:59 PM, Farrar said:

I doubt the parents knew anything about the set up. Parents and kid show up to a legit job with a legit company. For all we know, the parents are also upset. It's not like they put the kid in bondage gear. I haven't seen the specific shot, just read the news article, but it's a teddy bear that they stuck in frame. I don't think it would have necessarily pinged anyone's warning bells until there was a close up. I can totally imagine the parents having no clue until they saw the pictures. And that the kid may still have no clue or context, which... good.

Exactly, the kids were likely clueless. I never heard of this company before.  But if they sell $500 t-shirts, that is probably why.

[madteaparty]

On 11/24/2022 at 10:10 PM, KungFuPanda said:

It’s a pretty big bear and the kids are holding them. If they were at the shoot they saw it. Or maybe they were like me and thought “Why is that bear dressed like a biker?” I don’t know that I would ever have looked close enough to see ‘gear’ without being tipped off here. Bears don’t really have any sexy curves or angles to make it make sense so my brain just saw a bear wearing some leather and grommets and stuff. 

This is also what I see, and I think the bears are meant to be purses so presumably there needs to be a leather thing or other to hold up the purse so I almost wonder if this was some sort of stunt (all the outrage I mean). DS who does know the brand didn’t even mention this to me and of course more people know about the brand now than before.

*jaded*

[Jean in Newcastle]

I could have sworn that there was some kind of similar stunt/outrage a year or two ago.  Perhaps not the same designer but I thought that it involved teddy bears then too.  But maybe I'm having some kind of a false deja vu.