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

[Clarita]

19 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I could have sworn that there was some kind of similar stunt/outrage a year or two ago. 

Balenciaga likes to stir up outrage/controversy to advertise their brand, nothing new here just what they do. They intentionally make the ad campaigns and likely intentionally drum up the controversy as well.

The thought is they drum up the controversy people will 1) look up the ad to see what the whole thing is about, 2) visit the store to see what the item is to begin with, etc. I mean, how many of you just went and looked up stuff on Balenciaga from the ad, to what they sell, to articles about them or what happened. Maybe you personally don't/can't/won't buy anything from them several million people do the same thing as you, likely someone will say "Oh but I need a purse/shoe/shirt just like that." Or the name is in people's minds and the next time they see that store they go "Hey I know that name, I don't remember why but that means it's a big company and I'm not likely to be scammed."  

[marbel]

On 11/24/2022 at 11:12 PM, Annie G said:

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. 

If they are watching their kids, and the kids are holding the props, they'd see the props, right?

My guess is that there are parents who would be very pleased to have their kids in an ad for a luxury brand and would give a pass to a lot, particularly if they knew their kids wouldn't get the connection. (I am not saying all parents.) Like dance moms who are happy to see their 8 year old in a dance recital wearing vulgar outfits and doing vulgar dance moves. 

[Annie G]

1 hour ago, madteaparty said:

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*

One of the ad photos featured the bag with an adult male (no child in that shot) and the adult had a black eye and was clearly battered. Balenciaga likes to be edgy and went too far this time.  Sure, more people now know the brand’s name, but not in any positive way. That ad campaign was a failure. 

[Annie G]

1 hour ago, marbel said:

If they are watching their kids, and the kids are holding the props, they'd see the props, right?

My guess is that there are parents who would be very pleased to have their kids in an ad for a luxury brand and would give a pass to a lot, particularly if they knew their kids wouldn't get the connection. (I am not saying all parents.) Like dance moms who are happy to see their 8 year old in a dance recital wearing vulgar outfits and doing vulgar dance moves. 

In this age of photoshopping, I don’t have confidence that the photo shoot even used the bears in the photos. Maybe, but who knows. But absolutely there are parents who will let their kids wear and perform things they shouldn’t.   

[MercyA]

2 hours ago, Annie G said:

One of the ad photos featured the bag with an adult male (no child in that shot) and the adult had a black eye and was clearly battered.

That is disgusting.

We can postulate all day about the motives of the people who made the decisions on the ads, but whether they did it for shock value or another reason, it's so very wrong to use abuse as a theme for advertising. Imagine how people who have been abused must feel about it. SMH.

[Annie G]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

That is disgusting.

We can postulate all day about the motives of the people who made the decisions on the ads, but whether they did it for shock value or another reason, it's so very wrong to use abuse as a theme for advertising. Imagine how people who have been abused must feel about it. SMH.

Absolutely. 

[gardenmom5]

This isn't a one off marketing campaign.

more photos have emerged from other products, that have "background" items that are far worse.   

More evidence the company approved the entire sick campaign.  

 

Balenciaga campaign features book by Belgian Michael Borremans who is known for depicting naked kids | Daily Mail Online

Spoiler

a book glorifying castrated toddlers.

 

 

 

[shawthorne44]

Yes, the info just keeps getting worse.    How is some of those photos not child p---?   

[Danae]

44 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

Yes, the info just keeps getting worse.    How is some of those photos not child p---?   

Because pictures of fully clothed people not involved in sexual acts in any way is not pornography.  Even if they have documents in the frame that have the title of famous porn-related lawsuits or a stack of books on the desk including one by a guy who mimics Renaissance-era painting styles with toddler/cherubs in sinister poses.  
 

It’s possible to refer to or allude to child porn, which some of these definitely do, without being child porn, which they are definitely not.

[Melissa Louise]

Can we please say child abuse materials and not child p*rn ?

[shawthorne44]

The photos on the ad weren't child p---.   But there were some photos in the instagram of these dirtbags that looked like it to me.  For example, child in just underwear but including things like high heels in an S&M pose.   

[KSera]

1 hour ago, shawthorne44 said:

The photos on the ad weren't child p---.   But there were some photos in the instagram of these dirtbags that looked like it to me.  For example, child in just underwear but including things like high heels in an S&M pose.   

I don’t understand why people are reposting/sharing and looking at these things on the company’s Instagram. It all sounds gross and wrong, so shouldn’t people stop looking and giving it clicks and shares?

[shawthorne44]

Well, it is a huge sign that they knew what they were getting into.    For example, you don't hire people whose thing is photos of torturing animals if you don't want photos of tortured animals.  
 

[pinball]

2 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

Well, it is a huge sign that they knew what they were getting into.    For example, you don't hire people whose thing is photos of torturing animals if you don't want photos of tortured animals.  
 

You’re right. It indicates a pattern of behavior. It makes sense to look at their work as a whole to see that pattern. 
 

The problem isn’t looking back at their work for the pattern. The problem is the disgusting images and abuse of children.

[KSera]

17 minutes ago, pinball said:

The problem isn’t looking back at their work for the pattern.

Well honestly, that is a problem. If you're in the position of prosecuting them or otherwise making a difference, it might make sense, otherwise you are monetizing those images and actually contributing to them making a profit off them.

[pinball]

45 minutes ago, KSera said:

Well honestly, that is a problem. If you're in the position of prosecuting them or otherwise making a difference, it might make sense, otherwise you are monetizing those images and actually contributing to them making a profit off them.

No, it’s not a problem for me. I haven’t ever looked on their social media. I stay up to date through reliable news outlets, etc.

So I’m not contributing to their bottom line in that way at all.

If the situation wasn’t so horrific, it’d be comical to see how people try to point accusatory fingers at everyone except  the actual perpetrators.

[KSera]

5 minutes ago, pinball said:

If the situation wasn’t so horrific, it’d be comical to see how people try to point accusatory fingers at everyone except  the actual perpetrators.

Who here has not pointed fingers at the perpetrators? Seems there has been pretty strong consensus on that. It may not apply to you personally, but my comment was in response to someone saying they were looking through the pictures on the company's Instagram site and saying how bad they were. I just don't know why someone would give more eyes to that. It's bad, we agree it's bad, why look at more of it? I think doing so is part of the problem. The company is succeeding in their goal by people giving them more attention and more clicks(=$$). And the pictures are being seen by more eyes.

[pinball]

On 12/7/2022 at 10:02 AM, shawthorne44 said:

The photos on the ad weren't child p---.   But there were some photos in the instagram of these dirtbags that looked like it to me.  For example, child in just underwear but including things like high heels in an S&M pose.   

 

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Who here has not pointed fingers at the perpetrators? Seems there has been pretty strong consensus on that. It may not apply to you personally, but my comment was in response to someone saying they were looking through the pictures on the company's Instagram site and saying how bad they were. I just don't know why someone would give more eyes to that. It's bad, we agree it's bad, why look at more of it? I think doing so is part of the problem. The company is succeeding in their goal by people giving them more attention and more clicks(=$$). And the pictures are being seen by more eyes.

 

i looked at the above post and considered she might have seen the photos FROM the Instagram but not ON the designer’s Instagram. 
 

I’ve seen the pictures in other places and perhaps she did too…

not everyone here agrees it was bad…some of the replies acted like it was NBD, particularly the bizarre one referencing a playboy calendar. I mean WTAF?

 

 

 

 

[shawthorne44]

The NBD attitude of some is THE most disturbing thing about this whole thing.  Just shows how far down our society has gone.  

[El...]

2 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

The NBD attitude of some is THE most disturbing thing about this whole thing.  Just shows how far down our society has gone.  

But, but... who says it isn't a big deal? I say it's disgusting. Every commentary I've heard or read has been essentially, "Ew, no!! Bad!!" Who's saying they're ok with this? 

I'm a little confused by the idea that started this discussion, that our society has declined and now accepts this kind of thing. Maybe I'm in a good media bubble.

The idea that our society is in tragic  moral decline is a marketing strategy for some people. Not necessarily you, shawthorne44; perhaps you are seeing real people embrace this sort of thing.

[Happy2BaMom]

1 hour ago, El... said:

But, but... who says it isn't a big deal? I say it's disgusting. Every commentary I've heard or read has been essentially, "Ew, no!! Bad!!" Who's saying they're ok with this? 

I'm a little confused by the idea that started this discussion, that our society has declined and now accepts this kind of thing. Maybe I'm in a good media bubble.

The idea that our society is in tragic  moral decline is a marketing strategy for some people. Not necessarily you, shawthorne44; perhaps you are seeing real people embrace this sort of thing.

I've stayed out of this thread, but...I can't anymore. The whole "society is now normalizing child s*xual abuse" rather gets my goat, largely due to my own family history.

I have an uncle who was repeatedly molested by the priest who regularly sat at his family's dinner table on Sundays. He's struggled to live a normal life for the past 30 years and now lives alone in an isolated cabin with little human contact. One of my mother's close friends lost a son to a particularly horrific suicide, a son who was repeatedly molested by a different priest in the same diocese. My aunt was a secretary for one of the Bishops who (it was later discovered) made it a habit to just move child-molesting priests around. I could continue but won't.

I recently read an editorial in The American Conservative where the author openly claimed that the abuse that was done to the Native Americans by the Church over the decades was actually worth it, in a bigger picture kind of way, because, you see, he was sure *some* souls were saved through those years. Does anyone have any idea of the pain articles like that have on the survivors (and descendants of survivors) of those boarding schools? I do. I've done a lot of volunteer work with Native American organizations. I've heard some of the stories. The idea that there was ANY end result that could justify the torture and rampant s*x abuse that hundreds of children experienced is....nauseating.

The point is: plenty of people from all walks of life have been more than willing to accept child s*x abuse for DECADES, using whatever rationalizations they told themselves at the time.

And, no, none of that changes what Balenciaga is now attempting, nor should it change people's appropriate reaction to the ad campaign.

But we can all stop pretending that it's something new, or that it's only coming from certain sectors of society.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Happy2BaMom

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, El... said:

But, but... who says it isn't a big deal? I say it's disgusting. Every commentary I've heard or read has been essentially, "Ew, no!! Bad!!" Who's saying they're ok with this? 

I'm a little confused by the idea that started this discussion, that our society has declined and now accepts this kind of thing. Maybe I'm in a good media bubble.

The idea that our society is in tragic  moral decline is a marketing strategy for some people. Not necessarily you, shawthorne44; perhaps you are seeing real people embrace this sort of thing.

It’s a passive aggressive way that some posters use to accuse people on this board of secretly approving of despicable things. Which no one here does. But unless everyone clutches their pearls in the exact same way, then that’s the accusation. 

[El...]

That's horrible, Happy. Articles like that, making evil into some providential means of good, enrage me. It must seem like salt in a wound. 😣

[KSera]

13 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

It’s a passive aggressive way that some posters use to accuse people on this board of secretly approving of despicable things. Which no one here does. But unless everyone clutches their pearls in the exact same way, then that’s the accusation. 

Right. Yet the people accusing others of being okay with this seem to be the ones who have done the most looking at the actual pictures, which is just weird and I don’t know how they then claim the moral high ground. That’s what bothers me. I knew from the first post that I definitely didn’t want to view the pictures and for that reason have still not seen them and hope I never do. It’s enough for me to read a reputable third party news report about it with no pictures. I just don’t get looking at the actual pictures, then going and looking at even more and worse pictures and then somehow claiming other people are the ones not sufficiently outraged 🤨. 

[shawthorne44]

Well, what should be the result for Balenciaga as a result of the Child Teddy S&M with child porn overtones?   

What should happen to these other people as a result of their previous child p--- photos?   

If the answer is nothing, then yeah that is the same as NBD.  

[marbel]

26 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

Well, what should be the result for Balenciaga as a result of the Child Teddy S&M with child porn overtones?   

What should happen to these other people as a result of their previous child p--- photos?   

If the answer is nothing, then yeah that is the same as NBD.  

If there is actual child p**n, then charges can be brought. If it doesn't rise to that level, I am not sure what can be done. I would think that the board of directors would react to the bad publicity and remove the CEO/anyone else who approved the images/hiring of the photographer. I would hope people would stop buying the brand but honestly I have little hope of that. This is a gross generalization but I think if the company has always been edgy, people will continue to accept that and brush this off. It may be a tipping point for some people but I think overall it won't be seen as a big problem. That probably sounds cynical but... I am. 

I would also hope that people would stop allowing their children to be used in such a way. I've no objection to child models in general but there seems to have been a lack of discernment/care here. 

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

2 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

Well, what should be the result for Balenciaga as a result of the Child Teddy S&M with child porn overtones?   

What should happen to these other people as a result of their previous child p--- photos?   

If the answer is nothing, then yeah that is the same as NBD.  

We live in a nation of actual laws.  It's not a nation where we make up what we want to happen in any given situation.  So legally, if they've crossed a line then I want them to be held accountable whether it's criminal or civil.

We also live in a nation of social consequences.  I would hope that those people who actually buy that brand (and I'm not even close to being one of them) would stop buying that brand and would stop using the photographer.  I would hope that any media (print or video) who gives that company or photographer a voice would stop giving it to them, even if it means giving up ad venue.  I would hope that parents who sign their children up as models would stop  signing their kids up for those kinds of ads whether it's with this company or similar.  But. . . while a public outcry (which is happening, and is the only reason we're hearing about it to begin with) can effect some change, it can be shortlived and fickle.  (Recognizing that is not the same as saying that it's "no big deal")

What exactly do you think should be the result?  Are you advocating vigilantism?  Do you want to host a Balenciaga burning?  Do you have any of their products to burn?  Are you going to stop inviting them to your Christmas party?  (Pointing out that the voices of A List people are the ones who matter here on the social end of things.  I'm not one of them but perhaps you are.) 

There are people in this society who do and condone evil things.  There are people in all societies who do and condone evil things.  There are people throughout history who do and condone evil things.  So don't join them.  I don't.  Don't praise them.  I don't.  Let vengeance be the Lord's (from a Christian standpoint.)  Let vengeance also be the lawfully appointed people in our society.   Uphold the law.  Clutching pearls does absolutely nothing.   

[Idalou]

This is their statement. We can hope and pray they have learned a lesson and will rethink their leap from edgey to abhorrent. I have no idea what they meant with litigation?? I hope the statement about reorganization of their image department means some employees were terminated.  They have zero pics on their instagram, just this statement. 

Edited December 9, 2022 by Idalou

[pinball]

he’s apologizing for “the offense caused” 
 

that’s insulting and ridiculous.

i hope people see that for what it truly means

IYKYK

 

[Corraleno]

4 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

Well, what should be the result for Balenciaga as a result of the Child Teddy S&M with child porn overtones?   

What should happen to these other people as a result of their previous child p--- photos?   

If the answer is nothing, then yeah that is the same as NBD.  

The Balenciaga photos were gross but not illegal. The stylist (Volkova) whose instagram photos are being used against Balenciaga hasn't worked for them since 2018. The Belgian artist whose creepy book was used in the background of one of the other photos also has nothing to do with Balenciaga. Are you calling for the arrest of people who did nothing illegal and/or have literally nothing to do with this campaign?

I think the fact that the teddy bear photos were styled the way they were, and that the Supreme Court document and the Borremans book were used in related campaigns, indicates that someone either inside Balenciaga or hired specifically for these campaigns did purposely set up a subtext of CSA. Whether that's something they get off on, or they were just trying to be super extra edgy and see how offensive they could be and still get away with it, I don't know, but I do believe it was a deliberate act by one or more people. 

What I would like to see happen would be for Balenciaga to totally clean house, starting with creative director Demna Gvasalia. Regardless of whether he was directly involved in styling those photos, he's the one who designed the bondage bears and he's been including BDSM references in his designs for years. His most recent "runway" show, which included the bears, had models freezing while traipsing through mud in the cold and dark, looking like they'd been attacked or beaten. His aesthetic is very very dark and he is close friends with Volkova. But I'm sure Balenciaga does not want to fire him since he has (until now) been very very good for the brand — he's boosted sales over a billion dollars for the first time in their history and made them seem cool and edgy. Now he's gone well over the edge and they don't know what to do about it.

I also believe that the way this is being used in social media and by certain news organizations is completely disingenuous. There are QAnon nutters all over social media combing through the images for crazy clues (there's a capital A in the corner of that document over there — that stands for Adrenochrome!), and stalking past employees on Instagram along with anyone who ever liked one of their posts, and then there are news organizations pushing this as proof that there is a vast conspiracy of the "global elite," encompassing Hollywood, fashion, and politics (especially one particular political party), that engages in and is trying to normalize pedophilia. So nasty photos in one ad campaign by one designer, which were quickly taken down, is a huge story worthy of weeks of coverage, and we need a national campaign for legislation to designate the presence of children at a drag show (or even a library story hour) as CSA, but the near-daily arrests of people in positions of religious authority for actual abuse of children get little mention, because that would contradict the narrative.

TL;DR: I think the teddy bear photos are gross, I think that someone who works for or was hired by Balenciaga purposely added a subtext of CSA to the campaign and should be fired, and I think Gemna Gvasalia should also be let go if Balenciaga wants to keep their brand. I also think that a significant part of this "story" is politically motivated theater.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Corraleno

[shawthorne44]

"I have no idea what they meant with litigation??"
They had started a lawsuit to help protect their butt.    But they stopped it when they realized that it would just prove them more guilty.   

I don't think anything could legally happen to the company.    But, not only should decent people stop buying their stuff, they should toss what they own already.   Their stuff should be like fur coats in the 80's.   Poor people don't buy their stuff.  They can afford to toss some clothes after destroying them first.  
 

I do think that their should be child p--- charges for some of the other stuff seen.   They'd get off with a slap on the wrist, as usual, but hopefully they'd at least be a registered pervert then and banned from working with kids.  

Yeah, apologizing for “the offense caused” means "I am not sorry but I've been forced to apologize."  

Oh, and I don't think anyone here thinks this was NBD.   Previous posts could be reasonably seen that way.    The first news articles on this were titled something like, "Conservatives are upset by the latest Balenciaga ads."   So my first thought on this was that "if only conservatives are upset by this, then we aren't just going to hell in a handbasket, we are already there. "  

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

No political party is righteous, no, not one. 

[shawthorne44]

Tell that to the journalists that thought that only Conservatives would be upset.  I would expect everyone not a child molester to be upset.  

[livetoread]

1 hour ago, shawthorne44 said:

Tell that to the journalists that thought that only Conservatives would be upset.  I would expect everyone not a child molester to be upset.  

There is a lot of bad journalism out there, and even when the story is decently written, I swear the headline writers seem bound and determined to make every single thing a horse race between the two political parties. Can't just report on an event - oh no - it all has to be presented in terms of how the parties are affected. I think this creates stronger divisions even if it does generate more clicks. Not to mention, it makes it harder for us to unit in our disgust over things like this because once something is framed in terms of party, the "divisions" become the story, not the event. Makes me really mad when I see it, which is often even in reputable media where the headline is framed that way even if the story isn't. I'm sure there are very few people, regardless of political party, who wouldn't be disgusted by that advertisement.

Edited December 10, 2022 by livetoread

[denarii]

8 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

 

Oh, and I don't think anyone here thinks this was NBD.   Previous posts could be reasonably seen that way.    The first news articles on this were titled something like, "Conservatives are upset by the latest Balenciaga ads."   So my first thought on this was that "if only conservatives are upset by this, then we aren't just going to hell in a handbasket, we are already there. "  

 

I think it would be worth looking at your preferred news source and asking yourself "are they trying to push a specific narrative?"

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/how-to-spot-types-of-media-bias

 

Edited December 10, 2022 by denarii
Typo