Is it okay to buy/wear Balenciaga given the controversy related to children? They have apologized.

[Anonymous]

If Hollywood and the liberal elite like it, then yes it’s ok to wear it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can any French posters share how this is playing out among French parents and in the media there? Are there apologists for what happened?

Despite all the online commotion, the father of the child is defending Balenciaga’s shoot saying his daughter had a “fantastic time” posing for the photographs. Speaking exclusively with the Daily Mail, the father, who remains anonymous said he was present at the shoot, which was “an enjoyable day out.” He insisted the pictures of his daughter had been taken “totally out of context.” He went on to say,

“No parent would actively encourage the child to take part in something which was pornographic, and I think the publicity surrounding what happened has been blown out of all proportion,” he told the outlet.

Stage parents are the WORST. Brad Pitt once said they are the worst of the worst...

This parent doesn't sound like a stage parent at all. Your typical stage parents are Lindsey Lohan's and Britney Spears' parents, and look how they turned out.

This parent is defending his decision to allow his infant to "model" for Balenciaga. Sounds like a stage parent to me.

Being on one photoshoot doesn't make this person a stage parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Horrible that these kids will have these images of them on the internet forever. They're just kids. Where are there parents in all of this.

It wouldn’t have trigger my warning bells as I steer way clear of p*rn, R rated movies, etc.. Just looked like a weird, dystopian teddy bear until others provided context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is one of those rare areas where the US is truly morally superior to France. Pedophilia and incest are somehow still gray areas in some intellectual and fashion circles. But as PP’s have said, things are changing. Google “nytimes France incest” for many recent stories. My hope is that this gets the entire fashion house shut down. It should be a #metoo moment on behalf of children.

Agreed. I’ve been thinking about this all day, and I’m simply horrified that this is still up for debate anywhere in the world. I saw some of the photos that the employee had posted to her IG before they were taken down and it completely changed how I saw the ad. I can’t stop thinking about the kids and I feel sick. I agree that the house needs to go out of business. We need to put businesses on notice that we won’t buy anything with even a whiff of child trafficking. I’ll buy from brands whose politics I disagree with, but human trafficking and child pornography are evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one of those rare areas where the US is truly morally superior to France. Pedophilia and incest are somehow still gray areas in some intellectual and fashion circles. But as PP’s have said, things are changing. Google “nytimes France incest” for many recent stories. My hope is that this gets the entire fashion house shut down. It should be a #metoo moment on behalf of children.

Agreed. I’ve been thinking about this all day, and I’m simply horrified that this is still up for debate anywhere in the world. I saw some of the photos that the employee had posted to her IG before they were taken down and it completely changed how I saw the ad. I can’t stop thinking about the kids and I feel sick. I agree that the house needs to go out of business. We need to put businesses on notice that we won’t buy anything with even a whiff of child trafficking. I’ll buy from brands whose politics I disagree with, but human trafficking and child pornography are evil.

+ 1 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible that these kids will have these images of them on the internet forever. They're just kids. Where are there parents in all of this.

It wouldn’t have trigger my warning bells as I steer way clear of p*rn, R rated movies, etc.. Just looked like a weird, dystopian teddy bear until others provided context.

Umm, because that's exactly all it is. This is just marketing to kidults (https://time.com/6234061/toys-for-adults-popularity/ )--embrace the inner child and buy a $2K teddy bear purse or any of the other overpriced junk in the gift guide. The black leather bag and imagery from the earlier campaign has more fetish to it (and only adults). These children aren't sexualized, they look like kids, they don't even look enthralled with the toys, complete meh is the goal.

Now, were they stupid to put actual kids in the ads? Yes, clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can any French posters share how this is playing out among French parents and in the media there? Are there apologists for what happened?

Despite all the online commotion, the father of the child is defending Balenciaga’s shoot saying his daughter had a “fantastic time” posing for the photographs. Speaking exclusively with the Daily Mail, the father, who remains anonymous said he was present at the shoot, which was “an enjoyable day out.” He insisted the pictures of his daughter had been taken “totally out of context.” He went on to say,

“No parent would actively encourage the child to take part in something which was pornographic, and I think the publicity surrounding what happened has been blown out of all proportion,” he told the outlet.

Yikes. He’s clearly missing the point. I’m sure the girl did have a great day and was completely oblivious to the fact that she was partaking in a photo shoot that suggested adult themes and sexual fetishes. That does not make ok that she appeared in these images. It’s not ok for adults to sexualize children even if they are not aware it’s occurring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can any French posters share how this is playing out among French parents and in the media there? Are there apologists for what happened?

Despite all the online commotion, the father of the child is defending Balenciaga’s shoot saying his daughter had a “fantastic time” posing for the photographs. Speaking exclusively with the Daily Mail, the father, who remains anonymous said he was present at the shoot, which was “an enjoyable day out.” He insisted the pictures of his daughter had been taken “totally out of context.” He went on to say,

“No parent would actively encourage the child to take part in something which was pornographic, and I think the publicity surrounding what happened has been blown out of all proportion,” he told the outlet.

Stage parents are the WORST. Brad Pitt once said they are the worst of the worst...

This parent doesn't sound like a stage parent at all. Your typical stage parents are Lindsey Lohan's and Britney Spears' parents, and look how they turned out.

This parent is defending his decision to allow his infant to "model" for Balenciaga. Sounds like a stage parent to me.

Being on one photoshoot doesn't make this person a stage parent.

OK aspiring stage parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible that these kids will have these images of them on the internet forever. They're just kids. Where are there parents in all of this.

It wouldn’t have trigger my warning bells as I steer way clear of p*rn, R rated movies, etc.. Just looked like a weird, dystopian teddy bear until others provided context.

Umm, because that's exactly all it is. This is just marketing to kidults (https://time.com/6234061/toys-for-adults-popularity/ )--embrace the inner child and buy a $2K teddy bear purse or any of the other overpriced junk in the gift guide. The black leather bag and imagery from the earlier campaign has more fetish to it (and only adults). These children aren't sexualized, they look like kids, they don't even look enthralled with the toys, complete meh is the goal.

Now, were they stupid to put actual kids in the ads? Yes, clearly.

You'd rationalize just about anything.

[Anonymous]

This brand is dead.

[Anonymous]

NO. Don't support this behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible that these kids will have these images of them on the internet forever. They're just kids. Where are there parents in all of this.

It wouldn’t have trigger my warning bells as I steer way clear of p*rn, R rated movies, etc.. Just looked like a weird, dystopian teddy bear until others provided context.

Umm, because that's exactly all it is. This is just marketing to kidults (https://time.com/6234061/toys-for-adults-popularity/ )--embrace the inner child and buy a $2K teddy bear purse or any of the other overpriced junk in the gift guide. The black leather bag and imagery from the earlier campaign has more fetish to it (and only adults). These children aren't sexualized, they look like kids, they don't even look enthralled with the toys, complete meh is the goal.

Now, were they stupid to put actual kids in the ads? Yes, clearly.

I think the legal text around CP being in the photo shoot is what tipped things over the edge. These people are messed up. Though I’m sure in the end the wrong people will be the ones blamed. I find it deeply ironic that in the whole Jeffrey Epstein affair, the only person prosecuted so far has been a women. All the men who committed the sex crimes have escaped prosecution. I suspect the people responsible for the look and feel of these photo shoots will similarly escape harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible that these kids will have these images of them on the internet forever. They're just kids. Where are there parents in all of this.

It wouldn’t have trigger my warning bells as I steer way clear of p*rn, R rated movies, etc.. Just looked like a weird, dystopian teddy bear until others provided context.

Umm, because that's exactly all it is. This is just marketing to kidults (https://time.com/6234061/toys-for-adults-popularity/ )--embrace the inner child and buy a $2K teddy bear purse or any of the other overpriced junk in the gift guide. The black leather bag and imagery from the earlier campaign has more fetish to it (and only adults). These children aren't sexualized, they look like kids, they don't even look enthralled with the toys, complete meh is the goal.

Now, were they stupid to put actual kids in the ads? Yes, clearly.

I think the legal text around CP being in the photo shoot is what tipped things over the edge. These people are messed up. Though I’m sure in the end the wrong people will be the ones blamed. I find it deeply ironic that in the whole Jeffrey Epstein affair, the only person prosecuted so far has been a women. All the men who committed the sex crimes have escaped prosecution. I suspect the people responsible for the look and feel of these photo shoots will similarly escape harm.

But that’s a different photo shoot, and doesn’t involve children or anyone even depicted as childlike. Connecting the two, is full on conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can any French posters share how this is playing out among French parents and in the media there? Are there apologists for what happened?

Despite all the online commotion, the father of the child is defending Balenciaga’s shoot saying his daughter had a “fantastic time” posing for the photographs. Speaking exclusively with the Daily Mail, the father, who remains anonymous said he was present at the shoot, which was “an enjoyable day out.” He insisted the pictures of his daughter had been taken “totally out of context.” He went on to say,

“No parent would actively encourage the child to take part in something which was pornographic, and I think the publicity surrounding what happened has been blown out of all proportion,” he told the outlet.

Stage parents are the WORST. Brad Pitt once said they are the worst of the worst...

This parent doesn't sound like a stage parent at all. Your typical stage parents are Lindsey Lohan's and Britney Spears' parents, and look how they turned out.

This parent is defending his decision to allow his infant to "model" for Balenciaga. Sounds like a stage parent to me.

Being on one photoshoot doesn't make this person a stage parent.

OK aspiring stage parent

Something tells me you've never been even close to the arts and entertainment industry
Here, learn what your favorite term actually means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage_mother

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible that these kids will have these images of them on the internet forever. They're just kids. Where are there parents in all of this.

It wouldn’t have trigger my warning bells as I steer way clear of p*rn, R rated movies, etc.. Just looked like a weird, dystopian teddy bear until others provided context.

Umm, because that's exactly all it is. This is just marketing to kidults (https://time.com/6234061/toys-for-adults-popularity/ )--embrace the inner child and buy a $2K teddy bear purse or any of the other overpriced junk in the gift guide. The black leather bag and imagery from the earlier campaign has more fetish to it (and only adults). These children aren't sexualized, they look like kids, they don't even look enthralled with the toys, complete meh is the goal.

Now, were they stupid to put actual kids in the ads? Yes, clearly.

I think the legal text around CP being in the photo shoot is what tipped things over the edge. These people are messed up. Though I’m sure in the end the wrong people will be the ones blamed. I find it deeply ironic that in the whole Jeffrey Epstein affair, the only person prosecuted so far has been a women. All the men who committed the sex crimes have escaped prosecution. I suspect the people responsible for the look and feel of these photo shoots will similarly escape harm.

But that’s a different photo shoot, and doesn’t involve children or anyone even depicted as childlike. Connecting the two, is full on conspiracy theory.

And yet the office shoot with the document on the Alito position that virtual child pornography or pornography featuring adults who look underage was not banned also had a framed college degree document on the wall for a John Phillip Fisher, the name of a man bound over for trial for molesting his granddaughter from the ages of 4 to 16.

Why all the gratuitous references to child pornography?