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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone saying they won’t wear Balenciaga again also means they won’t wear Bottega Veneta, Gucci, Alexander McQueen and Yves Saint Laurent too, right?

Have they sexualized children in their ads?

I see you’re justifying continuing to wear Bottega and Gucci.

I can't afford any of those brands I do not approve of sick, disturbing images that involve children.

So then a quick, yep, I wouldn’t wear those too would have made for a good response.

Lol please don't think you need to monitor my responses. I'll repeat for you: Those are sick, disturbing images that reflect the sick thinking of those who posted their "advertising art"with a nod to child porn.

Well you snark about “have they sexualized children…” was pretty off putting given you clearly didn’t know they are all owned by the same organization. You thought you were being clever. You weren’t.

DP. So you support Balenciaga’s advertising? Yes or no, please. This is an easy question.

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only why I have seen can be found by googling Andrew Tate + Balenciaga.

It's kind of the devil wears Balenciaga theory.

Can you explain what you are saying here?

The explanation given could be viewed as conspiracy theory adjacent. For that reason, I am leaving it up to those interested to follow up rather than repeat it here.

What does this mean? Is it possible for you to provide the CliffsNotes version? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone saying they won’t wear Balenciaga again also means they won’t wear Bottega Veneta, Gucci, Alexander McQueen and Yves Saint Laurent too, right?

Have they sexualized children in their ads?

I see you’re justifying continuing to wear Bottega and Gucci.

I can't afford any of those brands I do not approve of sick, disturbing images that involve children.

So then a quick, yep, I wouldn’t wear those too would have made for a good response.

Lol please don't think you need to monitor my responses. I'll repeat for you: Those are sick, disturbing images that reflect the sick thinking of those who posted their "advertising art"with a nod to child porn.

Well you snark about “have they sexualized children…” was pretty off putting given you clearly didn’t know they are all owned by the same organization. You thought you were being clever. You weren’t.

DP. So you support Balenciaga’s advertising? Yes or no, please. This is an easy question.

It’s a complicated question. It’s certainly not an easy one.

[Anonymous]

I can't conceive of how anyone would even wear vintage Balenciaga at this point. I heard about this controversy and thought yeah, right. So I looked into and now I am just haunted.

[Anonymous]

Surely there’s a bigger question at play here than whether or not a DCUM mom wears the brand or not. The whole thing is incredibly sick and disturbing. On top of that we now have WaPo writing positive reviews of a pedophilia apologist play, and it seems like the world is quickly going to hell in a handbasket. It’s all so f’ed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone saying they won’t wear Balenciaga again also means they won’t wear Bottega Veneta, Gucci, Alexander McQueen and Yves Saint Laurent too, right?

Have they sexualized children in their ads?

I see you’re justifying continuing to wear Bottega and Gucci.

I can't afford any of those brands I do not approve of sick, disturbing images that involve children.

So then a quick, yep, I wouldn’t wear those too would have made for a good response.

Lol please don't think you need to monitor my responses. I'll repeat for you: Those are sick, disturbing images that reflect the sick thinking of those who posted their "advertising art"with a nod to child porn.

Well you snark about “have they sexualized children…” was pretty off putting given you clearly didn’t know they are all owned by the same organization. You thought you were being clever. You weren’t.

DP. So you support Balenciaga’s advertising? Yes or no, please. This is an easy question.

It’s a complicated question. It’s certainly not an easy one.

Why is it complicated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone saying they won’t wear Balenciaga again also means they won’t wear Bottega Veneta, Gucci, Alexander McQueen and Yves Saint Laurent too, right?

Have they sexualized children in their ads?

I see you’re justifying continuing to wear Bottega and Gucci.

I can't afford any of those brands I do not approve of sick, disturbing images that involve children.

So then a quick, yep, I wouldn’t wear those too would have made for a good response.

Lol please don't think you need to monitor my responses. I'll repeat for you: Those are sick, disturbing images that reflect the sick thinking of those who posted their "advertising art"with a nod to child porn.

Well you snark about “have they sexualized children…” was pretty off putting given you clearly didn’t know they are all owned by the same organization. You thought you were being clever. You weren’t.

PP here. I honestly don't know why you consider my question to be snark. I asked a question because I didn't know. Regardless, I stand by my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only why I have seen can be found by googling Andrew Tate + Balenciaga.

It's kind of the devil wears Balenciaga theory.

Can you explain what you are saying here?

The explanation given could be viewed as conspiracy theory adjacent. For that reason, I am leaving it up to those interested to follow up rather than repeat it here.

What does this mean? Is it possible for you to provide the CliffsNotes version? Thanks.

This may be deleted, but I'll try. The ads contain a number of references to Satanism, alluded to in some of the posts above. Satanism apparently has a concept of karmic retribution, which you will not incur if you tell people what you are doing, in this case pedophilia. Under this theory, the people involved in putting together these ads subscribe to Satanism and through these ads are telling us what they are doing to avoid karmic retribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only why I have seen can be found by googling Andrew Tate + Balenciaga.

It's kind of the devil wears Balenciaga theory.

Can you explain what you are saying here?

The explanation given could be viewed as conspiracy theory adjacent. For that reason, I am leaving it up to those interested to follow up rather than repeat it here.

What does this mean? Is it possible for you to provide the CliffsNotes version? Thanks.

This may be deleted, but I'll try. The ads contain a number of references to Satanism, alluded to in some of the posts above. Satanism apparently has a concept of karmic retribution, which you will not incur if you tell people what you are doing, in this case pedophilia. Under this theory, the people involved in putting together these ads subscribe to Satanism and through these ads are telling us what they are doing to avoid karmic retribution.

What in the QAnon BS is this?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only why I have seen can be found by googling Andrew Tate + Balenciaga.

It's kind of the devil wears Balenciaga theory.

Can you explain what you are saying here?

The explanation given could be viewed as conspiracy theory adjacent. For that reason, I am leaving it up to those interested to follow up rather than repeat it here.

What does this mean? Is it possible for you to provide the CliffsNotes version? Thanks.

This may be deleted, but I'll try. The ads contain a number of references to Satanism, alluded to in some of the posts above. Satanism apparently has a concept of karmic retribution, which you will not incur if you tell people what you are doing, in this case pedophilia. Under this theory, the people involved in putting together these ads subscribe to Satanism and through these ads are telling us what they are doing to avoid karmic retribution.

Wut

[Anonymous]

Well, obviously given what’s going on and all that I’m reading in this thread, a bigger apology and deeper explanation is warranted!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only why I have seen can be found by googling Andrew Tate + Balenciaga.

It's kind of the devil wears Balenciaga theory.

Can you explain what you are saying here?

The explanation given could be viewed as conspiracy theory adjacent. For that reason, I am leaving it up to those interested to follow up rather than repeat it here.

What does this mean? Is it possible for you to provide the CliffsNotes version? Thanks.

This may be deleted, but I'll try. The ads contain a number of references to Satanism, alluded to in some of the posts above. Satanism apparently has a concept of karmic retribution, which you will not incur if you tell people what you are doing, in this case pedophilia. Under this theory, the people involved in putting together these ads subscribe to Satanism and through these ads are telling us what they are doing to avoid karmic retribution.

What in the QAnon BS is this?!

I’d have had the same reaction before a major fashion house created ads with children and bdsm-attired teddy bears and had CP-related papers and books in the background. It’s not a good time when the QAnon folks look prescient.

[Anonymous]

I’m French and this Eurocentric provocation does not surprise me. Until some years ago, you could watch trendy French intellectuals debate pros and cons of pedophilia on TV. This is in the same vein. France does not have the same age of consent/ statutory rape laws as most US states.

In the name of “Art” and “free speech”, many pseudo philosophers will defend Balenciaga.

[Anonymous]

No, you don't continue to support a company that condones child abuse. Sorry OP, your thousands of dollars of fashion is now trash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing to know about the company is that they were closely tied to the Franco fascist regime in Spain, which also has a horrific history of baby stealing as well.

I will never wear anything associated with the brand, and actually I am also done with the celebrities that aren’t saying anything here or giving weak condemnation like Kim Kardashian. There is just so much evidence here. It is impossible to ignore.

YES, I just read an awful story about this -- thousands of babies were taken from unwed or "unfit" mothers and given to Catholic families. disgusting.

I mean, I wouldn't support a company that sponsors Kim Kardashian anyway, but this is next level trash.