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: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.

DP but YES. It is unbelievable that QAnon folks have been spouting insanity for years and then a major fashion house goes and seems to prove a bunch of their insane theories about pedophilia correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Disgusting

[Anonymous]

Their stuff is hideous. So, no, I wouldn’t wear it. Plus, Kanye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Their stuff is hideous. So, no, I wouldn’t wear it. Plus, Kanye.

So pedophilia is okay, but Kanye is a no-go. Got it.

[Anonymous]

It seems pretty clear that Baleciaga senior stylist, Lotta Volkova, was a huge influence in the ad campaign. She was not named in Balenciaga's lawsuit, although the set designer was.

Here's an article on Lotta with pictures from her Instagram, now made private. It is clear she has an interest in satanism and BDSM involving children--there is even a prototype of the bondage teddy bear.

https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/who-lotta-volkova-balenciaga-designer-private-instagram-pictures-sparks-outrage-online

From a conservative source (but clearer versions of the Insta pictures): https://www.theamericanconservative.com/lotta-volkova-the-devil-styles-balenciaga/

[Anonymous]

You know it does make me think though. Some of these extremely expensive labels do very problematic things and then you could be stuck with thousands of dollars of cringeworthy apparel if it’s really bad, like this is. It just makes the whole chasing labels thing even more pointless.

There’s always resale, I guess.

[Anonymous]

NP here. A thread on Lotta and her friends, esp Parisian partner Alban Adam

https://twitter.com/curioslight/status/1596812625517498368?s=46

https://twitter.com/curioslight/status/1597338408119980032?s=46

[Anonymous]

It seems pretty clear that Baleciaga senior stylist, Lotta Volkova, was a huge influence in the ad campaign. She was not named in Balenciaga's lawsuit, although the set designer was.

It's ridiculous that Balenciaga is suing their own team of people, who they chose and paid to do the work, which they also approved.

Lotta Volkova hasn't been with Balenciaga since 2017.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their stuff is hideous. So, no, I wouldn’t wear it. Plus, Kanye.

So pedophilia is okay, but Kanye is a no-go. Got it.

You have comprehension issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their stuff is hideous. So, no, I wouldn’t wear it. Plus, Kanye.

So pedophilia is okay, but Kanye is a no-go. Got it.

Nope def not ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their stuff is hideous. So, no, I wouldn’t wear it. Plus, Kanye.

So pedophilia is okay, but Kanye is a no-go. Got it.

You have comprehension issues.

Point to where pp's statement condemns the use of children in inappropriate ways in their advertising. Because I don't see it.

[Anonymous]

Balenciaga has always been somewhat nouveau Riche. Quite frankly where other brands. I don’t think that it will ever be appropriate to wear Balenciaga again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

What are the age of consent/ statutory rape laws in France? Are there any?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

What are the age of consent/ statutory rape laws in France? Are there any?

15. Until last year, statutory rape was not prosecuted as rape unless there was proof of coercion.

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-sets-age-of-consent-at-15/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. A thread on Lotta and her friends, esp Parisian partner Alban Adam

https://twitter.com/curioslight/status/1596812625517498368?s=46

https://twitter.com/curioslight/status/1597338408119980032?s=46

That is very creepy.