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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a retired museum photographer and I have retouched over 45,000 photos of my work and other photographers images. Those images were heavily scrutinized and there’s no way I would have missed the stuff in the background of the office photos.

I didn’t work in the fashion industry but I have two close friends who did. A fashion photographer and a retouch artist. The fashion photographer almost always works at the direction of an art director who has cleared their project with those at the top. A retoucher reviews every detail of an image used for advertising and usually works with a team. There’s absolutely no way one photographer or a rogue art director made these images happen alone. Balenciaga is right they are wholly responsible but I don’t buy the “we didn’t know what was going on in our own shop” bs.

I’ll also just say that the Michael Booreman book in the background is absolutely questionable and everyone at Balenciaga would damn well know that. They would know what that is and allowed. Photographers/art directors are well aware of who the controversial photographers are and you don’t even bring them up in conversation.

Thanks for the context. I didn’t understand outrage.

[Anonymous]

This is the most ridiculous non-crime since the Satanic Panic of the 80s. No children were harmed; any risqué meaning exists only in minds of adults. Everybody chill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous non-crime since the Satanic Panic of the 80s. No children were harmed; any risqué meaning exists only in minds of adults. Everybody chill.

Ok Balanciaga PR. Your opinion is noted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, but the downstream consumers who would normally buy used designer goods also read the internet. They aren’t going to buy it either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous non-crime since the Satanic Panic of the 80s. No children were harmed; any risqué meaning exists only in minds of adults. Everybody chill.

Ok Balanciaga PR. Your opinion is noted.

Balenciaga's PR is actually agreeing with you, scandalized non-consumer or puritan consumers. They deleted all their instagram posts.
It is, in fact, the most ridiculous non-crime since the Satanic Panic in the 80's. DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous non-crime since the Satanic Panic of the 80s. No children were harmed; any risqué meaning exists only in minds of adults. Everybody chill.

Ok Balanciaga PR. Your opinion is noted.

Balenciaga's PR is actually agreeing with you, scandalized non-consumer or puritan consumers. They deleted all their instagram posts.
It is, in fact, the most ridiculous non-crime since the Satanic Panic in the 80's. DP

Relax. This isn’t Satanic panic. This is a discussion as to whether or not we choose to spend money on a brand that at best was somewhat reckless. Nobody in this strand is suggesting that Balenciaga be shut down we are simply stating that we may choose not to wear our Balenciaga stuff or buy it in the future.

[Anonymous]

I would be curious to know if recent sales are down at Balenciaga. Does anyone have any info on that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous non-crime since the Satanic Panic of the 80s. No children were harmed; any risqué meaning exists only in minds of adults. Everybody chill.

Are you one of their "creative artists?" 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t. It’s like saying I support sexual exploitation of children. I’m sorry, but their apology was BS and there is a pattern here. The Ashcroft decision appearing in their ads as a “wink wink” combined with the horrific teddy bear ads is just too much for me. I feel gross even touching my stuff from them now.

+10000

+1 sick people with disturbed minds using children

What did they do to the children? I'm confused...

[Anonymous]

Yes of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:of course it is. They were misguided "art" pictures. They didn't DO anything to children.

Buy what you want.

Nope. It is very sick to use children in that way. Using children is doing something to them and putting images that are disturbing with their faces.

I agree with this. I’m honestly usually pretty pro art and not easily scandalized by controversial images. I do believe these images are intended to sexualize children which is vile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t. It’s like saying I support sexual exploitation of children. I’m sorry, but their apology was BS and there is a pattern here. The Ashcroft decision appearing in their ads as a “wink wink” combined with the horrific teddy bear ads is just too much for me. I feel gross even touching my stuff from them now.

+10000

+1 sick people with disturbed minds using children

What did they do to the children? I'm confused...

They took pictures of children holding BDSM teddy bears next to a court decision legalizing simulated child p**n. I am sure somebody else can articulate what they “did” to children with that shoot but I personally don’t need it spelled out for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t. It’s like saying I support sexual exploitation of children. I’m sorry, but their apology was BS and there is a pattern here. The Ashcroft decision appearing in their ads as a “wink wink” combined with the horrific teddy bear ads is just too much for me. I feel gross even touching my stuff from them now.

+10000

+1 sick people with disturbed minds using children

What did they do to the children? I'm confused...

They shared images of children with sexual imagery. Sexual assault of a person can be a picture and these kids are not able to consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t. It’s like saying I support sexual exploitation of children. I’m sorry, but their apology was BS and there is a pattern here. The Ashcroft decision appearing in their ads as a “wink wink” combined with the horrific teddy bear ads is just too much for me. I feel gross even touching my stuff from them now.

+10000

+1 sick people with disturbed minds using children

What did they do to the children? I'm confused...

If you're "confused" by what is wrong in those pictures and their association with pedophilia, then there is something very wrong with your thinking.