Anonymous wrote:WTF? I mean, I hate their aesthetic so wouldn't wear that anyway but this isn't a good look. Super bad judgement, but I also don't see the art in this at all.

I love the aesthetic, but I’m choosing not to promote this brand by wearing it at this moment.

I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that you’re not wearing it because you don’t like the brand and it’s easier to resist? In other words that if you loved the product you to wear it? Not quite sure.

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.

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.

It was Balenciaga’s responsibility to monitor the adds made for their specific brand. It was not Gucci’s job to predict the future and know this firm allegedly exploited kids; they’re not psychic! Obviously, any brand using these advertisers need to heavily, scrutinized any continent, or just choose other advertisers.

You can still wear Gucci and the other brands.

WTF? I mean, I hate their aesthetic so wouldn't wear that anyway but this isn't a good look. Super bad judgement, but I also don't see the art in this at all.

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.

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.

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 only why I have seen can be found by googling Andrew Tate + Balenciaga.

It's kind of the devil wears Balenciaga theory.

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.

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.

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.

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?

When did those brands advertise using Supreme Court opinions about child pornography?

They are all owned by the same company. Have they spoken out? Has Kering?

Ah, good point. I’m ok cutting those brands out too for supporting this twisted advertising.

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.

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?

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?

When did those brands advertise using Supreme Court opinions about child pornography?

They are all owned by the same company. Have they spoken out? Has Kering?