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...
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...
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...
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.