Dua Lipa removes balenciaga outfit on last FN tour stop

[Ivy 10,801]

Good for her

2 hours ago, Kimmo said:

And not just for that ad, multiple previous ads were found to have more pedophilia material hidden as well as the Instagram 
 

 

They need to investigate this photographer omg 

[LateToCult 36,404]

Gar ordering 3 as we speak

[blzr 1,267]

I have a feeling people are overreacting on this. Yes children should not be used in a campaign featuring BDSM toys, however it is perfectly possible for a brand to exercise poor judgement when planning these. Doesn’t mean they want to promote child sexual abuse. Balenciaga immediately took down the ads, issued public apology and are suing the company that executed the campaign for millions. Is that not enough? Someone enlighten me, please, what am I missing? 

[Killa 14,409]

Omg what is this

its way too early to see this kind of content

[hieronymus 8,218]

22 minutes ago, blzr said:

I have a feeling people are overreacting on this. Yes children should not be used in a campaign featuring BDSM toys, however it is perfectly possible for a brand to exercise poor judgement when planning these. Doesn’t mean they want to promote child sexual abuse. Balenciaga immediately took down the ads, issued public apology and are suing the company that executed the campaign for millions. Is that not enough? Someone enlighten me, please, what am I missing? 

one of the bags was sitting on some kind of court document specifically detailing CP photos. it's not just an oversighted whoopsiedoo of aesthetics.

the perception of the brand has been tainted for people. that's what happens with bad public relations. they either slowly regain that trust or change demographics... maybe they can contact aliens and sell them ugly clothes now

[blzr 1,267]

47 minutes ago, Hold My Ham said:

one of the bags was sitting on some kind of court document specifically detailing CP photos. it's not just an oversighted whoopsiedoo of aesthetics.

the perception of the brand has been tainted for people. that's what happens with bad public relations. they either slowly regain that trust or change demographics... maybe they can contact aliens and sell them ugly clothes now

https://www.instagram.com/p/Clg9BijLUHe/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
 

Here’s Balenciaga’s lengthy explanation about the issue including the court documents.  (Sorry I don’t know how to embed IG posts) 

[chun li 2,218]

Mugler is where the iconicity's at anyway

[MonsterPaws 2,631]

9 hours ago, Anderson123 said:

Queen of staying away from controversy.

 

 

Except Levitating lawsuit but that’s another thing.

Well to be fair to her, she was dragged into that ridiculous Levitating lawsuit.

Adam Neely did a great video on the topic on YT.

[MonsterPaws 2,631]

5 hours ago, blzr said:

I have a feeling people are overreacting on this. Yes children should not be used in a campaign featuring BDSM toys, however it is perfectly possible for a brand to exercise poor judgement when planning these. Doesn’t mean they want to promote child sexual abuse. Balenciaga immediately took down the ads, issued public apology and are suing the company that executed the campaign for millions. Is that not enough? Someone enlighten me, please, what am I missing? 

I would have somewhat agreed if it was just an accidental and tasteless use of BDSM-like aesthetics.

But the ads were filled with hidden references of court cases of p*dophilia and related subject matter mostly defending the notion. It's quite sick actually.

Whoever at Balenciaga came up with the marketing campaign is either very pro-p*dophilia or somehow managed to "accidentally" put in all those easter eggs without noticing (yeah no). Maybe they were making a statement against it? But I highly doubt it given the use of BDSM-like aesthetics on children.

Again, just very very sick and disturbing.

And let's be honest, Balenciaga only apologized because they got caught. The fact that children in BDSM-like clothing didn't trigger any reactions at the company is reflective of a fundamental lack of concern for the topic in exchange for edginess and whatever profit gains this remotely could have gotten the brand.

[blzr 1,267]

15 minutes ago, MonsterPaws said:

I would have somewhat agreed if it was just an accidental and tasteless use of BDSM-like aesthetics.

But the ads were filled with hidden references of court cases of p*dophilia and related subject matter mostly defending the notion. It's quite sick actually.

Whoever at Balenciaga came up with the marketing campaign is either very pro-p*dophilia or somehow managed to "accidentally" put in all those easter eggs without noticing (yeah no). Maybe they were making a statement against it? But I highly doubt it given the use of BDSM-like aesthetics on children.

Again, just very very sick and disturbing.

And let's be honest, Balenciaga only apologized because they got caught. The fact that children in BDSM-like clothing didn't trigger any reactions at the company is reflective of a fundamental lack of concern for the topic in exchange for edginess and whatever profit gains this remotely could have gotten the brand.

Tbh I saw the ads before the outrage as I’m following Balenciaga on IG. I didn’t find it disturbing or unusual in the least, I just thought that that was a very Balenciaga way of marketing their gifts. The ads did not trigger any pdf file feelings neither consciously nor subconsciously. I did not suddenly think child sexual abuse is okay. So let’s really ask ourselves - is the outrage justified? Does Balenciaga really promote or glorify child abuse with this campaign? Are the ads really doing that or are people just looking for reasons to be mad at one of the most successful fashion brands?

Don’t get me wrong, questions should be asked, apologies should be issued, changes should be made, BUT cancelling the brand and going as far as celebs disassociating themselves from the brand.. I think that’s unnecessary and too much. 

[NATAH 31,410]

2 minutes ago, blzr said:

Tbh I saw the ads before the outrage as I’m following Balenciaga on IG. I didn’t find it disturbing or unusual in the least, I just thought that that was a very Balenciaga way of marketing their gifts. The ads did not trigger any pdf file feelings neither consciously nor subconsciously. I did not suddenly think child sexual abuse is okay. So let’s really ask ourselves - is the outrage justified? Does Balenciaga really promote or glorify child abuse with this campaign? Are the ads really doing that or are people just looking for reasons to be mad at one of the most successful fashion brands?

Don’t get me wrong, questions should be asked, apologies should be issued, changes should be made, BUT cancelling the brand and going as far as celebs disassociating themselves from the brand.. I think that’s unnecessary and too much. 

please give one good, reasonable reason why a fashion ad needs references to CP and CSA? this isn't an "oopsie", it was intentional...

also you might wanna work on this:

3 minutes ago, blzr said:

 I didn’t find it disturbing or unusual in the least

 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,205]

9 hours ago, HausOfAntonio said:

chunky shoes…

My FAV!  

 

[MonsterPaws 2,631]

18 minutes ago, blzr said:

Tbh I saw the ads before the outrage as I’m following Balenciaga on IG. I didn’t find it disturbing or unusual in the least, I just thought that that was a very Balenciaga way of marketing their gifts. The ads did not trigger any pdf file feelings neither consciously nor subconsciously. I did not suddenly think child sexual abuse is okay. So let’s really ask ourselves - is the outrage justified? Does Balenciaga really promote or glorify child abuse with this campaign? Are the ads really doing that or are people just looking for reasons to be mad at one of the most successful fashion brands?

Don’t get me wrong, questions should be asked, apologies should be issued, changes should be made, BUT cancelling the brand and going as far as celebs disassociating themselves from the brand.. I think that’s unnecessary and too much. 

Let's break this down a bit cuz I have some free time on hand:

"I didn’t find it disturbing or unusual in the least, I just thought that that was a very Balenciaga way of marketing their gifts"

Well, in that case it's very subjective and up to you. Clearly a lot of people caught on to the pedo allusions and references. I personally didn't notice the documents, but immediately felt off about the weird clothing because why are children dressed in clothing inspired by adult sexual acts? If BDSM clothing on a child doesn't trigger that for you, that's okay maybe you've never been exposed to the topic of BDSM enough to trigger a response. But it IS disturbing take it or leave it.

"I did not suddenly think child sexual abuse is okay."

I don't understand how this is necessary relevant or what the ad aims at doing. But interestingly enough, by insinuating it's not a big deal, you're somewhat complicit with at least the idea of sexualization of kids in art. And given the inclusion of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling on child ****ography laws, you're also at least okay/dont find issue with the ideas presented/advocated for by the artist behind the ad campaign.

Let's bring in analogy. Let's imagine a Balenciaga ad where a tall, gorgeous white model is wearing a perfectly tailored suit on top of her desk in a skyscraper in New York. Below her, an also drop dead gorgeous black model is laying on the ground beneath, presumably the suit-wearing woman's assistant. Strewn about are perhaps documents like the 13th amendment, or the 1896 Plessy v Ferguson Supreme Court Ruling.

We could say there's nothing wrong with the photo and "won't trigger a response".  But the inclusion of those documents implies a statement and specific purpose from the artist. The artist is telling us something. Why include such documents? What is the implication behind the positioning of the models? What is the artist trying to convey implicitly to avoid backlash?

In the case of the Balenciaga campaign, the artist(s) are telling us they don't agree with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling on CP--which asserted that CP is NOT protected by freedom of speech and is illegal. So fundamentally if you don't find the ad problematic or doesn't have you question the artist's moral position that's on you babe.

"Does Balenciaga really promote or glorify child abuse with this campaign?"

I would count CP as child abuse depending on its form.

So promoting child abuse? No.

Glorifying it? Yes. That's clearly the artistic angle that's been taken. Transforming sexual imagery associated with adults unto children and sneaking in the "right to create child ****ography" marginalia is literally glorification of CP.

"Are the ads really doing that or are people just looking for reasons to be mad at one of the most successful fashion brands?"

A bit of both. It's sort of like the whole Qatar hosting the World Cup situation. Do people actually care about the human right abuses and homophobia in Qatar, or are they looking for reasons to be mad at brown people? It can be both. Some people are sincere in their criticisms while others are just jumping on the bandwagon.

The key is understanding nuance.

Sorry for the long response! But in respect of your opinion I refuse to write a quick jab and ignore your opinion as they are also valid. I'd rather write something genuine and hopefully convincing instead.

[blzr 1,267]

40 minutes ago, MonsterPaws said:

Let's break this down a bit cuz I have some free time on hand:

"I didn’t find it disturbing or unusual in the least, I just thought that that was a very Balenciaga way of marketing their gifts"

Well, in that case it's very subjective and up to you. Clearly a lot of people caught on to the pedo allusions and references. I personally didn't notice the documents, but immediately felt off about the weird clothing because why are children dressed in clothing inspired by adult sexual acts? If BDSM clothing on a child doesn't trigger that for you, that's okay maybe you've never been exposed to the topic of BDSM enough to trigger a response. But it IS disturbing take it or leave it.

"I did not suddenly think child sexual abuse is okay."

I don't understand how this is necessary relevant or what the ad aims at doing. But interestingly enough, by insinuating it's not a big deal, you're somewhat complicit with at least the idea of sexualization of kids in art. And given the inclusion of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling on child ****ography laws, you're also at least okay/dont find issue with the ideas presented/advocated for by the artist behind the ad campaign.

Let's bring in analogy. Let's imagine a Balenciaga ad where a tall, gorgeous white model is wearing a perfectly tailored suit on top of her desk in a skyscraper in New York. Below her, an also drop dead gorgeous black model is laying on the ground beneath, presumably the suit-wearing woman's assistant. Strewn about are perhaps documents like the 13th amendment, or the 1896 Plessy v Ferguson Supreme Court Ruling.

We could say there's nothing wrong with the photo and "won't trigger a response".  But the inclusion of those documents implies a statement and specific purpose from the artist. The artist is telling us something. Why include such documents? What is the implication behind the positioning of the models? What is the artist trying to convey implicitly to avoid backlash?

In the case of the Balenciaga campaign, the artist(s) are telling us they don't agree with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling on CP--which asserted that CP is NOT protected by freedom of speech and is illegal. So fundamentally if you don't find the ad problematic or doesn't have you question the artist's moral position that's on you babe.

"Does Balenciaga really promote or glorify child abuse with this campaign?"

I would count CP as child abuse depending on its form.

So promoting child abuse? No.

Glorifying it? Yes. That's clearly the artistic angle that's been taken. Transforming sexual imagery associated with adults unto children and sneaking in the "right to create child ****ography" marginalia is literally glorification of CP.

"Are the ads really doing that or are people just looking for reasons to be mad at one of the most successful fashion brands?"

A bit of both. It's sort of like the whole Qatar hosting the World Cup situation. Do people actually care about the human right abuses and homophobia in Qatar, or are they looking for reasons to be mad at brown people? It can be both. Some people are sincere in their criticisms while others are just jumping on the bandwagon.

The key is understanding nuance.

Sorry for the long response! But in respect of your opinion I refuse to write a quick jab and ignore your opinion as they are also valid. I'd rather write something genuine and hopefully convincing instead.

I appreciate you taking the time to write this and for responding in a respectful way. I think both points are valid, however both of us have no way of knowing what really happened and what the intentions behind it were. If it was intentional or accidental. Was it Balenciaga’s lack of proper judgment or intentional attempt at glorifying CP/CSA?

I read Demna’s statement and I accepted it as valid, sometimes mistakes do happen. Does Balenciaga have previous and repeated instances of glorifying CP/CSA? If that is the first time it happened should they be cancelled and their reputation tarnished forever because of this given they 1) immediately removed the pictures; 2)  issued public apologies; 3) are suing the company that produced the campaign. 
 

I mean, what else can they do to make it right if that really was an unintentional mistake? 

[MonsterPaws 2,631]

18 hours ago, blzr said:

I appreciate you taking the time to write this and for responding in a respectful way. I think both points are valid, however both of us have no way of knowing what really happened and what the intentions behind it were. If it was intentional or accidental. Was it Balenciaga’s lack of proper judgment or intentional attempt at glorifying CP/CSA?

I read Demna’s statement and I accepted it as valid, sometimes mistakes do happen. Does Balenciaga have previous and repeated instances of glorifying CP/CSA? If that is the first time it happened should they be cancelled and their reputation tarnished forever because of this given they 1) immediately removed the pictures; 2)  issued public apologies; 3) are suing the company that produced the campaign. 
 

I mean, what else can they do to make it right if that really was an unintentional mistake? 

Just to be clear, I'm not blaming Balenciaga the brand overall nor mean to insinuate they were in on it. It's more likely they just hired the artists based on their reputation and didn't even pay close attention to the details of the shoot.

But whoever came up with the photoshoot itself most definitely did not do this by mistake. It's very very intentional.

Though I will reiterate that just the BDSM-inspired clothing alone should have raised some red flags into Balenciaga's marketing team to at least dive in deeper at what the artistic intention was.