Bears repeating!
Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.
Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.
Last edited:
What do y'all think about the Balenciaga SS23 & Adidas collab "teddy" controversy?
- Thread starter MooMooVT
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
It’s disheartening to me how manipulatable we are. Once academia and the media start pushing things, we seem to easily succumb. I couldn’t care less about wearing Bal bags or not. Protect your kids.
I recently bought a neo cagole. I had been wearing it happily. But. I am putting it away for now. I love its style. But those campaigns are too disturbing.
me, too. Really, I am feeling ashamed by me now. I laughed and shrugged it off, even having a friend who survived cult abuse and who told me years ago what she witnessed, which terrified me to the core - me having experience in this field, too, there were things I even couldn't imagine but believed her in the things she told me. Yet I underlied the same bias as everyone else: "yeah, well these things happen, but not. her. Not on earth. Anywhere else, ok. But no, not here". . Actually I am feeling shame.
it is... Now listen, this is something that happens really rarely: I have no words. Literally. In no language of this world there is an expression that would describe my feelings. I am not even feeling a mixture between irritation, scientific interest and disgust. It is beyond. I want to agree wholeheartedly.:
Whether this has something to do with the campaign or not, no normal human would post something such disturbing online… something is just not right with her…
Just because a play like this, or a performance, such as Mary Louise Parker’s role in How I Learned to Drive, is reviewed positively doe NOT mean the playwright, the author, the actors, or the media reviewers, ‘support’ pedophilia, or that the topic itself has been normalized. I cannot fathom how the fact that the unsympathetic character being a former victim of child rape normalizes pedophilia. In fact, if one saw the performances or actually read the reviews, it would be clear that this is not normal or mainstream.
Similarly, Leopoldstadt doesn’t promote antisemitic, nazi behavior (and the enlightened and assimilated Jews, including Mahler, Freud. Klimt, etc. weren’t responsible for the woes of the Christian society around them). (The analogy doesn’t quite fit, but I think it’s germane to the point)
There is an enormous difference between a piece that makes people think about a difficult topic and its effect on survivors, and one such as the subject of this thread, where the ad itself promotes disturbing exploitative images of children that hve no relationship to the fashion subject matter.
ETA: I am not in support of pedophilia; I am horrified by the exploitation of children; and, I am disgusted by the balenciaga ad. (I own no balenciaga, but I do own chanel, my logic being that the Werthheimers succeeded in regaining control, and they found it good business to forgive her and support her for the remainder of her life) . I can still argue that traditional incarceration fails to rehabilitate, and I can still accept that pedophiles are often adult victims of pedophila without being supportive of the act of pedophilia. (i don’t think it can be as clearly argued that racists or neo nazis were abused and groomed as children in quite the same way).
I am also disgusted at the way some posts conflate this ad with media that they clearly deride as more woke or liberal, or generalize to suggest that this ad is somehow indicative of the manipulated and gullible public or society.
Last edited:
The play is saying we (society) treat pedophiles too harshly. So yeah. I think it is definitely moving in the direction of normalizing pedophilia. Further, it’s part of a trend. Minor attracted persons sounds so much more sanitized. Pedophiles are normal people too. We should have compassion.
The Washington Post wouldn’t make such compassionate comments about racists (or Russians, or a whole bunch of other out of favor groups.)
And that headline is totally clickbait intending to imply support of pedophilia.
The Washington Post wouldn’t make such compassionate comments about racists (or Russians, or a whole bunch of other out of favor groups.)
And that headline is totally clickbait intending to imply support of pedophilia.
Last edited:
Another nondescript, completely coincidental photo in the ad campaign of a street address - which I am sure was "randomly" pulled from the billions on Google - leading to none other than - Epstein Gynecology Associates.
Nothing to see here. Complete coincidence. Just "art".
OK, now this is ridiculous. I drive this way every time I drive to Philadelphia. That place is actually called Advocare, and now some poor doctor is going to be hassled because her name is Epstein (a very common last name).
The thing I am most shocked about are people who treat this scandal not seriously at all and how we are all conspiracists.
Last edited:
No. This isn't accurate. The campaigns were separate, with different timings and photographers, and the SCOTUS ruling did precisely the opposite of what you are saying. US v. Williams struck down an attempt to weaken the PROTECT act, which outlaws all sexually explicit imagery of children.
I don't even own any Balenciaga except sneakers, and I am not supporting anything the brand does, but in order to have this discussion we need to share accurate facts.
There have been hundreds of pages produced in litigation that have been made public, including flight manifests and passenger logs. There is a judge in Florida who is making documents from Epstein’s first criminal trial available. Before she does so, she allows those whose names are included to file their objections to the production. So far, most of the reason for objects are along the lines of “it would be embarrassing for me”. She has overruled all the objections to date.
In order to prosecute someone, the govt needs to have admissible evidence, which has been hard to find. Same for a civil, only it is the victim who has to find some evidence. Prince Andrew is a good example - there was enough evidence for a victim to file a civil case against him. The British police looked at the case twice and determined that they didn’t have enough evidence to go forward, so no criminal case was filed against him.
In addition, it has been a long time since most all of these events took place and most are probably barred by the statutes of limitations in various jurisdictions.
If you want to take a look, Google Epstein flight manifests or flight logs.
No, we take it seriously. We also think that many here are conspiracists who are very quick to believe everything they read on social media.
As far as the bears go, my mind did not automatically go to bondage or any type of kink. I was a punk in my teenage years and when I saw the bears, that's where my brain went immediately. I would have loved to own them, especially the white one with the fishnet top back then.
I think using the SC ruling on child exploitation in an ad is weird and indeterminate. Balenciaga is suing the firm that did it, correct? So they must feel not right about it.
I am not talking about anyone in particular here just in general people who are laughing it off ''hahaha Balenciaga is just edgy.'' Its one thing for this to be a mistake or an edgy attempt one time, but doing it multiple times? Then it's a pattern. And what about other connections with the stylist being into some really depraved stuff? When you add all this stuff, and people are still not outraged, it makes them look hypocritical.
The flight logs aren’t evidence of a crime. I want the client list. I agree it is highly unlikely to result in criminal charges (sadly). But like Balenciaga, the public exposure of these people is what I’m looking for.
There are so many who worship at the alter of Hollywood, political figures, and others considered in the upper echelons of society when in fact many are rapists, pedophiles, murderers, etc. But they made a funny movie or agree with me on politics or they dress fashionably and attend the Met Gala, so ignorance is bliss.
I believe the playwright is questioning what degree of compassion should society fairly hold out to those who have served their time for sexual abuse, assault or rape. And, I think the play makes it clear that the mainstream view is to view such people with disdain and distrust.
There is an enormous difference. It’s a troubling issue. And it isn’t simply semantics. And, what I find disheartening is that some posts here don’t seem to differentiate betwn discussing an issue and condoning a criminal act.
Last edited: