What do y'all think about the Balenciaga SS23 & Adidas collab "teddy" controversy?

[Swanky]

Bears repeating!

We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop. Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.

Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.

 

[pepperdiva]

Right before the story broke, I had finally purchased an hourglass bag that I had been eyeing for long. The bag is beautiful but the company is ugly and scary. I will be returning the bag and not purchasing any more from this brand

 

[PurseUOut]

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.

Did you actually read the text of the opinion that was highlighted in the ad?



The PROTECT act makes it illegal to advertise or present any material in such a way as to lead someone to believe that the material contains "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," or "a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

The Williams decision overturned the Ashcroft decision, which once made virtual child pornography legal as protected speech because no children were being harmed.

The photos of toddlers in the Balenciaga ad pictured near and around sexual as masochistic conduct but not actually "engaging" in sexual conduct (which is what the Williams decision banned) is essentially Balenciaga's way of saying a "F U" to this decision. They weren't honoring that the decision was trying to protect children from virtual depictions of child porn - they were MOCKING THE DECISION by pushing the limits of the Protect Act. That is why the toddlers were "holding" bears with BDSM gear and not wearing it themselves (which would be illegal because its a visual depiction of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct). This is why the toddlers were pictured around bondage material but not donning it. That's why the toddlers were laying on heart shaped pillows next to empty wine glasses instead of being photographed drinking it.

 

[BPC]

Did you actually read the text of the opinion that was highlighted in the ad?

View attachment 5661507

The PROTECT act makes it illegal to advertise or present any material in such a way as to lead someone to believe that the material contains "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," or "a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

The Williams decision overturned the Ashcroft decision, which once made virtual child pornography legal as protected speech because no children were being harmed.

The photos of toddlers in the Balenciaga ad pictured near and around sexual as masochistic conduct but not actually "engaging" in sexual conduct (which is what the Williams decision banned) is essentially Balenciaga's way of saying a "F U" to this decision. They weren't honoring that the decision was trying to protect children from virtual depictions of child porn - they were MOCKING THE DECISION by pushing the limits of the Protect Act. That is why the toddlers were "holding" bears with BDSM gear and not wearing it themselves (which would be illegal because its a visual depiction of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct). This is why the toddlers were pictured around bondage material but not donning it. That's why the toddlers were laying on heart shaped pillows next to empty wine glasses instead of being photographed drinking it.

It looks like typical punk to me, not BDSM.

I agree that kids should not be photographed around alcohol and such, but the bears? I have to ask why for some it automatically goes to BDSM, and to others (me) all we see is punk. Interesting how we see the same image so differently.

 

[Kevinaxx]

I agree that kids should not be photographed around alcohol and such, but the bears? I have to ask why for some it automatically goes to BDSM,

Perhaps you didn’t see the ads referenced.

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/11/balenciaga-pulls-campaign-443-1.jpg

Balenciaga pulls controversial bear ads amid child abuse fears

“We take this matter very seriously and are taking legal action against the parties responsible for creating the set and including unapproved items for our Spring 23 campaign photoshoot.&#822…

nypost.com

 

[Allisonfaye]

And here are the problems I have with the demand that all Balenciaga products be shunned.

1. The suggestion that those who continue to enjoy their bags in public will not do so in “peace“ is repugnant. This doesn’t mean people aren’t free to feel/think whatever condemnation they want about Bal carriers. Freedom of thought and opinion is fundamental to a free society. So feel away.

2. Rather than direct ire at bag collectors for not torching their bags in a grand bonfire, direct your ire at the perpetrators of this atrocity. If you’re going to lump bag carriers in with the perps bcz they don’t activism in the precise manner you prescribe, then no one is safe from persecution in this totalitarian version of moralism where the slippery slope of guilt by association has no bottom.

3. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this horrific ad campaign doesn’t reveal anything new many of us haven’t already been acutely aware of for over a decade. The fashion and entertainment industries are awash in this sort of crime and have been trying to launder their depravation into the mainstream culture, with great success. This campaign means I will not buy anything from this Balenciaga and have been screaming bloody murder on Twitter for days. I’m going to pile on the outrage and demand consequences from retailers and collaborators. It doesn’t mean I’m dumping my vintage items from 15 - 20 years ago or that I will suddenly develop a deep concern over what random strangers think of me because they think the bag I carry is some kind of window into my corrupt soul. This Balenciaga did not make my old bags. Brand destruction is prospective, not retroactive, no matter how much those who never cared about the brand in the first place would want the brand’s annihilation to be thorough and retroactive.

4. Part of my duty as a mother is to devise strategies to protect my child from predators and instill in her an understanding of the dangers that lurk and how to avoid and escape them. I’ve been having these conversations with all mothers I know, to make sure we’re all aware of these dangers and look out for each other’s kids. I also survey the community to determine who may have an insensitivity to child sexualization and a value system incompatible with those of my family’s, and make sure I steer my child clear of them. Not letting them have “peace” is never on the menu.

This ship sailed a long time ago. I think the exact phrase was 'silence is violence'. I hope people (not directed at poster) are not being hypocritical about things.

 

[SpeedyJC]

It looks like typical punk to me, not BDSM.

I agree that kids should not be photographed around alcohol and such, but the bears? I have to ask why for some it automatically goes to BDSM, and to others (me) all we see is punk. Interesting how we see the same image so differently.

I have always been into the punk scene and all I see here is a very creepy and wrong photo shoot that sexualizes kids.

 

[Vlad]

As someone who's shot advertising campaigns with many luxury brand partners (including Kering brands), I am aware of the oversight and review that goes into every piece of content produced to ensure that it reflects the brand image and values. Everything is being closely and tightly looked over, with several steps of approval from headquarters, even for a small publication like our PurseBlog.

Can you imagine the scrutiny for a global ad campaign that is slated to run on hundreds of publications, used in multi-million dollar ad spends?

This was intentional, and the degree of free publicity is worth its weight in negative backlash. Modern audiences will soon forget and move on, and likely, Balenciaga will bounce back and be more relevant than ever before.

Sadly, that is the state of modern media. There is no negative press rings true now more than ever. The campaign was tasteless, and children should not have been a part of it.

 

[BPC]

Perhaps you didn’t see the ads referenced.

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/11/balenciaga-pulls-campaign-443-1.jpg

Balenciaga pulls controversial bear ads amid child abuse fears

“We take this matter very seriously and are taking legal action against the parties responsible for creating the set and including unapproved items for our Spring 23 campaign photoshoot.&#822…

nypost.com

I have always been into the punk scene and all I see here is a very creepy and wrong photo shoot that sexualizes kids.

I'm only harping on the bears because "I" don't see it. I do see plenty wrong with the entire campaign though.

 

[SpeedyJC]

As someone who's shot advertising campaigns with many luxury brand partners (including Kering brands), I am aware of the oversight and review that goes into every piece of content produced to ensure that it reflects the brand image and values. Everything is being closely and tightly looked over, with several steps of approval from headquarters, even for a small publication like our PurseBlog.

Can you imagine the scrutiny for a global ad campaign that is slated to run on hundreds of publications, used in multi-million dollar ad spends?

This was intentional, and the degree of free publicity is worth its weight in negative backlash. Modern audiences will soon forget and move on, and likely, Balenciaga will bounce back and be more relevant than ever before.

Sadly, that is the state of modern media. There is no negative press rings true now more than ever. The campaign was tasteless, and children should not have been a part of it.

So true!

Also Vlad you brought up a very good point and something that I have noticed now a days.

I feel like we live in the day and age of "social media outrage" and then once that outrage has died down its time to move on to the next thing to be outraged about without actually doing anything about the prior subject of outrage, rinse and repeat.

 

[MooMooVT]

As someone who's shot advertising campaigns with many luxury brand partners (including Kering brands), I am aware of the oversight and review that goes into every piece of content produced to ensure that it reflects the brand image and values. Everything is being closely and tightly looked over, with several steps of approval from headquarters, even for a small publication like our PurseBlog.

Can you imagine the scrutiny for a global ad campaign that is slated to run on hundreds of publications, used in multi-million dollar ad spends?

This was intentional, and the degree of free publicity is worth its weight in negative backlash. Modern audiences will soon forget and move on, and likely, Balenciaga will bounce back and be more relevant than ever before.

Sadly, that is the state of modern media. There is no negative press rings true now more than ever. The campaign was tasteless, and children should not have been a part of it.

Thanks for this insight. Sadly, I agree that this too shall pass. Balenciaga will have very short term backlash and possibly reduced sales. By next Christmas, everything will be forgotten.

 

[Allisonfaye]

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.

Maybe, but...I don't know if you have kids or not but you should see what is in the school library. I know it can't be posted here but I have an image that is unbelievable. EVERY person I showed it to was shocked. These books are in libraries across the country.

 

[MooMooVT]

Maybe, but...I don't know if you have kids or not but you should see what is in the school library. I know it can't be posted here but I have an image that is unbelievable. EVERY person I showed it to was shocked. These books are in libraries across the country.

All part of a large effort to desensitize children to sexuality and sexual content at a wildly inappropriate age. Playboy is less explicit that some of these "children's" books.

 

[millivanilli]

It looks like typical punk to me, not BDSM.

I agree that kids should not be photographed around alcohol and such, but the bears? I have to ask why for some it automatically goes to BDSM, and to others (me) all we see is punk. Interesting how we see the same image so differently.

I can understand that when you look at the pictures you think of punk. If we look at pictures of punks and their clothes or symbols, it is noticeable that punks wear collars (see also the picture),


but not collars that have the BDSM language in the form of a "collar". The classic BDSM collar has a ring that is supposed to be used to put on a leash or something similar. (see picture 2 of the ad on the bed, there is a leash - the yellow thingy on the bed)

The ring is an elementary part of the collars and is found in BDSM relevant jewelry, because it actually corresponds to the ring of the O,. By the ring of O, when worn, one recognizes an active member of the BDSm community, dominant people wear it as a ring on the left hand, submissive on the right. The collar is given to the submissive part by the dominant part and corresponds most closely to a wedding ring. A variation takes place such that either straight hoops are used as collars, or chains with a lock that can only be opened by the Dom. So it is a clear BDSM language. Long story, unimportant for here, but:

Punk does not have a ring of O in any form in its typical way
BDSM has the ring of O as a typical sign. THE typical sign. Either that or the triskele. These are the two main signs for BDSM.

If you look at the teddy bear, you see the ring of O pretty clearly, and as I mentioned, the setting is very clear. We also find a leash. We also find the classic handcuffs - also with the ring of O andthigh cuffs, also with an eyelet to tie them down. This is not punk, it's BDSM. The fact that punks borrow elements from BDSM and thus the boundaries are not very clear - sure, it happens all the time, it's not a bad thing. But the symbols in BOTH pictures are clear, I'm sorry to say. Believe me, I would also prefer it if BDSM would not end up in the dirty corner again. a-----------------gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain.

 

[millivanilli]

As someone who's shot advertising campaigns with many luxury brand partners (including Kering brands), I am aware of the oversight and review that goes into every piece of content produced to ensure that it reflects the brand image and values. Everything is being closely and tightly looked over, with several steps of approval from headquarters, even for a small publication like our PurseBlog.

Can you imagine the scrutiny for a global ad campaign that is slated to run on hundreds of publications, used in multi-million dollar ad spends?

This was intentional, and the degree of free publicity is worth its weight in negative backlash. Modern audiences will soon forget and move on, and likely, Balenciaga will bounce back and be more relevant than ever before.

Sadly, that is the state of modern media. There is no negative press rings true now more than ever. The campaign was tasteless, and children should not have been a part of it.

but. remember Benetton. They never recovered. So, there is hope?

 

[Allisonfaye]

All part of a large effort to desensitize children to sexuality and sexual content at a wildly inappropriate age. Playboy is less explicit that some of these "children's" books.

So true. I spoke to a school board member about it and she lied about it right to me. She didn't know I had the list already. Made up some story about a teacher having the book on her desk and being suspended. Thankfully, we got that school board out.

On another note, I remember back when I used to watch Law and Order, SVU. I quit watching it maybe 5 years ago when they started SHOWING the crimes. I could only stomach it before then because they didn't show them. Some of them were so hideous, I had nightmares about them. Anyway, I remember an episode where they found this group of pedophiles and they realized the degree of it was so deep that they were only able to make a drop in the bucket with regard to stopping it. The people had secret organizations that all kind of protected each other and I remember thinking at the time, OMG...this is probably true. Certainly the internet made it far easier for these people.