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.

 

[Vlad]

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.

Modern media relies on the outrage cycle to keep our attention, which is precisely why this scandal will soon be replaced by the next.

Seeing how many mainstream, non-fashion outlets have reported on this scandal, I can only imagine how many more minds have now been introduced to Balenciaga as a luxury brand. After the outrage has moved on, a careful pivot will position the brand as a desirable, edgy luxury destination.

Let's connect back in this thread in a year and see where we stand.

 

[Vlad]

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

I do. But it was a different time. The same rules don't apply anymore.

 

[MooMooVT]

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

I was surprised by how many Benetton stores I saw in Italy recently. Not sure how many are still in the US, but it felt like one on every corner in Italy.

 

[millivanilli]

I do. But it was a different time. The same rules don't apply anymore.

I am afraid you are right, but I still keep my hopes high.

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),
View attachment 5661587

Oh Lord when zooming into the picture I now DO see the monocle haematoma @RitaLA is talking about. That is ... ok... no. not. just no. Sorry, no. Just. no.

That's.... no.

 

[880]

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.

@Allisonfaye , yes, I’ve raised a child /adopted stepbrother who is much younger, and i have spent a lot of time in schools K-12 and college plus. In particular, yes I am aware of what is in school libraries. I also have a legal background, albeit decades ago, re juvenile rights division of legal aid, some of whom are representation of abused and neglected children, and some specialization in special education rights of children in public schools.

IMO, balenciaga was well aware of the nature of this ad campaign and thought they would stir up some cutting edge controversy (and severely miscalculated) into child exploitation and pedophile imagery, all of which I find appalling. I find the original intention irresponsible and lacking in every respect. And, I find the execution of such a campaign, and it’s horrendous attempt to whitewash, also horrific.

what is also disgusting is a year from now, balenciaga will be more popular than ever, and new clients will have been drawn in who only vaguely remember some kind of stir, and not any of the details.

 

[millivanilli]

I was surprised by how many Benetton stores I saw in Italy recently. Not sure how many are still in the US, but it felt like one on every corner in Italy.

you are right, there are a lot fo B stores in Italy, what I meant was: at the age of 16? Benetton was THE Thing in my country. Then the ads happened and nobody was so keen on them anymore. We do have 2 shops over here, one at the airport and the other in the main city afaIk but that hype- stopped. As far as I remember, might be, that I am misled here by my memory.

 

[QuelleFromage]

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.

Yes. I read it. You stated that this SCOTUS ruling weakened anti-pornography laws. It did not, it upheld them. The visible excerpt contains more than one argument.

You also stated the image with the document was part of the bears campaign. It is not.

Just keeping the facts straight.

As for Balenciaga's motives here, I am inclined to agree with @Vlad that the bears campaign was intentionally over the line to stir up controversy. There are too many things wrong for it to be a misjudgment. Again, I don't know a single executive who would have signed off on that. I am glad I was never a fan of this era of Balenciaga, and I feel terrible for those who feel betrayed by the brand.

 

[MooMooVT]

you are right, there are a lot fo B stores in Italy, what I meant was: at the age of 16? Benetton was THE Thing in my country. Then the ads happened and nobody was so keen on them anymore. We do have 2 shops over here, one at the airport and the other in the main city afaIk but that hype- stopped. As far as I remember, might be, that I am misled here by my memory.

I just searched and I don't see any stores in the US!

 

[millivanilli]

not sure about that "over the line" I guess we have really serious BDSM fanatics going on... On the bright side: no children, no teddy bear.

 

[PurseUOut]

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),
View attachment 5661587

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)

View attachment 5661588The 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.

Well stated. While some can reasonably conclude this is "punk" I find others are being purposely obtuse as to what this imagery is actually depicting/promoting - which is clearly the sexualization and masochistic abuse of children; to the extent that the law will let them get away with visualizing (as the court decision in Williams inferred). And then to further gaslight us who KNOW what the truth as super woke cancel culture vultures when we are simply enforcing the universally agreed upon boundary of not involving children in adult sexualized **** is quite infuriating. I am a black woman. If Balenciaga had an ad promoting white hoods or other KKK references I would not be calling for a universal boycott. To the contrary, I believe companies are permitted to be racist, sexist, etc. and the free market should dictate whether or not their company ethos is acceptable to the public and/or profitable to them. But when it comes to babies/toddlers/children - those who cannot reasonably give any consent - we as adults have the obligation and duty to protect them and their innocence until such time comes when they are adults and can freely consent to BDSM/kink imagery on their own accord. The fact that I even have to spell this out to adults who should know better is even more disgusting than the actual ad itself.

 

[aunaturale9]

Ah I came on here to ask-- I have one Balenciaga bag, but I am not sure if I should keep it now. I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing it now that all this is happening, but what is everyone else doing?

 

[MooMooVT]

Ah I came on here to ask-- I have one Balenciaga bag, but I am not sure if I should keep it now. I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing it now that all this is happening, but what is everyone else doing?

This is a good question and I’m not sure there’s any “right” answer. I don’t have any Bal bags, but if this happened with Gucci, I’m not sure what I would do. I don’t love the idea that a generational brand should die for the sins of the current administration. If the bag (or other goods) is heavily logo’d, I personally would hold off on carrying it. IDK. This is all so crazy. I look forward to others thoughts and appreciate those who’ve already commented on their thoughts.

 

[MooMooVT]

not sure about that "over the line" I guess we have really serious BDSM fanatics going on... On the bright side: no children, no teddy bear.

View attachment 5661620

No children is the key for me. Adults can do what they like as long as it doesn’t involve children

 

[xpixi]

I dont know if anyone else noticed, but theres a group of people (not necessarily on this forum but they know who they are) and I see them in the media too who try to shift the convo away from this issue and minimize the severity of it and I find that absolutely disgusting that their agenda is more important than children's safety.

 

[carlinha]

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),
View attachment 5661587

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)

View attachment 5661588The 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.

oh my goodness. thank you for the education.

i never knew about this "ring of O" and had to look it up... but honest, sincere question.... the popular Hermes collier de chien design (ring and bracelet) - which i love coincidentally - is this viewed as a "ring of O"??? are people looking at me with these pieces of jewelry thinking i practice BDSM?