Balenciaga apologises for bondage bear advert involving child

I don’t think any criminal offences have been committed- maybe some breaches of advertising regulations, possible some breaches of contract by various parties.

I would have though the photographer needed to restore his reputation otherwise his livelihood is threatened, if not ruined.

Surely he'll sue?

What happens now? Do Balenciaga and the photographer blame each other until something else happens elsewhere and people are distracted by whatever that is,and this is forgotten?
Have any offences been committed and will the people behind this be held to account?
If all that happens is some internet outrage for a few days, then it's business as usual,nothing changes.

Fucking hell.

It's obviously one or more pedophiles involved.

I have no idea how something like this gets investigated. Has a crime even been committed?

Baal is the name of an ancient god, associated with the sacrifice of children.

The certificate being displayed to the left of the model is made out to John Phillip Fisher. That is the name of a man convinced of sexually assaulting his granddaughter from the age for 4 for years and years.

Most of the children in those photos- the lined up toy photos as well- look miserable. They are sometimes perched up somewhere uncomfortable. And I'm really unhappy about the wide open window behind the girl on the sofa upthread. I don't generally spot what everyone else is talking about, just a feeling of unease, but that window makes me twitch.

I've missed the issue with the Baal tape? What's that about?

And why is the middle of Clemene's photos problematic?

Just for clarification, the child is not heavily masked. I blanked out her face to protect her identity. She is staring, unsmiling, Ito the camera. She looks unsure, worried.

Apologies for not making that clear.

Everyone involved has their mind so open, the brains have fallen out but how did the parents let their kids be staged like this? Or sign off?

I.can‘t wrap my mind around the fact that decision makers at Balenciaga signed off on the campaign or campaigns (I though it was one but apparently not?).
The customers of Balenciaga are fashion-conscious women, not some guys who are into kink and innuendo regarding Child sexual abuse. So WHY???
Even if I as the decision maker were into such pics, surely I would not sign off on the campaign but find an escuse for not publishing what I ordered and just keep the pics privately? It makes no sense.

I don’t really care if the photographer experiences fallout. He didn’t create the set, but he is party to it by having taken those photos. I understand he didn’t take the one with the Supreme Court document, but he did take the ones with the children. Everyone involved is responsible.

It still give us a series of situations, though, not just a single instance, involving Balenciaga, and not just a one-off.

First transgression... OK, accidental, possibly.

But two, and three?

No. That's getting into deliberate.

It repeats patterns of domestic violence and sexual violence, where victims are convinced by the abuser, and possibly others such as the police, to accept each assault as an "isolated incident" each time, rather than recognising a pattern of abusive behaviours, as posters are doing on this thread, linking images, previous images, people involved, etc.

No, it is not accidental.

The pp may have a point re it being different campaigns.

It’s a bit misleading as Balenciaga apologise in the statement for the images with one photographer (the guy that lines stuff up) and also mentions suing them / or someone else for the court docs.

The court doc pic is another photographer though, who hasn’t commented

Or maybe that's the point? It is a marketing campaign deliberately aimed at the wealthy creep / paedophile "community"?

Nothing surprises me any more.

That picture upthread of a child, face down, heavily masked, behind a table of empty drinks glasses. With that creepy bear behind the child's bottom. That is not accidental. That's just creepy as hell.

And who the hell would be the grown-up who carries that creepy bondage bear around as a handbag? I really do not understand how that creepy bear handbag could ever be an aspirational piece of expensive haute fashion. It's not. Its just plain creepy and pervy. And if I ever saw an adult carrying or wearing that creepy bear, I would clock them as a creep and someone I would not leave alone with children.

Yep he has reportedly received death threats. Well and truly thrown under the bus by Balenciaga - which honestly make me think worse of them than some tasteless shock-value ad campaigns.

Most definitely.
But I guarantee the photographer will be the one who takes the fall for it

I don't hold the photographer responsible. The creative director is 🚩

Yeah, that was my point, so many people seem to think it’s a problem with one particular photographer, but it’s not.

I mentioned pizzagate, because I genuinely do feel like the occult/sacrifice themes are a nod it it. It might not be, but it just seems too alike to me. The themes are there and it’s very topical, you’d think if there was hint of a connection they’d steer clear.

Now whether that’s because they’re (I don’t know ‘they are’ but it’s clearly more than one person) ‘in on it’, whether they’re doing it to be ‘edgy’ or cool, or whether they’re just straight trolling, I don’t know.

But what I do know, is that it wasn’t a mistake, it wasn’t an assistant ringing the alarm, it wasn’t one photographer gone rogue.

Too many people would have had eyes on it, signed of it.

And a company combining occult imagery, with sexual bondage themes with a CHILD front and centre must not be allowed to stand.

The point I was trying to make is that they might be different campaigns but there is a common thread.

Why the fuck was my post deleted @mumsnet? I posted nothing but factual information about drag queens being in every area of life now, including children's entertainment, something that would have been unthinkable 5 years ago. And it is absolutely undeniable that many of them use fetishistic costumes and sexualised names. The public is absolutely used to seeing them everywhere and somebody made this decision to put them everywhere on behalf of the public. No specific name was mentioned.

Oh come on. Talk about a simplistic view 🙄

I love them as a brand, to me the bear bags remind me of my gothic days more than bondage. I think it's the press who has swung this to the negative and I hope the little girl involved isn't dragged through the papers!

No.
It was an entirely different campaign that was part of their collaboration with Adidas.

I said it above, I don’t care if people call me a conspiracy theorist. 🤷‍♀️