Balenciaga apologises for bondage bear advert involving child

I live in a run-down northern town where, like many places in the uk, the high street is practically dead. We have had a new designer shop open, part of a chain I think, that sells various designer brands. My first thought when I saw it was 'how long will that last'.

Anyway, walking past the window to get to a shop I can afford I noticed a pair of Balenciaga trainers in the window - I only clocked them because they were bloody ridiculous and similar to ones I have seen mocked here on Style and Beauty I pointed them out to DD as they were so OTT.

So I guess Balenciaga is being promoted as an aspirational brand here in the nothing-special place where I live, in an actual new shop. Make of that what you will.

Do Balenciaga have a high street presence? Or are they more elite? I wouldn't be surprised to see some more physical objections if they do.

I have just sent Balenciaga a strong email. I found their address on their website.

When porn started to become more widespread, that was said about women who protested. Women were bullied with the gaslighting 'prudes/freedom of expression/its a free country/ its art'.

Now look where we are, porn is mainstream.

This is how things go in the US now. So many people want to see what the political other “side” says before taking a stance on anything. It’s really crazy. It’s not just the media, so many people in real life behave this way.

Batshit

Making a stuffed animal, a child’s toy, with swollen black eyes wearing bdsm gear. Is Balenciaga saying that was someone else, too?

And hiring pre-schoolers for the shoot? Did the photographer do that without their knowledge? Hell no.

This is how things go in the US now. So many people want to see what the political other “side” says before taking a stance on anything. It’s really crazy. It’s not just the media, so many people in real life behave this way.

Making a stuffed animal, a child’s toy, with swollen black eyes wearing bdsm gear. Is Balenciaga saying that was someone else, too?

Exactly. I think everyone of all political leanings should be calling this out. It's just another example of the left not doing so.

The photographer says he's the victim

Well he's right to point out that the products featured and models chosen would have had nothing to do with him.

An important question is who placed the papers that referenced the court case, because that indicates a level of intent that isn't deniable. Was it him? Someone in his team? Someone else?

And yes, absolutely right that he could have walked away, but I don't think that's his style. He strikes me as up to his neck in all this. However, equally I don't like Balanciega's attempt to pin it all on him, because someone in their company signed it off and they need to take responsibility.

A few years ago there was a thread on here regarding an advert for a particular brand of clothes I believe for children (I think it may have been a Swiss or Swedish company) the pictures of the children and the staging were very disturbing. Many posters condemned it then along came a poster who apparently had some connection to the designers or brand berating those who complained for their lack of progressiveness it was just art, you are just unintelligent repressed prudes who just don't understand - the usual defence.

Fashion is awash with this type of stuff and Balenciaga is only the latest in a long line and the justification is always, always - it's just art.

The fashion industry is a cess pit of exploitation, there was an eye opening documentary on the abuses within the industry of models by agencies and photographers.

"Child pornography" is a term in US federal law:

lawrina.com/us-law/federal/codes/title-18/part-i/chapter-110/sec-2252a/
18 U.S. Code Section 2252A - Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography

www.missingkids.org/theissues/csam
"United States federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (a person less than 18 years old). Outside of the legal system, NCMEC chooses to refer to these images as Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) to most accurately reflect what is depicted – the sexual abuse and exploitation of children."

We don't say it here, but if that is their law then it's not a massive leap to substituting "child" for "kiddie".

Well Tucker Carlson would wouldn't he.

I'm also disturbed that the right is vocalising this so strongly (and getting it slightly wrong) and the left are doing what? Are their left wing people in the US discussing this? If not, why not? I would like to stand beside people I also have other things in common with ie not TC.

The photographer says he's the victim:

Balenciaga photographer says he's being 'lynched'
mol.im/a/11463573

Unless someone held a gun to his head, I'm assuming there's always the option to say no. There's plenty of times I could've done the wrong thing at work to progress, or just keep the peace, but didn't. Yes it cost me but once your reputation is gone, try getting it back.

Still no mention of it in The Guardian as far as I can see, though they did run a piece mentioning both Adidas and Balenciaga yesterday in relation to Kanye West. Maybe it'll be like Breslow at Mermaids, and it'll take them a month or so to get round to informing their readers.

I interpreted Karwomanghia's post as despair that there are so few people calling it out.

We shouldn't only be seeing right wing conservatives addressing this.

Why aren't people with more liberal values as outraged as they should be? Why?

After taking those sick photos down and apologising they added another campaign photo which people started investigating. In the photo is a book by Michael Borremans which is a very disturbing book that shows toddlers running around naked covered in blood! They know exactly what they are doing.

www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/11/23/balenciaga-threatens-sue-photographer-using-children-bondage/

I think they're even more disgusting now they're trying to pretend the photographer acted alone.

No, that’s not good enough. Advertising campaigns are not just something that happen in the spur of the moment. The theme / content isn’t just down to 1 person.

this, 100%. This was deliberate. “There is no such thing as bad publicity”.

The whole is there no one else reporting it comment as well. Oh no, I can't have the same views as a conservative on this one topic because if I agree with her it means I agree with everything she says...oh my god I must be a conservative. Aargh. Must have purer thoughts. <out damned spot>

@DysonSpheres there was something similar to this Balenciaga scandal with the video for former Disney Mickey Mouse club girl Christina Aguilera's really horrible video 'Dirrty' directed by star photographer Dave LaChapelle. According to Time, the graffiti in the background reads, in Thai, 'sex tourism' and 'young underage girls'.

There's a lot in the fashion industry that stinks, but it has managed to largely avoid a MeToo reckoning so far because unlike actresses and actors, most models are so powerless and voiceless, their names unknown, many coming to work in the industry very young, many far from home, some not English speaking and with work permit insecurity that put them into a situation where they could be coerced into unpleasant situations and demands.

The fact that the left are not calling this out is nothing more or less than an abysmal failing on the left.

Child abuse is not a party political issue.

Is it a surprise that women who are anti abortion or anti abortion adjacent don't want kids subjected to child abuse?

Is it now the case that only women who are pro abortion are allowed to speak up?

Enough of this trial by association bullshit. Anyone with fucking eyes could see this for what it was. Right wing. Left wing. Liberal. Whatever.

Jesus Christ what is the world at where only pure people can call out abuse?

Fuck that shit.

Misan Harriman, photographer and Chair of the South Bank Centre, has spoken out about this.

twitter.com/misanharriman/status/1595213794246098950?s=61&t=vHJm1SLL0yKHcLGgS3wg1w

I don't understand this line of reasoning ...

So because someone calling out nasty insinuations of child abuse has some connection with someone else who's anti abortion, that means what?

The nasty insinuations of child abuse in the campaign are okay?