Balenciaga apologises for bondage bear advert involving child

Indeed. Balenziaga markets a BDSM Teddy Bear. What ad campaign do they expect to be built around such a product?

how does Balenciaga explain these, if the producers of those ads were a different entity? Are they just very, very unfortunate to keep engaging with pervert contractors sending out secret Easter eggs to pedos; or are they in fact briefing these outsourced producers in a way that makes them believe anything goes?

Indeed. It's an interesting question for sure

Hm, links not taking you to the correct page. In the sidebar on the left, click on 'What we cover, key stage 2', and scroll down.

The slide in question - the purple background with [Sexual Abuse] 'when a child is being made, asked, or rewarded for doing anythign with their body that frightens or worries them' - is still there, as part of the presentation they make in schools.

learning.nspcc.org.uk/services/speak-out-stay-safe#skip-to-content

Christ that’s appalling

As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, members of the public, including the news media, have falsely and horrifically associated Balenciaga with the repulsive and deeply disturbing subject of the court decision,”

Balenciaga has fostered a brand that promotes boundary-blurring. It produces teddy bears, children's toys, wearing bondage outfits. Nobody is buying the line that Balenciaga is the victim, here.

“As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, members of the public, including the news media, have falsely and horrifically associated Balenciaga with the repulsive and deeply disturbing subject of the court decision,”

I guess the defence will be that, a company that produces a bag that looks like a child's toy twisted into deviant sex imagery doesn't have much of a reputation that can be damaged by a publicly available court document sitting virtually anonymously on a table.

It will all be about the surrounding evidence: the brief given to the producers, the licence for creative autonomy, whether any specific breach of contract has occurred, what checking pre release procedures are in place at the company etc. Just in terms of a timeline of what's bought the negative attention onto Balenciaga, the bears and the kids holding them is the first and foremost image that has done this, I believe. The rest of the fine details came out after that negative publicity, by members of the public doing after the event sleuthing. Any defence would claim that the damage was done by the bears/kids before anyone looked at the other props on the set.

The other props in the other ads- the book, the certificate with the child rapist's name, and, I believe paperwork pertaining to a Washington based company that is connected with some child disappearances - how does Balenciaga explain these, if the producers of those ads were a different entity? Are they just very, very unfortunate to keep engaging with pervert contractors sending out secret Easter eggs to pedos; or are they in fact briefing these outsourced producers in a way that makes them believe anything goes?

I’d love to know what went on to get the documents in there

@MoirasSaggyBundles looks like it's for the legal document photoshoot. I doubt they could reasonably claim in court they didn't notice the bears in the other photoshoot!

Here's the thread about it with a screenshot

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3611569-Is-NSPCC-school-guidance-for-kids-re-sexual-abuse-shifting-the-Overton-Window-Need-expert-advise-to-break-this-down

NY Post saying Balenciaga has filed a $25m suit against North Six, inc, the producers of the ad and set designer Nicholas Des Jardins

nypost.com/2022/11/25/balenciaga-files-25m-suit-against-bdsm-teddy-bear-ad-producers/

Found this is CNN Style - so not the main news section, where this story belongs:

edition.cnn.com/style/article/balenciaga-bondage-bears-intl-scli/index.html

That seems to have been significantly and positively tightened up! The discussions are here on FWR, and would have been about the time that the NSPCC bottled the webchat with MNHQ. At that time their definition mentioned abuse being something the child disliked, which many MNetters found disturbing.

This is from NSPCC website which seems to me to be the opposite to the new line you mention. It specifically said they might not know it’s wrong.

What is sexual abuse?
When a child or young person is sexually abused, they're forced or tricked into sexual activities. They might not understand that what's happening is abuse or that it's wrong. And they might be afraid to tell someone. Sexual abuse can happen anywhere – and it can happen in person or online.

It's never a child's fault they were sexually abused – it's important to make sure children know this.

This is all going to the NSPCC's new line that children have only been abused if they didn't like what happened to them

Where do they say that?

There's a common feature in all this.

There certainly is nilsmousehammer, it goes hand in hand with the NSPCC's initial support for their rubber wanking employee couched in the phrase bring you whole self to work and this was after his blase attitude to safeguarding was exposed.

They only caved to his removal when their hand was forced.

This is all going to the NSPCC's new line that children have only been abused if they didn't like what happened to them.

So like what Peter Tatchell has said.

This is all going to the NSPCC's new line that children have only been abused if they didn't like what happened to them

Really? Jesus 🤦‍♀️

The fact that the parent thought the children were quite happy in a totally inappropriate situation and it didn't occur to him that his boundaries were FUBAR is not really making things any better.

This is all going to the NSPCC's new line that children have only been abused if they didn't like what happened to them. Oddly enough they only shifted to this appalling view after the TQ+ political agenda captured them.

There's a common feature in all this.

There was an article in the Mail yesterday whereby the father of one the children did the It was all fine and lovely, the children were happy, it was a great day, we would have removed our children if we thought it wasn't, people are reading too much into it stuff. He stood up for the photographer, said the staging had nothing to do with the photographer.

The question he failed to address was: why were children being used in the first place to advertise adult products? Those ugly bags are not aimed at children nor is any of the other stuff in the photographs, this father obviously can't and won't accept that his child has been used to promote something that the overwhelming majority of sensible parents would say an absolute NO to.

Assuming the rules where this was done are the same as UK rules, the parent or guardian would have been sat there watching the entire shoot.

Then they would have signed a release form for Balenciaga to use the images.

The parents were all fine with it, so the photographer et al would have felt themselves validated

What‘s up with the Guardian, anyway? Years back the comment section for all kinds of political stories were closed down, apparently deemed too dangerous. But one could still comment on food, travel and fashion. Now even fashion is off limits?!?

5 years ago or so, when I was reading around the reporting of two specific crime cases, I came to the crushing realisation that the Guardian had been lying to me and had some deep misogynists at its core. They have proved me right.

Based upon my previous experiences, I now don't think it's unreasonable to guess there's a nonce or two working there.

"Look, a squirrel!" - the guardian

So according to the article and the interviewed fashion-expert, the true problem of Balenciaga, the thing that people now turn against, are the worn out shoes, Sadomaso-bears one sees in their campaign (which also shows kids and court papers btw.) which signal poverty and this Dystopian vacationing in poverty is a no-go.

I should probably not deign this garbage with any further comment, but to point out the obvious: their campaign showed neither children nor court case containing offices that were struck with dystopian poverty.

Yup, the timing of thr Guardian article is .... interesting.