Demna Gvasalia - Designer, Creative Director of Gucci

[KoV]

Mutterlein, this is one of the bears from the actual ads. What is this bear wearing? A BDSM harness. That’s literally what it is, that’s not subjective. How is this still even being debated?

again, you’re selectively focusing on *part* of a *part* of what people found offensive, and throwing in a whole lot of whataboutism. If I had a child, I don’t think I’d want them playing with the dolls you posted. That’s a separate issue, though.

 

[reese06]

Do you honestly believe those bears are at all sexual?

That they are worse than those dolls?

BTW the campaign was for Instagram.

As someone who participates in the BDSM scene, there are winks to BDSM with the lock necklace on the bear and the leather accessories but that could also read as Punk. I actually wouldn't look at it and think of a leather bear if that was their intent, maybe if it had a chest harness of some sort.

I will be wearing my Balenciaga, sorry to say and if the market value goes down on the resell market, I will be scooping up more.

It's hard to say if this was just an ill attempt at trying to be edgy. Things like those documents do raise an eyebrow and side eye, especially when coupled with the interests and posts of some of the people who have collaborated with the brand. It can come across like they were putting something in our faces that is grotesque that many in the general public may not be familiar with but I also don't want to go down a conspiracy theory route.

to be continued I guess as more unfolds.

ETA: I see one of the dolls is wearing a BDSM harness in the actual campaign. I would think it's a doll/accessory for adults in my honest opinion. The campaign including children is in bad taste. The child p*rn/abuse documents are gross though and whoever is responsible should be fired

 

[disco54]

There is nothing explicitly sexual about black bands or a nose piercing. At all.

That is a subjective interpretation. A child would have no more of sexual reference for those bears than they would for this He-Man action figure, which is far more explicitly erotic:

View attachment 1221446

Your missing the point , its not the Teddy bears , its photographs with documents about laws dealing with pedophilia which were also lumped in. I assume you don't have children, I do

In my opinion, it is worse than the Galliano scandal which resulted in one of the biggest fashion tragedies of the last decade - his sacking. Balenciaga's case is incredibly unsettling. You can't tell me someone didn't intentionally use children to advertise that collection, and then publish another campaign with props including court documents, books and plaques all relating to violence against children. It's deeply f*cked up for no reason whatsoever.

They are finished as a brand, I have children , and this is beyond disgusting.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Your missing the point , its not the Teddy bears , its photographs with documents about laws dealing with pedophilia which were also lumped in. I assume you don't have children, I do

They are finished as a brand, I have children , and this is beyond disgusting.

I'm talking about the bears separately from the documents because they were a seperate campaign.

And yes, I have three kids. An 11 year old, a 3 year old and a 1 year old

 

[Caffeine]

Do you honestly believe those bears are at all sexual?

That they are worse than those dolls?

BTW the campaign was for Instagram.

I do believe they are way worse. Sex/B&M and children don't mix. There is a clear red line in US laws, and this campaign is too close.

Consensual adults can do whatever they want, but children are out of the question.

Your argument above is a version of whataboutitsm. You can consider those toys/dolls offensive (and me too), but they have nothing to do with the ads that's subject to the current debate.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

View attachment 1221456


Mutterlein, this is one of the bears from the actual ads. What is this bear wearing? A BDSM harness. That’s literally what it is, that’s not subjective. How is this still even being debated?

again, you’re selectively focusing on *part* of a *part* of what people found offensive, and throwing in a whole lot of whataboutism. If I had a child, I don’t think I’d want them playing with the dolls you posted. That’s a separate issue, though.

You asked where I saw dolls that are worse than those bears and so I showed you.

I do think it's worth noting the hypocrisy of what people choose and decide to be outraged by.

And yes fair enough regarding the bear with the harness. It is definitely a harness but hardly any actual danger to any child.

Again, I still find those dolls more harmful and suggestive of pedophilia yet where is the mob looking to cancel them ?

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Balenciaga, bondage and "child abuse" claims—What we do know, what we don't

I also recommend reading through that.

 

[Caffeine]

You asked where I saw dolls that are worse than those bears and so I showed you.

I do think it's worth noting the hypocrisy of what people choose and decide to be outraged by.

And yes fair enough regarding the bear with the harness. It is definitely a harness but hardly any actual danger to any child.

Again, I still find those dolls more harmful and suggestive of pedophilia yet where is the mob looking to cancel them ?

It's not about the dolls. It's about mixing children with them.
Adults can freely buy these dolls. Just don't mix them up with kids.

 

[KoV]

It's not about the dolls. It's about mixing children with them.
Adults can freely buy these dolls. Just don't mix them up with kids.

Exactly. The bears themselves are tongue-in-cheek, being sold to adults. Who cares? It’s having very young kids used in the ads (too young to understand, therefore I think it’s a consent issue of producing these photos in the first place) and then putting them out there to be viewed by millions for commercial gain. Even if it were just those ads and not the documents, it would be ethically wrong and in very bad taste. People are saying “it’s just a photo, the kids weren’t harmed” and I see what they’re saying, but…. If I found out as a teenager or as an adult that when I was 4 or 5 photos of me holding BDSM bears were used in media/marketing for adults, I think I’d be somewhat traumatized.

In any event, the documents paints it in an even more nefarious light. They’re literally bringing, intentionally, child p*ornography into the conversation. It’s not really about the bears, it’s about the context in which they’re being advertised. And Balenciaga’s intent.


Also, there’s a long history of backlash against Barbie, Bratz, etc. concerning whether they’re appropriate for kids. That conversation has been happening for decades. When Mattel starts using kids in advertising for pole-dancer Barbie or whatever, I’m sure they’ll be even more.

 

[Caffeine]

Balenciaga, bondage and "child abuse" claims—What we do know, what we don't

I also recommend reading through that.

“
The Balenciaga Objects shoot included several photos of children with a series of items, including one photo with a toy bear wearing what appeared to be bondage gear. Another photo showed a toy bear wearing a string vest and a choker.

The Adidas collaboration included photos of an hourglass bag, with the bag positioned on top of a pile of papers. Among these papers was a page taken from the 2008 Supreme Court ruling United States v. Williams.

Although it is not immediately obvious that the papers in the photo are from United States v. Williams, extracts from the document can be seen in high-quality versions.

According to Oyez, a free law project by Cornell's Legal Information Institute, the said case examined whether laws banning the "pandering"—promoting—of child p*rn*gr*phy curtailed First Amendment freedom of speech rights.”

This is exactly what everyone is talking about. If you think mixing children with B&M is okay...then all I want to say is, please follow the law. I don't find it okay, so do many other parents.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Also to be clear, my issue isn't with what they put in their images. Bad taste, poor judgement? Yes, but that is nothing new for Balenciaga.

My issue is that they did it purposely to court controversy and when the controversy came they threw their production company and set designer under the bus in order to protect their money maker.

It's blindingly obvious that Demna did all of it deliberately.

While I see no actual harm in the images, I myself would never never approved them or ok'd the concept.

So for those of you who are outraged, I understand why although I don't personally agree that they are so bad.

 

[susseinmcswanny]

Wow Demna really drove into a concrete slab going 120mph lol

 

[Deleted member 141523]

The worse part is before its release, everybody agreed at Balenciaga that there wasn't anything wrong about these pictures. It's so terrible but also crazy.

 

[LadyJunon]

The worse part is before its release, everybody agreed at Balenciaga that there wasn't anything wrong about these pictures. It's so terrible but also crazy.

Chances are everyone is just a yes man to Demna. He even said in a Vogue interview that he prefers hiring fresh graduates because their lack of experience allows him to "mold" them to his liking.

 

[jeanclaude]

Is Gosha Rubchinskiy consulting for Balenciaga; or what??

Anyway, I am looking forward for Kering to give Demna the boot (and a Crocs one if possible!). So tired of his Balenciaga bastard version of Margiela.

 

[SophiaVB]

The Lotta twitter thread sounds like one of those insane pizzagate posts.

As someone in the techno/rave/BDSM scene, Lotta, Demna & Co's references for imagery isn't particularly out there and has been tired for at least 5+ years... as is the rest of Balenciaga's schtick. It's only the mainstream that finds anything this offensive about it. Nothing deep there. If you've spent time in Berghain, then you know there are plenty of DJs and scenesters that reference Nazi/BDSM to imply edgy without actually being it.

 

[Deleted member 141523]

The "Demna" insta captions days are over. I remember seeing IG post from several celebs just posting "Demna" "Demna" "Demna"...

 

[Deleted member 116957]

Again, I still find those dolls more harmful and suggestive of pedophilia yet where is the mob looking to cancel them ?

I don't get this. Do you really think *nobody* thought Bratz dolls were inappropriate for children? (Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C). I don't understand the obsessive whataboutism surrounding the criticism Balenciaga did it, "ooooh but Mattel sells dolls in provocative clothes, too!!!" Yeah, and that's another issue entirely.

I think the ads are totally distasteful and no this isn't the first product that's been advertised provocatively with children, but I'm so amused by the fact that this ~*~transgressive~*~ designer is nowhere to be found amid the controversy. If he was truly trying to make a point, why not stand behind the "artistry" behind this ad campaign? That's the embarrassing part.

 

[Symetrie]

This is completely unacceptable. Demna should get fired for this...he is the creative director of the brand and must be held responsible for these despicable campaigns. If John Galliano got fired at Dior years ago, Demna should get fired for this. Poor Balenciaga...I used to love this brand under Nicolas.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

This is completely unacceptable. Demna should get fired for this...he is the creative director of the brand and must be held responsible for these despicable campaigns. If John Galliano got fired at Dior years ago, Demna should get fired for this. Poor Balenciaga...I used to love this brand under Nicolas.

I would fire more than Demna.

I would look very hard at the head of marketing and the head of PR.

And if I were Pinault I would fire the CEO, too.