X Close

Why is fashion selling children? Balenciaga mirrors our culture of exploitation

This is not the first time Balenciaga has exploited the aesthetics of children. Credit: OLIVIA TSANG/South China Morning Post via Getty Images

This is not the first time Balenciaga has exploited the aesthetics of children. Credit: OLIVIA TSANG/South China Morning Post via Getty Images


December 2, 2022   5 mins

It’s always difficult to decide what to buy the toddler in your life for Christmas. A handbag shaped like a teddy dressed in BDSM gear, perhaps? Or a dog collar and lead? In a new ad campaign for the fashion house Balenciaga — now withdrawn and the subject of a lawsuit by the brand against the set designer — lonely and disassociated-looking infants stare vacantly into the camera, surrounded by an array of distinctly unchildlike objects, each with a fetish teddy bag lurking queasily nearby. The vibe is hardly festive.

Recently, the label has made multiple forays into the gothic, not least by mining the aesthetics of climate collapse for several recent shows. (As one women’s magazine enthused: “Balenciaga brought the apocalypse to Paris and we’re here for it.”) So perhaps brand managers expected the disturbing imagery of young kids surrounded by bondage gear to be treated as just another subversive juxtaposition in the service of selling things. This time, however, the bourgeois were not so much thrillingly épaté as absolutely bloody incandescent — because they assumed that childhood itself was being sold.

Internet sleuths quickly tracked down details of an earlier Balenciaga campaign, in which background props had included a Supreme Court ruling on the illegality of child pornography, as well as a book by an artist controversial for depicting tortured children in his work. The two separate campaigns were quickly conflated by commentators, jointly presented as a case of paedophilic imagery gloating lasciviously in plain sight. Some observers went further, interpreting the placing of lettered packing tape in the most recent campaign as spelling out a reference to Baal, the Canaanite god who demanded child sacrifices.

In some quarters of the populist Right, where the legacy of QAnon still looms large, Christmas had come early. Tucker Carlson weighed in, bravely putting his own history of joking about child rape behind him, to connect the incident to groomer discourse and admonish the world to “stop sexualising kids”. Creepy geezer-bro Andrew Tate argued that Balenciaga was being deliberately open and explicit about paedophilic sympathies because the “people who are in charge of these brands, and of the Western world” are “Satanists” who deliberately “tell you what they are doing” in order to avoid karmic retribution for their sins. (Any reflection by Tate on earlier frank admissions of his that “I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist” went unrecorded.)

Though — of course — I don’t know the truth of what actually happened at Balenciaga, it seems to me that the “deliberately paedophilic” interpretation is probably wrong. But that doesn’t mean the whole thing was an accident. As others have suggested, rather than acting as a direct manifestation of a paedophile conspiracy, it seems more likely that the campaigns were offering knowing nods to the aesthetics of paedophile conspiracies. Viewed in this light, the problem is not so much the imagery but that the proles on the internet hadn’t done a Masters in Visual Cultures at Goldsmiths.

This interpretation is in keeping with the modus operandi of high fashion. The higher the couture, and the more luxurious the brand, the more effort must be made to signal this status to the world. One traditional way to do this is by using hand-embroidered silks and other gorgeous fabrics to make clothes. But a reality-transcending brand image can also be achieved by dressing women up in totally impractical garments they can’t walk or get through doors in, or — as Balenciaga also recently did — by inducing a celebrity such as Kim Kardashian to wear ridiculous facemasks in public on a number of occasions.

As Louise Perry has argued, fears about paedophilia are often viewed by liberals as classically low-status, and associated by them with the “ignorant and credulous working classes”. And so, ironically sneering about low-status cultural fears about paedophiles, in a way only detectable to a few knowing onlookers, is automatically high-status. Job done. Or it would have been, had it not proved understandably impossible for most onlookers to tell the difference between representation and reality.

As with Balenciaga’s attraction to the gothic, the fashion world more generally has long played about with savagery and psychic darkness for the purposes of selling people things they don’t need. In practice this often means glamourising various terrible things done to women. Alexander McQueen’s first two (visually stunning) collections were called “Jack the Ripper and his Victims” and “The Highland Rapes”. A 2007 Dolce & Gabbana ad campaign was highly suggestive of gang rape, and a 2003 Sisley campaign of bestiality between a woman and a bull.

Generally speaking, the fashion industry is littered with pictures of young women with a sexualised, exploited, fetishised, or downright quasi-paedophilic vibe. And female consumers apparently lap it up — perhaps because they tell themselves, accurately, that promoting abusive sex is not the direct point. As with everything else in the fashion world, nothing is positively asserted, but only referred to obliquely or quoted in order to generate interest in the clothes.

Yet when you look at some of the blank-eyed skeletal young models who still tend to be preferred by designers, it’s impossible to maintain that the casual brutality dished out to women in the representational realm of fashion doesn’t have consequences for the real one. Models are treated by the fashion world as living dolls you can pick from a book purely on the basis of appearance, then dress them up, choose their poses, control their food intake, and fly them around the world to serve you, until you don’t want them anymore. Granted, not every model is skinny or young these days, but even those who aren’t are just as heavily objectified — every personalised aspect of them being diminished to a commercially favourable appearance, interchangeable with some other commercially favourable appearance, should the originally-booked girl have a breakdown or get a breakout.

But at least most models are adults, technically anyway. For me, an under-explored aspect of the Balenciaga scandal is the apparent fact that parents somewhere have let their very young children be photographed in these campaigns. It is bad enough to represent grown adults as slack-jawed, vacant children, but a lot worse to turn children into slack-jawed, vacant little adults. Generally speaking, I marvel in horror at parents who use their children to make money by modelling or acting in adverts. No matter how much fun children allegedly have doing it, or how much money goes into their trust funds because of it, there is nothing about having one’s appearance objectified by strangers for money that’s compatible with healthy childhood development.

And of course, it’s not just commercial modelling. Famous for admonishing us against using other humans as mere means to our ends, Kant also warned that “parents cannot regard their child as, in a manner, a thing of their own making”. Then again, he wasn’t on Insta. The internet is full of influencers using their own children for likes and clicks. If social media has turned many of us into narcissists, then it seems to have turned our children into narcissistic extensions of ourselves — only there to say something flattering about who we are. A generation of kids are growing up, made supremely conscious of how their bodies and faces look as they go about their daily lives, before they really know anything else about themselves. And we made them that way.

Moral panics get off the ground partly because they pick up on unconscious forces genuinely rippling through a culture. It doesn’t seem to me a coincidence that there’s increasing prurient interest in paedophilia and grooming at the moment, when at the same time there have never been so many culturally acceptable ways to objectify your own child. Paedophilia — which of course exists, and nobody should pretend different — involves the egregious and permanently life-changing treatment of a living human child as a sexual object. But there are subtler ways to use children as means to adult ends. We can sign them up to a modelling agency. We can put them in a beauty pageant. We can upload their pictures with amusing captions on Facebook, in a way that makes us look like good parents.

So the original fear about Balenciaga — that they are selling kids — was perhaps not entirely wrong. If not kids, then collectively we are at least selling childhoods. And the hideous teddy bear fetish bags highlighted in the doomed ad campaign now seem to me to be an uncannily apt symbol of what we are doing. A much-beloved figure, originally invested with so much innocence, joy, and love, now turned into something to be used.


Kathleen Stock is an UnHerd columnist and a co-director of The Lesbian Project.
Docstockk

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

113 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

You know for some reason the innocent explanations for why these kids look like they just came out of an S&M club are just not working for me.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Where do they look like they’ve just come out of an S&M club?

Karen Mosley
Karen Mosley
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

“the disturbing imagery of young kids surrounded by bondage gear’ has something of a look of the S and M club- to those of who don’t frequent.
And I don’t think the thrust of Matt’s comment was about the accurate depiction, or otherwise, of S&;M clubs

Last edited 1 year ago by Karen Mosley
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Karen Mosley

I think it’s worth keeping things in perspective. Matt said they look like they’ve just come out of an S&M club. The author says they’re surrounded by bondage gear. Where are those images?

Doug Pingel
Doug Pingel
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

I’ve seen them, in passing, on two newsfeeds. Mail on Line was one but I can’t remember the other (MSN UK?)

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug Pingel

Then you’ll know that the comments are exaggeration.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug Pingel

Then you’ll know that the comments are exaggeration.

Bryan Tookey
Bryan Tookey
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

While I applaud your demand to see the evidence (or ask for others to have seen the evidence before passing comment), in this case, I simply don’t want to look it up.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Tookey

Maybe you should make the effort so that you know what the fuss is about. Others seem to be commenting without having seen them. All those red marks against me for asking them to back up their comments. If you had taken a look then you’ll know that no child “looks” like they’ve just come out of a S&M club. They just look like children. Apart from the bear wearing a fishnet and some straps no one is surrounded in bondage gear because there is none. There are two ads, both still available to see online. One was with another article in UnHerd. These ads are nothing to speak of. They’re cheap and misplaced. But it’s nonsense for people to exaggerate just to make a point.

julianne kenny
julianne kenny
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

In one photo a sex toy about as tall as the childs femur is placed to the left. Another loosely phallic image is placed in front between the childs legs ,a dog collar, chains , etc. It was analysed on YT by a former brand campaign designer ,french designer.
Then add the documents. Separately the documents were placed in an Adidas campaign w Balenciaga and in their Ready to wear Spring 22/23 campaign w Nicole Kidman and a french actress. Is it questioning the ruling or pushing boundaries of normalcy for its own sake- commodification of children. Theyve captured the teen market now its children.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  julianne kenny

Can you give me a link?

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Really? You’re incapable of doing your own research? It’s all over any Google search.
I think you’re just trolling everyone here.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Exactly, I said that. There are no phallic images, no chains, no bondage gear surrounding the girl. I’m asking for those items to be pointed out.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Exactly, I said that. There are no phallic images, no chains, no bondage gear surrounding the girl. I’m asking for those items to be pointed out.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Really? You’re incapable of doing your own research? It’s all over any Google search.
I think you’re just trolling everyone here.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  julianne kenny

Can you give me a link?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

This is very fair point

julianne kenny
julianne kenny
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

In one photo a sex toy about as tall as the childs femur is placed to the left. Another loosely phallic image is placed in front between the childs legs ,a dog collar, chains , etc. It was analysed on YT by a former brand campaign designer ,french designer.
Then add the documents. Separately the documents were placed in an Adidas campaign w Balenciaga and in their Ready to wear Spring 22/23 campaign w Nicole Kidman and a french actress. Is it questioning the ruling or pushing boundaries of normalcy for its own sake- commodification of children. Theyve captured the teen market now its children.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

This is very fair point

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Tookey

Nah this is a disingenuous request for information – trolling in other words.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Nah, Ian, it’s a request for evidence. You should be asking for it yourself.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Nah, Ian, it’s a request for evidence. You should be asking for it yourself.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Tookey

Same here.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Tookey

Maybe you should make the effort so that you know what the fuss is about. Others seem to be commenting without having seen them. All those red marks against me for asking them to back up their comments. If you had taken a look then you’ll know that no child “looks” like they’ve just come out of a S&M club. They just look like children. Apart from the bear wearing a fishnet and some straps no one is surrounded in bondage gear because there is none. There are two ads, both still available to see online. One was with another article in UnHerd. These ads are nothing to speak of. They’re cheap and misplaced. But it’s nonsense for people to exaggerate just to make a point.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Tookey

Nah this is a disingenuous request for information – trolling in other words.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Tookey

Same here.

Doug Pingel
Doug Pingel
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

I’ve seen them, in passing, on two newsfeeds. Mail on Line was one but I can’t remember the other (MSN UK?)

Bryan Tookey
Bryan Tookey
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

While I applaud your demand to see the evidence (or ask for others to have seen the evidence before passing comment), in this case, I simply don’t want to look it up.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Karen Mosley

I think it’s worth keeping things in perspective. Matt said they look like they’ve just come out of an S&M club. The author says they’re surrounded by bondage gear. Where are those images?

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

It’s called hyperbole, Brett, exaggeration for literary effect.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel Lee

“Literary”? Really?

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Brett, you’re being a pedant.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel Lee

That’s a nice word for it.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel Lee

It’s about accuracy in what one says.

“these kids look like they just came out of an S&M club”

Literary effect here, if so, is being used to create an image that suits his position. It has nothing to do with the image itself, or truth.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel Lee

That’s a nice word for it.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel Lee

It’s about accuracy in what one says.

“these kids look like they just came out of an S&M club”

Literary effect here, if so, is being used to create an image that suits his position. It has nothing to do with the image itself, or truth.

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Brett, you’re being a pedant.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel Lee

“Literary”? Really?

Karen Mosley
Karen Mosley
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

“the disturbing imagery of young kids surrounded by bondage gear’ has something of a look of the S and M club- to those of who don’t frequent.
And I don’t think the thrust of Matt’s comment was about the accurate depiction, or otherwise, of S&;M clubs

Last edited 1 year ago by Karen Mosley
Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

It’s called hyperbole, Brett, exaggeration for literary effect.

Amelia Mulder
Amelia Mulder
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Agreed. The author is trying too hard to explain away what seems quite blatantly on display to me.
I also don’t agree with equating parents sharing pictures of their children on their own social media profiles to signing them up to modelling agencies who sell their image to the world. There is clearly a big difference.

MJ Reid
MJ Reid
1 year ago
Reply to  Amelia Mulder

There are plenty pictures on Instagram of mothers and their very young daughters mimicking them in their lingerie and make up. Or fathers posing in their tightie whiteys with sons doing the same. It sexualises children. It is not as innocent as their parents protest.
Once on the intersnake (iI use the word deliberately), it is there forever and unfortunately some young people are being haunted by images put up by parents when the child had no choice.
When society is so concerned about the mental health of our young people, much more care needs to be taken when taking images involving children in terms of safeguarding and due to image longevity and coverage which was never such an issue when it was film and paper.

Amelia Mulder
Amelia Mulder
1 year ago
Reply to  MJ Reid

Thanks for that insight. I realise now my comment was a bit naive as my own exposure to social media is quite limited.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Amelia Mulder

It wasn’t naive, don’t believe everything you read. Mj Reids trope sounds very strange to me.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Amelia Mulder

It wasn’t naive, don’t believe everything you read. Mj Reids trope sounds very strange to me.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  MJ Reid

I find it hard to believe that the MAJORITY of mothers would take pictures like that, or that dad’s and sons would upload those kind of pictures, where are these parents protesting their innocence? You got evidence for that trope? I think you are making some very strange assumptions about parents, you have evidence for these young people that are ‘haunted’, are you a parent?

Amelia Mulder
Amelia Mulder
1 year ago
Reply to  MJ Reid

Thanks for that insight. I realise now my comment was a bit naive as my own exposure to social media is quite limited.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  MJ Reid

I find it hard to believe that the MAJORITY of mothers would take pictures like that, or that dad’s and sons would upload those kind of pictures, where are these parents protesting their innocence? You got evidence for that trope? I think you are making some very strange assumptions about parents, you have evidence for these young people that are ‘haunted’, are you a parent?

MJ Reid
MJ Reid
1 year ago
Reply to  Amelia Mulder

There are plenty pictures on Instagram of mothers and their very young daughters mimicking them in their lingerie and make up. Or fathers posing in their tightie whiteys with sons doing the same. It sexualises children. It is not as innocent as their parents protest.
Once on the intersnake (iI use the word deliberately), it is there forever and unfortunately some young people are being haunted by images put up by parents when the child had no choice.
When society is so concerned about the mental health of our young people, much more care needs to be taken when taking images involving children in terms of safeguarding and due to image longevity and coverage which was never such an issue when it was film and paper.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

The most innocent explanation would be that gay men run fashion and they are less worried about overt visual sexualisation, even of children. To them it is a form of liberation.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

I’m sorry, but this is hardly an innocent explanation. What evidence do you have that gay men are ok with sexualising children?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

Exactly. The comments about these ads verge on simmering hysteria and wilful ignorance.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

I’d say your comments suggest a simmering complacency, or maybe wilful ignorance, for the risks of paedophile imagery.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

None of my questions have been addressed. If you’ve seen the images you’d be able to answer them.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Come now Mr Stewart, re read, tell me that stuff they posted is not weird or lacking a source. You will find it fails on both those fronts.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

But then you accused me of commenting to an agenda when you claimed I incorrectly referenced under age sex in Queer as Folk and History Boys – I provided the evidence in links. So your demand for sources and evidence appears to be a mere front for devils advocacy.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

But then you accused me of commenting to an agenda when you claimed I incorrectly referenced under age sex in Queer as Folk and History Boys – I provided the evidence in links. So your demand for sources and evidence appears to be a mere front for devils advocacy.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

None of my questions have been addressed. If you’ve seen the images you’d be able to answer them.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Come now Mr Stewart, re read, tell me that stuff they posted is not weird or lacking a source. You will find it fails on both those fronts.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Agree.

Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Brett I’ve seen the images. So let me ask you, in what context is it appropriate to take a child’s toy, dress it up in BDSM gear and have them pose with it? What exactly is the message here? Is it just an innocent coincidence? There really is no moral or creative justification for conflating children, toys, and sex gear. So what is the point of it? Are you trying to defend it or just being antagonistic?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

It’s pretty clear what I’m saying: keep things in perspective, don’t exaggerate, don’t distort or spread nonsense as fact. Otherwise how can we address issues of importance if it’s all heated overstatement. The view of these images has been distorted to suit a narrative. They are a misjudged campaign. They tried too hard and paid for it. There is no obvious paedophilic intent in these photos. The father of one of the girls who attended the shoot saw nothing that disturbed him. There is no B&D sex gear in the photo, and the teddy dressed that way could be “punk” or “goth”. Who knows what they were thinking? Certainly not you.
What do you think the message is?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

“… don’t exaggerate, don’t distort or spread nonsense as fact.”

Seriously? Isn’t this the entire point of social media, politics and advertising?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

“… don’t exaggerate, don’t distort or spread nonsense as fact.”

Seriously? Isn’t this the entire point of social media, politics and advertising?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

It’s a publicity stunt. Simple. You can’t share all these weird descriptions then draw conclusions. Not intelligent.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

It’s pretty clear what I’m saying: keep things in perspective, don’t exaggerate, don’t distort or spread nonsense as fact. Otherwise how can we address issues of importance if it’s all heated overstatement. The view of these images has been distorted to suit a narrative. They are a misjudged campaign. They tried too hard and paid for it. There is no obvious paedophilic intent in these photos. The father of one of the girls who attended the shoot saw nothing that disturbed him. There is no B&D sex gear in the photo, and the teddy dressed that way could be “punk” or “goth”. Who knows what they were thinking? Certainly not you.
What do you think the message is?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

It’s a publicity stunt. Simple. You can’t share all these weird descriptions then draw conclusions. Not intelligent.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

I’d say your comments suggest a simmering complacency, or maybe wilful ignorance, for the risks of paedophile imagery.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Agree.

Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Brett I’ve seen the images. So let me ask you, in what context is it appropriate to take a child’s toy, dress it up in BDSM gear and have them pose with it? What exactly is the message here? Is it just an innocent coincidence? There really is no moral or creative justification for conflating children, toys, and sex gear. So what is the point of it? Are you trying to defend it or just being antagonistic?

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

I’ve posted enough about NAMBLA and the PIE in these comments sections and I don’t want to get into trouble.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

How does that prove anything about your gay comment?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

How does that prove anything about your gay comment?

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago

The under age male physique is an iconic gay image used in many dramas and novels, usually with a storyline on older men seducing such youths, with and without consent. The ancient Greek culture seems to provide the justification for this behaviour.

I don’t even follow gay fiction but it’s impossible to avoid this theme – ‘Queer as Folk’, ‘The History Boys’ being old and popular examples. You’d have great difficulty not to have seen the vast dramatic output of the last thirty years and be unaware of this older man & boy man theme.
https://ianpace.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/simon-callow-on-the-paedophile-exploits-of-andre-gide-oscar-wilde-lord-alfred-douglas-and-others/

I’ve been rather surprised that it’s taken so long for society to have noticed this is inappropriate – though there seems to be too much fear of condemnation by gay society for this to be properly identified as a form of sex abuse.
R Wright has made an astute observation here.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Stewart
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

“gay men run fashion and they are less worried about overt visual sexualisation, even of children.”

This is the observation he made. Linda has a valid question about it. A history lesson isn’t the answer.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

“Queer as Folk’
Where’s the underage male in this series?
And “The History Boys” is hardly a play about sex between underage and older males. You’re playing lose with the facts to suit your own narrative.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

15 year old in QueerAs Folk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_as_Folk_(British_TV_series)
Schoolboys being groped by teacher in History Boys
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2006/nov/13/moreoutragepleasewerebriti
Easy enough to find this evidence Brett. You seem to be unprepared to accept facts by lashing out when they are presented to you!

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

15 year old in QueerAs Folk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_as_Folk_(British_TV_series)
Schoolboys being groped by teacher in History Boys
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2006/nov/13/moreoutragepleasewerebriti
Easy enough to find this evidence Brett. You seem to be unprepared to accept facts by lashing out when they are presented to you!

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

“gay men run fashion and they are less worried about overt visual sexualisation, even of children.”

This is the observation he made. Linda has a valid question about it. A history lesson isn’t the answer.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

“Queer as Folk’
Where’s the underage male in this series?
And “The History Boys” is hardly a play about sex between underage and older males. You’re playing lose with the facts to suit your own narrative.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

Exactly. The comments about these ads verge on simmering hysteria and wilful ignorance.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

I’ve posted enough about NAMBLA and the PIE in these comments sections and I don’t want to get into trouble.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago

The under age male physique is an iconic gay image used in many dramas and novels, usually with a storyline on older men seducing such youths, with and without consent. The ancient Greek culture seems to provide the justification for this behaviour.

I don’t even follow gay fiction but it’s impossible to avoid this theme – ‘Queer as Folk’, ‘The History Boys’ being old and popular examples. You’d have great difficulty not to have seen the vast dramatic output of the last thirty years and be unaware of this older man & boy man theme.
https://ianpace.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/simon-callow-on-the-paedophile-exploits-of-andre-gide-oscar-wilde-lord-alfred-douglas-and-others/

I’ve been rather surprised that it’s taken so long for society to have noticed this is inappropriate – though there seems to be too much fear of condemnation by gay society for this to be properly identified as a form of sex abuse.
R Wright has made an astute observation here.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Stewart
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

Just no.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

I’m sorry, but this is hardly an innocent explanation. What evidence do you have that gay men are ok with sexualising children?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

Just no.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Sorry to horn in on your comment, Matt, but UnHerd has not yet fixed the problems with the comment system. Anyway, Kathleen claims that she doesn’t think the overt, blatant, obvious paedophilia in the campaign was intentionally paedophilic. I worked in advertising for many years and every single image, campaign, model, bit of copy – all of it – was planned, designed, discussed, styled, pored over, and signed off on by teams of people before it saw the light of day. That Balenciaga is trying to wash away its filth by suing the set designer is laughable. These deliberately offensive attempts at being edgy and “high-status” (snort) are like Madonna: there is simply no place left to go without becoming monstrous. Incidentally, the only time I ever hear about Qanon is in media. Sounds like it’s just a conspiracy theory.

Last edited 1 year ago by Allison Barrows
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

“Kathleen claims that she doesn’t think the overt, blatant, obvious paedophilia in the campaign was intentionally paedophilic. “
Presumably you think it was intentionally paedophilic. As you said, this is an example of someone trying to be edgy. They got it wrong. They misjudged and now face the backlash. There is no reason to think this was intentionally paedophilic, as if they’re sending secret messages to a secret audience out there through an expensive ad campaign, as some have suggested, and now as others suggest there are satanic symbols hidden in the ads. It’s clearly wrong to use children to give something its edginess, but it is not intentionally paedophilic. It’s not as if paedophiles need these ads as the subject of their desires. What exactly do people think they were trying to achieve with these ads?

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
julianne kenny
julianne kenny
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Well-another of the photographs positioned the young child on sofa lying down w their feet in the air. The photograph was from buttocks to feet albeit clothed w a bdsm styled ” goth” teddy off centre if I recall correctly. It was strange to say the least.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  julianne kenny

Brett H seems to protest too much – conceding no point to the reasonable points put in this thread by others.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

What reasonable points am I contesting?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

What reasonable points am I contesting?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  julianne kenny

Link a source please not a weird description

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Thankyou.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Just so much insanity everywhere. Must fight it 🙂

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Something I’ve become aware of on this site is that when it suits them the right behave just like the left.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Yeah, think people get all triggered by this stuff, then logic swiftly abandons ship. Always alarming how quickly. Think Kathleen stock did a good job with a difficult subject, so many are missing the point. She rightly tackles issues that are being blown out of all proportion in certain parts of the Internet, I’ve read crazy stuff, her explanation is the sanest most intelligent one I’ve seen, especially on the satanism stuff, that’s getting way out of hand in parts of the Internet, we need articles like this.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Wow you’ve got a mate Brett!

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Wow you’ve got a mate Brett!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Yeah, think people get all triggered by this stuff, then logic swiftly abandons ship. Always alarming how quickly. Think Kathleen stock did a good job with a difficult subject, so many are missing the point. She rightly tackles issues that are being blown out of all proportion in certain parts of the Internet, I’ve read crazy stuff, her explanation is the sanest most intelligent one I’ve seen, especially on the satanism stuff, that’s getting way out of hand in parts of the Internet, we need articles like this.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Something I’ve become aware of on this site is that when it suits them the right behave just like the left.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Just so much insanity everywhere. Must fight it 🙂

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Thankyou.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  julianne kenny

Oh, a “Goth” teddy bear. That makes more sense than an bondage bear.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  julianne kenny

Brett H seems to protest too much – conceding no point to the reasonable points put in this thread by others.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  julianne kenny

Link a source please not a weird description

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  julianne kenny

Oh, a “Goth” teddy bear. That makes more sense than an bondage bear.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
julianne kenny
julianne kenny
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Well-another of the photographs positioned the young child on sofa lying down w their feet in the air. The photograph was from buttocks to feet albeit clothed w a bdsm styled ” goth” teddy off centre if I recall correctly. It was strange to say the least.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

The point is, she is trying to dispel these theories that are getting out of hand and doing a good job on a difficult subject many would not be brave enough to take on. Alarming how many people have missed the point.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

I noted the thrashing and complete discounting of the conservative voices above, as well. As if anyone in the media or commentariat is pristine as the wind driven snow!

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

“Kathleen claims that she doesn’t think the overt, blatant, obvious paedophilia in the campaign was intentionally paedophilic. “
Presumably you think it was intentionally paedophilic. As you said, this is an example of someone trying to be edgy. They got it wrong. They misjudged and now face the backlash. There is no reason to think this was intentionally paedophilic, as if they’re sending secret messages to a secret audience out there through an expensive ad campaign, as some have suggested, and now as others suggest there are satanic symbols hidden in the ads. It’s clearly wrong to use children to give something its edginess, but it is not intentionally paedophilic. It’s not as if paedophiles need these ads as the subject of their desires. What exactly do people think they were trying to achieve with these ads?

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

The point is, she is trying to dispel these theories that are getting out of hand and doing a good job on a difficult subject many would not be brave enough to take on. Alarming how many people have missed the point.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

I noted the thrashing and complete discounting of the conservative voices above, as well. As if anyone in the media or commentariat is pristine as the wind driven snow!

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Where do they look like they’ve just come out of an S&M club?

Amelia Mulder
Amelia Mulder
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Agreed. The author is trying too hard to explain away what seems quite blatantly on display to me.
I also don’t agree with equating parents sharing pictures of their children on their own social media profiles to signing them up to modelling agencies who sell their image to the world. There is clearly a big difference.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

The most innocent explanation would be that gay men run fashion and they are less worried about overt visual sexualisation, even of children. To them it is a form of liberation.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Sorry to horn in on your comment, Matt, but UnHerd has not yet fixed the problems with the comment system. Anyway, Kathleen claims that she doesn’t think the overt, blatant, obvious paedophilia in the campaign was intentionally paedophilic. I worked in advertising for many years and every single image, campaign, model, bit of copy – all of it – was planned, designed, discussed, styled, pored over, and signed off on by teams of people before it saw the light of day. That Balenciaga is trying to wash away its filth by suing the set designer is laughable. These deliberately offensive attempts at being edgy and “high-status” (snort) are like Madonna: there is simply no place left to go without becoming monstrous. Incidentally, the only time I ever hear about Qanon is in media. Sounds like it’s just a conspiracy theory.

Last edited 1 year ago by Allison Barrows
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

You know for some reason the innocent explanations for why these kids look like they just came out of an S&M club are just not working for me.

Cantab Man
Cantab Man
1 year ago

I’m not getting the point of the article – why use esoteric whataboutisms to excuse Balenciaga? If they were as deep as the author whimsically suggests, they would have come out quickly with a tongue-in-cheek explanation of their highbrow sartorial edginess. Instead, they came out with multiple deer-in-the-headlight denunciations of their own campaign because it was seen as tasteless and exploitative not just in society but within the fashion house itself.

As vapid as Hollywood was and is, there’s a longstanding unspoken rule that you don’t ever – ever – kill/murder children onscreen. This rule is still observed today for the most part. Even with all of the debased and cynical things going on in the world, most people still see the innocence of children as a flicker of meaning and joy that shouldn’t be exploited by a few very sick adults. I’m firmly in the camp of keeping it that way.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Cantab Man

“why use esoteric whataboutisms to excuse Balenciaga?”
The writer isn’t doing that at all. It’s an intelligent piece about what’s happening.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Cantab Man

“why use esoteric whataboutisms to excuse Balenciaga?”
The writer isn’t doing that at all. It’s an intelligent piece about what’s happening.

Cantab Man
Cantab Man
1 year ago

I’m not getting the point of the article – why use esoteric whataboutisms to excuse Balenciaga? If they were as deep as the author whimsically suggests, they would have come out quickly with a tongue-in-cheek explanation of their highbrow sartorial edginess. Instead, they came out with multiple deer-in-the-headlight denunciations of their own campaign because it was seen as tasteless and exploitative not just in society but within the fashion house itself.

As vapid as Hollywood was and is, there’s a longstanding unspoken rule that you don’t ever – ever – kill/murder children onscreen. This rule is still observed today for the most part. Even with all of the debased and cynical things going on in the world, most people still see the innocence of children as a flicker of meaning and joy that shouldn’t be exploited by a few very sick adults. I’m firmly in the camp of keeping it that way.

Richard Powell
Richard Powell
1 year ago

I have to wonder if Balenciaga is just a giant money-laundering operation, as no-one in their right mind would buy its products: a “panty” with an Adidas logo is £250 and men’s briefs are £150. I’d eat my hat if they were better quality than M&S at £4 each.

Would Kathleen make a distinction between acting in adverts and acting in narrative film? Some distinguished careers have started that way, and some strong arguments would be needed to convince me that morally the movies ought to be a child-free zone.

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Powell
Seldom
Seldom
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Powell

Good question. But then, would we have to make a distinction between movies actually meant to tell a story and those that are little more than a 2-hour ad for some American franchise? Lots of meaningful acting careers have also started in advertising, but that, in itself, doesn’t make it worthwhile.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Powell

But remember there are some people out there who are getting shed-loads of money and there is only so much stuff you can buy. So, yes £4 pair of M&S brierfs are as good as £150 pair, but they need the status (even if only to themselves) that they have a “better” product than we oiks. They never dream of putting this excess money to better use than enriching the already wealthy.

Douglas H
Douglas H
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Powell

Rich people are not mad; they merely apply very different criteria when making buying decisions. Sometimes for them the point is precisely to be seen to be needlessly throwing money away – it screams: “I’m rich, I can follow any mad impulse I like, and I’m different from the proles”.

Richard Powell
Richard Powell
1 year ago
Reply to  Douglas H

That’s true, but pants are not really a Veblen good. Also they’re usually only seen by people already well aware of one’s status. (The items I mention do not have a waistband with a visible trademark.) So the only people who might be impressed are the shop assistants.

Richard Powell
Richard Powell
1 year ago
Reply to  Douglas H

That’s true, but pants are not really a Veblen good. Also they’re usually only seen by people already well aware of one’s status. (The items I mention do not have a waistband with a visible trademark.) So the only people who might be impressed are the shop assistants.

Seldom
Seldom
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Powell

Good question. But then, would we have to make a distinction between movies actually meant to tell a story and those that are little more than a 2-hour ad for some American franchise? Lots of meaningful acting careers have also started in advertising, but that, in itself, doesn’t make it worthwhile.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Powell

But remember there are some people out there who are getting shed-loads of money and there is only so much stuff you can buy. So, yes £4 pair of M&S brierfs are as good as £150 pair, but they need the status (even if only to themselves) that they have a “better” product than we oiks. They never dream of putting this excess money to better use than enriching the already wealthy.

Douglas H
Douglas H
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Powell

Rich people are not mad; they merely apply very different criteria when making buying decisions. Sometimes for them the point is precisely to be seen to be needlessly throwing money away – it screams: “I’m rich, I can follow any mad impulse I like, and I’m different from the proles”.

Richard Powell
Richard Powell
1 year ago

I have to wonder if Balenciaga is just a giant money-laundering operation, as no-one in their right mind would buy its products: a “panty” with an Adidas logo is £250 and men’s briefs are £150. I’d eat my hat if they were better quality than M&S at £4 each.

Would Kathleen make a distinction between acting in adverts and acting in narrative film? Some distinguished careers have started that way, and some strong arguments would be needed to convince me that morally the movies ought to be a child-free zone.

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Powell
J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago

Another insightful essay from Kathleen Stock.
What I would love to know, but what we’ll never know, is, when all the dust around this advertising campaign and its backlash subsides, did the campaign make money for Balenciaga–and if it did make money, how profitable was this campaign by the standards of the ad industry? I suspect I know the answer to the first part of my question.

J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago

Another insightful essay from Kathleen Stock.
What I would love to know, but what we’ll never know, is, when all the dust around this advertising campaign and its backlash subsides, did the campaign make money for Balenciaga–and if it did make money, how profitable was this campaign by the standards of the ad industry? I suspect I know the answer to the first part of my question.

Cho Jinn
Cho Jinn
1 year ago

“bravely putting his own history of joking about child rape behind him”
Did…did you bother to click through your own link? You may want to.
“Though – of course – I don’t know the truth of what actually happened at Balenciaga, it seems to me that the “deliberately paedophilic” interpretation is probably wrong. But that doesn’t mean the whole thing was an accident.”
Nothing was accidental. One might very charitbly say that Balenciaga was *just* genuinely interested in pushing the envelope for its own sake, which would leave them grossly negligent at best. Child sexualization and exploitation deserve to be polonium-covered third rails, yet this article seems content with being duplicitous.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Cho Jinn

How is the article being duplicitous?

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

He didn’t mean the article was duplicitous but that the article seems content with duplicity. That’s one of the main points of the article.
But you knew that already.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

It says “content with being duplicitous”.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

It does, but the intent is clear. You’re just pedantically picking up phrasing just for the sake of it. You seem to be trolling all commenters.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

It does, but the intent is clear. You’re just pedantically picking up phrasing just for the sake of it. You seem to be trolling all commenters.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

It says “content with being duplicitous”.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

He didn’t mean the article was duplicitous but that the article seems content with duplicity. That’s one of the main points of the article.
But you knew that already.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Cho Jinn

How is the article being duplicitous?

Cho Jinn
Cho Jinn
1 year ago

“bravely putting his own history of joking about child rape behind him”
Did…did you bother to click through your own link? You may want to.
“Though – of course – I don’t know the truth of what actually happened at Balenciaga, it seems to me that the “deliberately paedophilic” interpretation is probably wrong. But that doesn’t mean the whole thing was an accident.”
Nothing was accidental. One might very charitbly say that Balenciaga was *just* genuinely interested in pushing the envelope for its own sake, which would leave them grossly negligent at best. Child sexualization and exploitation deserve to be polonium-covered third rails, yet this article seems content with being duplicitous.

Douglas H
Douglas H
1 year ago

Thanks, Kat.
Philosophy’s loss is our gain.

Douglas H
Douglas H
1 year ago

Thanks, Kat.
Philosophy’s loss is our gain.

Paula Adams
Paula Adams
1 year ago

Sick, but I think we must address the truth that children dressed up for pageants with make up and adult clothing to please the adult pageant ‘judges’ went on for years and no one said anything. I’m glad that we have the internet now so we can attack people like this instantly.

Paula Adams
Paula Adams
1 year ago

Sick, but I think we must address the truth that children dressed up for pageants with make up and adult clothing to please the adult pageant ‘judges’ went on for years and no one said anything. I’m glad that we have the internet now so we can attack people like this instantly.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago

I think that Chairman Mao was on to something with his forced adoption of the proletarian boiler suit.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

I was once speaking to a muslim lady who said that she sometimes wore a chador when she couldn’t be bothered to dress up; she also said that she could put it on over her pyjamas to nip down to the corner shop.

Last edited 1 year ago by Linda Hutchinson
polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago

Don’t give me ideas.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago

Don’t give me ideas.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

I was once speaking to a muslim lady who said that she sometimes wore a chador when she couldn’t be bothered to dress up; she also said that she could put it on over her pyjamas to nip down to the corner shop.

Last edited 1 year ago by Linda Hutchinson
polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago

I think that Chairman Mao was on to something with his forced adoption of the proletarian boiler suit.

Jonas Moze
Jonas Moze
1 year ago

100% disagree. I think it is pure Satanist and pedophilia. I think they forget how normal it seems to them in their degenerate circles, and so forget that the internet can spread things this appalling to decent people, and so let it slip out without thinking it through..

As far as Q, well, there was Epstein happening then – and as you say Carthage and other death cults where the greater and greater evil is seaked out – which will lead to the sort of thing you began with, the harm of children – the greatest crime known to man. This evil has always been linked to Satanism… And I must add the cult of childhood sexualization, and altering of children, in the education and even health systems now days is part of this. It is not something to just tolerate.

But modern people are too inured to evil to even believe in it. I would say half of everything on Nexflix and Prime is basically Evil at some point or level – yet this is thought to be ‘entertainment’

Here is a video on this guy and thinking – bit over the top, but then that is best way to deal with it, as it deserves this, a real eyeopener, includes the points the writer made, but more so this is not benign stuff …..

https://rumble.com/v1y36m4-balenciaga-baal-enciaga-gate-more-satanic-symbolism-from-balenciaga-is-reve.html

Jonas Moze
Jonas Moze
1 year ago

100% disagree. I think it is pure Satanist and pedophilia. I think they forget how normal it seems to them in their degenerate circles, and so forget that the internet can spread things this appalling to decent people, and so let it slip out without thinking it through..

As far as Q, well, there was Epstein happening then – and as you say Carthage and other death cults where the greater and greater evil is seaked out – which will lead to the sort of thing you began with, the harm of children – the greatest crime known to man. This evil has always been linked to Satanism… And I must add the cult of childhood sexualization, and altering of children, in the education and even health systems now days is part of this. It is not something to just tolerate.

But modern people are too inured to evil to even believe in it. I would say half of everything on Nexflix and Prime is basically Evil at some point or level – yet this is thought to be ‘entertainment’

Here is a video on this guy and thinking – bit over the top, but then that is best way to deal with it, as it deserves this, a real eyeopener, includes the points the writer made, but more so this is not benign stuff …..

https://rumble.com/v1y36m4-balenciaga-baal-enciaga-gate-more-satanic-symbolism-from-balenciaga-is-reve.html

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago

There could be a simpler explanation. Balenciaga wanted an ad campaign that would generate coverage throughout the media, i.e. free advertising which leads to increased sales. They went too far, however, and have now associated their brand with child abuse.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago

There could be a simpler explanation. Balenciaga wanted an ad campaign that would generate coverage throughout the media, i.e. free advertising which leads to increased sales. They went too far, however, and have now associated their brand with child abuse.

Francis Turner
Francis Turner
1 year ago

Maybe we should call the fashion industry “stochastic peadophiles”

Francis Turner
Francis Turner
1 year ago

Maybe we should call the fashion industry “stochastic peadophiles”

Terry Eastland
Terry Eastland
1 year ago

The exploitation and fetishizing of kids is wrong. But don’t try to politicize the issue by blaming liberals or progressives! Everyone—and especially left/liberals, including left/liberal feminists—condemns sexual abuse of minors wholeheartedly.

The motive behind this garbage advertising is the same old profit motive as always: sex—and sensationalism—sell.
And unfortunately, any publicity may be good publicity. (I had forgotten that some of these brands even existed until this “controversy” made the news!)

Last edited 1 year ago by Terry Eastland
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

Is it wrong for UnHerd to use a photo of a child to head this story?

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Maybe try the Daily Mail?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Yes or no? Or at least consider it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Yes or no? Or at least consider it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

You are being willfully obtuse to try a make point that isn’t worth making. Do you have children Brett? If you don’t you are seriously unqualified to make any statement as to the merit or intentions of the ad campaign. It’s wrong, end of.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

“Do you have children Brett?”
I’ve been waiting for this. If I say no, then you’ll say I don’t know what I’m talking about. If I say yes, you’ll say I should know better. So, a cheap shot, but you miss.
And why isn’t my point worth making?
Edit: Heres my point from another comment:
“It’s pretty clear what I’m saying: keep things in perspective, don’t exaggerate, don’t distort or spread nonsense as fact. Otherwise how can we address issues of importance if it’s all heated overstatement?”

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

“It’s pretty clear what I’m saying: keep things in perspective, don’t exaggerate, don’t distort or spread nonsense as fact. Otherwise how can we address issues of importance if it’s all heated overstatement?

This is why I’m here too, we have enough crazy media, we don’t need people hyping stuff or misleading other people, we have far too much of that already. I do have a young daughter, am I qualified?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

“It’s pretty clear what I’m saying: keep things in perspective, don’t exaggerate, don’t distort or spread nonsense as fact. Otherwise how can we address issues of importance if it’s all heated overstatement?

This is why I’m here too, we have enough crazy media, we don’t need people hyping stuff or misleading other people, we have far too much of that already. I do have a young daughter, am I qualified?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

Here’s a question for you in relation to my comment on the photo used by UnHerd: where do we draw the line in what is and is not appropriate for children appearing in the media?

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Think this is a fair question, the article itself is quite scathing when it comes to children modelling, so perhaps not appropriate since it rails against this. But then it is already acceptable in society, the picture has been published before so maybe OK. I’m not sure to be honest, I would have to contemplate further I think 🙂 what do you think?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

“what do you think?”

I don’t think, as a society, we’re capable of having these conversations. The father of one of the girls in the ad was there during the shoot. He had no problem with it. He doesn’t think his daughter was going to be affected by the experience, otherwise he wouldn’t have said what he did. What will affect the girl, if she’s exposed to it, is all the talk of paedophilia and satanic rituals. Did her father fail in his duty of care? I don’t think so. Did the media create an atmosphere of hysteria around the young girl that is unhealthy? Definitely. The father may well regret it now because of that.

I don’t think the response of the media and people on this site is normal. It spins out of control so quickly. Children should be protected. Who would argue with that? Is there anything wrong with UnHerd using the photo in the article? I don’t think so. Has the girl in the Balenciaga ad been sexualised? Only by those who think the teddy wearing a fishnet and some straps is sexual. Her father doesn’t think so. I don’t think so.

Should Balenciaga have done it? I’m not sure. I’m sure they regret it and it probably sends a message to others to take more care. But my feeling is that this is censorship by the mob. And the comments here reflect that. Some couldn’t even read the article without calling it duplicitous. Others were happy to go along with the obvious distortion of what was before their eyes. So I think the response was worse than what Balenciaga has been accused of.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

It appears my last response didn’t make it so here I will try again. Your objection to all of this and to the posters here appears to be one of deranged overreaction. Seeing things that aren’t really there. I’d ask you to do a better job of reading the room, so to speak, and wonder why that is. Our record on children is not particularly sane at this juncture in time. We are not setting up a good record of the harms we are doing at the moment that have negative long-term consequences. What good can possibly come from ceding ground to people who think it’s ok to conflate children with BDSM inspired toys. The question isn’t whether the girl in designers garb is appropriate on unherd here but where is your line? We’ve made a lot of slopes very slippery at the moment when it comes to kids for some very perverse incentives. What is the danger of pumping the brakes hard on this nonsense? What are the ramifications of not speaking up when the next transgression gets edgier to garner clicks. What would make you say errrr wait a minute?

Last edited 1 year ago by Paige M
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

“Your objection to all of this and to the posters here appears to be one of deranged overreaction. Seeing things that aren’t really there.”
Speaking of seeing things that aren’t really there, Im still waiting for someone to point out the sex toy, or the phallic symbol. in the ad. Maybe some people don’t know what a sex toy is.
I’ve read the room, Very little thought, very little contribution to the subject. Just knee-jerk reactions. No one has made a convincing argument. All they’ve done is resort to hyperbole, I mentioned the girl in the UnHerd story to open up our perception of sexualisation of the young. I’d be interested to hear your definition of child sexualisation.
I don’t see any harm in putting the brakes on what you call “nonsense”. Just try to talk about it in a sensible way. If you have a definite idea on the sexualisation of children then you don’t need all the exaggeration about sex toys, chains, phallic symbols, or young girls lying on their back with legs raised, No one has come up with evidence of this.
I don’t know where the line is. That’s why I’m happy to discuss it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

“Your objection to all of this and to the posters here appears to be one of deranged overreaction. Seeing things that aren’t really there.”
Speaking of seeing things that aren’t really there, Im still waiting for someone to point out the sex toy, or the phallic symbol. in the ad. Maybe some people don’t know what a sex toy is.
I’ve read the room, Very little thought, very little contribution to the subject. Just knee-jerk reactions. No one has made a convincing argument. All they’ve done is resort to hyperbole, I mentioned the girl in the UnHerd story to open up our perception of sexualisation of the young. I’d be interested to hear your definition of child sexualisation.
I don’t see any harm in putting the brakes on what you call “nonsense”. Just try to talk about it in a sensible way. If you have a definite idea on the sexualisation of children then you don’t need all the exaggeration about sex toys, chains, phallic symbols, or young girls lying on their back with legs raised, No one has come up with evidence of this.
I don’t know where the line is. That’s why I’m happy to discuss it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Interesting, I think that’s really pretty fair, especially agree with the point:’ Did the media create an atmosphere of hysteria around the young girl that is unhealthy? Definitely. I don’t think the response of the media and people on this site is normal. It spins out of control so quickly.’ Couldn’t put that part better myself.
I thought this part of the article: Viewed in this light, the problem is not so much the imagery but that the proles on the internet hadn’t done a Masters in Visual Cultures at Goldsmiths.
Just summed the whole thing up so brilliantly in one sentence, I hadn’t actually thought about it in these terms I have to say that sounds pretty bang on. Now lots of crazy people on the internet will be making all kinds out of these ads, as you point out we have witnessed on here. Driving the hysteria. They laugh behind their hands. Lots of brand exposure.
I like your point about censorship, in fact the comment by mj Reid above sounded like a weird proposition to control what pictures parents can take. There’s people saying you can’t have an opinion if you’re not a parent, which is ridiculous. Not qualified I believe the phrase was. Quite presumptuous to say the least. People bashing Kathleen stock having missed the point entirely. All censorship. Interesting indeed.
Personally, I think this was probably all about causing controversy, but art and high fashion have always challenged the boundaries of taste and our perceptions. Also, as the article says they serve as reflection of our own culture, which is a bit messed up, but if we’re honest we’ve never been perfect anyway so I feel like that isn’t a reason for censorship either. I feel like if we go down the road of attempting to censor things that can be as wayward as art or fashion we will start something we will come to regret. It would kind of defy the nature of art and expression itself maybe. Not a goldsmiths expert though by a long shot so just a thought.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I was looking at some fashion ads that had been controversial. One had a young girl in it. Even though she looked very young the writer said she was in fact 20. If I was 20 or 30 I don’t imagine I would have thought much of it. But now when I look at it I wonder if maybe they’re pushing things a little too far. So which of those views is right: the one I might have had in my 20s or 30s, or the one with more years between us?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Why the red mark? For asking a question?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Yes I get you, I think that perhaps makes a difference, I don’t see them as that shocking but then I’ve been grown with a high exposure to media, I’m early 30s, I think I’ve come to the conclusion we should not try and censor the fashion industry, it has got a lot of problems which have been highlighted but still, harming children in any way is illegal in the UK so can’t make any more laws there really I wouldn’t think, we don’t want a creep towards a police state, you would then perhaps instead have to make the argument for censorship of the fashion industry, the goldsmiths lot would say its a form of art, so that’s not something I could argue for personally. I think there’s a case to teach kids more about how the media works, spin, shock factor, how algorithms can tailor what you see etc. So they understand the importance of an open mind and that things do get blown out of proportion. I think that would be a good idea.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Why the red mark? For asking a question?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Yes I get you, I think that perhaps makes a difference, I don’t see them as that shocking but then I’ve been grown with a high exposure to media, I’m early 30s, I think I’ve come to the conclusion we should not try and censor the fashion industry, it has got a lot of problems which have been highlighted but still, harming children in any way is illegal in the UK so can’t make any more laws there really I wouldn’t think, we don’t want a creep towards a police state, you would then perhaps instead have to make the argument for censorship of the fashion industry, the goldsmiths lot would say its a form of art, so that’s not something I could argue for personally. I think there’s a case to teach kids more about how the media works, spin, shock factor, how algorithms can tailor what you see etc. So they understand the importance of an open mind and that things do get blown out of proportion. I think that would be a good idea.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I was looking at some fashion ads that had been controversial. One had a young girl in it. Even though she looked very young the writer said she was in fact 20. If I was 20 or 30 I don’t imagine I would have thought much of it. But now when I look at it I wonder if maybe they’re pushing things a little too far. So which of those views is right: the one I might have had in my 20s or 30s, or the one with more years between us?

Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

It appears my last response didn’t make it so here I will try again. Your objection to all of this and to the posters here appears to be one of deranged overreaction. Seeing things that aren’t really there. I’d ask you to do a better job of reading the room, so to speak, and wonder why that is. Our record on children is not particularly sane at this juncture in time. We are not setting up a good record of the harms we are doing at the moment that have negative long-term consequences. What good can possibly come from ceding ground to people who think it’s ok to conflate children with BDSM inspired toys. The question isn’t whether the girl in designers garb is appropriate on unherd here but where is your line? We’ve made a lot of slopes very slippery at the moment when it comes to kids for some very perverse incentives. What is the danger of pumping the brakes hard on this nonsense? What are the ramifications of not speaking up when the next transgression gets edgier to garner clicks. What would make you say errrr wait a minute?

Last edited 1 year ago by Paige M
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Interesting, I think that’s really pretty fair, especially agree with the point:’ Did the media create an atmosphere of hysteria around the young girl that is unhealthy? Definitely. I don’t think the response of the media and people on this site is normal. It spins out of control so quickly.’ Couldn’t put that part better myself.
I thought this part of the article: Viewed in this light, the problem is not so much the imagery but that the proles on the internet hadn’t done a Masters in Visual Cultures at Goldsmiths.
Just summed the whole thing up so brilliantly in one sentence, I hadn’t actually thought about it in these terms I have to say that sounds pretty bang on. Now lots of crazy people on the internet will be making all kinds out of these ads, as you point out we have witnessed on here. Driving the hysteria. They laugh behind their hands. Lots of brand exposure.
I like your point about censorship, in fact the comment by mj Reid above sounded like a weird proposition to control what pictures parents can take. There’s people saying you can’t have an opinion if you’re not a parent, which is ridiculous. Not qualified I believe the phrase was. Quite presumptuous to say the least. People bashing Kathleen stock having missed the point entirely. All censorship. Interesting indeed.
Personally, I think this was probably all about causing controversy, but art and high fashion have always challenged the boundaries of taste and our perceptions. Also, as the article says they serve as reflection of our own culture, which is a bit messed up, but if we’re honest we’ve never been perfect anyway so I feel like that isn’t a reason for censorship either. I feel like if we go down the road of attempting to censor things that can be as wayward as art or fashion we will start something we will come to regret. It would kind of defy the nature of art and expression itself maybe. Not a goldsmiths expert though by a long shot so just a thought.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

“what do you think?”

I don’t think, as a society, we’re capable of having these conversations. The father of one of the girls in the ad was there during the shoot. He had no problem with it. He doesn’t think his daughter was going to be affected by the experience, otherwise he wouldn’t have said what he did. What will affect the girl, if she’s exposed to it, is all the talk of paedophilia and satanic rituals. Did her father fail in his duty of care? I don’t think so. Did the media create an atmosphere of hysteria around the young girl that is unhealthy? Definitely. The father may well regret it now because of that.

I don’t think the response of the media and people on this site is normal. It spins out of control so quickly. Children should be protected. Who would argue with that? Is there anything wrong with UnHerd using the photo in the article? I don’t think so. Has the girl in the Balenciaga ad been sexualised? Only by those who think the teddy wearing a fishnet and some straps is sexual. Her father doesn’t think so. I don’t think so.

Should Balenciaga have done it? I’m not sure. I’m sure they regret it and it probably sends a message to others to take more care. But my feeling is that this is censorship by the mob. And the comments here reflect that. Some couldn’t even read the article without calling it duplicitous. Others were happy to go along with the obvious distortion of what was before their eyes. So I think the response was worse than what Balenciaga has been accused of.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

You’re trying to be subversive in arguing a point that’s not defensible. It’s neither intelligent or edgy and you lose the argument before you even begin. What possible advantage do you gain in ceding ground to the crowd that juxtaposes children with adult sex themes? What’s your point? What’s the line in the sand for you? The extreme liberalization of sex is far from consequence free. Putting guardrails around children is not an unserious position. The question of whether you’ve had children is far from a cheap shot. I ask because your position is non-sensical as if the biggest issue here is exaggeration and that people are being overly sensitive here. When are you offended? When the children are naked? When they are engaging in sex acts?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

Of course it’s a cheap shot asking me if I’m a parent. Are you saying that only parents can have an opinion on this subject? That’s pretty insulting to people who don’t have children.
What point am I making that’s indefensible?
My point:
”Keep things in perspective, don’t exaggerate, don’t distort or spread nonsense as fact. Otherwise how can we address issues of importance if it’s all heated overstatement?”

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Brett your comment about don’t distort is a fair one I get that. But the exaggeration game and distortion as fact is played far more effectively by the side that wants to drag children into the realm of adult sexuality before they are ready. Parents are going to have more skin on the game here and will see it differently. Their strong reactions are based on that. It’s not disrespectful to point that out. As a society we are in a pretty gross place when it comes to children. You wouldn’t know that unless you are dealing with this on the daily. There are many places, beyond this ridiculous ad, peddling toxic sexual garbage around children where the adults in the room need to go what kind of bluddy legacy are we leaving here? I am not missing the point, you are.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

“You wouldn’t know that unless you are dealing with this on the daily. “
You’re assuming I don’t have children. You’re also assuming, for some weird reason, that I support the sexualising of children. I haven’t suggested that once. All I’ve done is say the comments have exaggerated the content of the ads. And, I might add, no one has given me evidence of that content.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

“You wouldn’t know that unless you are dealing with this on the daily. “
You’re assuming I don’t have children. You’re also assuming, for some weird reason, that I support the sexualising of children. I haven’t suggested that once. All I’ve done is say the comments have exaggerated the content of the ads. And, I might add, no one has given me evidence of that content.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Brett your comment about don’t distort is a fair one I get that. But the exaggeration game and distortion as fact is played far more effectively by the side that wants to drag children into the realm of adult sexuality before they are ready. Parents are going to have more skin on the game here and will see it differently. Their strong reactions are based on that. It’s not disrespectful to point that out. As a society we are in a pretty gross place when it comes to children. You wouldn’t know that unless you are dealing with this on the daily. There are many places, beyond this ridiculous ad, peddling toxic sexual garbage around children where the adults in the room need to go what kind of bluddy legacy are we leaving here? I am not missing the point, you are.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

You are missing the point quite a bit, that’s not really the argument. If you don’t like it, you would have to argue the case for censorship of art and fashion, that’s also a slippery slope. If you note the author points out it’s supposed to be an arty reflection of societies fears, that is the point being misunderstood, which creates this hype because people have misunderstood it. I think Brett is simply pointing that out, quite fairly I think.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

‘You’re trying to be subversive in arguing a point that’s not defensible. It’s neither intelligent or edgy and you lose the argument before you even begin’
Not very democratic is it? Says who? Dictator Paige?
‘When are you offended? When the children are naked? When they are engaging in sex acts?’
That is already illegal, condemned by society whole heartedly, no one is defending that or alluded to defending that.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

You guys have gone way too far on this point. Of all the issues to fall on your sword for. No wonder Iran wants to wipe us off the map.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Sorry, aren’t we allowed to have a conversation? Thought that was the point of being on here to be honest. Which bit was too far for you? Point is, censorship is a slippery slope too, in the age of cancel culture its a fair point to make, as far as I read the designer pulled the ad campaign, after facing a justified back lash.
But it does throw up a debate about how far fashion/ art should be allowed to go surely? I think that’s fair enough. Do you think then that we should be policing fashion houses and art studios? Or do you think that actually like has happened here, a public backlash is enough to keep this stuff in check?
People above are slating Kathleen stock saying she is defending the fashion brand or offering ‘innocent explanations.’ She wasn’t doing that, simply offering an explanation as to how it happened in the first place. Then Brett asked a perfectly legitimate question only to get down voted and slated down to merry hell. Surely that’s an important question to ask in regard to these adverts, I thought some of the descriptions of these photos people posted at the top that he was objecting to were actually very inappropriate too, and a reference to which campaign or magazine would be more appropriate than people’s lurid descriptions. I think that’s fair too, I don’t want to read weird descriptions of these photos thanks, I thought Brett made a fair point.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

In what way have we gone too far? If you can put up a comment of mine that’s gone too far I’m happy to address it.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

I have to say this going on right here, should be alarming other people. I’m sure of that.
I think everyone slamming us should back the bloody well up and think again.
I think Kathleen stock addressing this issue and explaining these things is important in addressing the weird satanic conspiracy stuff flying around the Internet right now. This stuff will only get out of hand if people don’t understand it. That’s all she was doing, offering an understanding, not condoning.
I think objecting to spurious and inappropriate descriptions of children in this comments section is the right side of the line to be on to be perfectly honest, anyone telling me any different can b****r off.
And to everyone that’s slamming the pictures, you want to stop it? So they can’t do it again? You’re going to have to have the debate Brett was trying to instigate. Or take Paiges and Warren’s approach, and just shut down any debate, oh wait yeah, that’s a dictatorship.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

It’s the woke right.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Scary stuff mate. It does make you wonder where we’re headed.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

It’s actually quite funny to watch. They like to comment but not think. So really they just can’t help themselves, they have to say something but they have nothing to say. They’re not interested in discussion, probably not even the article itself. They give it a quick read then fire off a response. They don’t really understand what they’ve read, but they know they’re right.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

It is funny really, I see they have deserted. Gave us something to have a go at didn’t it?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I think they just ran out of words.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I think they just ran out of words.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

It is funny really, I see they have deserted. Gave us something to have a go at didn’t it?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

It’s actually quite funny to watch. They like to comment but not think. So really they just can’t help themselves, they have to say something but they have nothing to say. They’re not interested in discussion, probably not even the article itself. They give it a quick read then fire off a response. They don’t really understand what they’ve read, but they know they’re right.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Scary stuff mate. It does make you wonder where we’re headed.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

It’s the woke right.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

I have to say this going on right here, should be alarming other people. I’m sure of that.
I think everyone slamming us should back the bloody well up and think again.
I think Kathleen stock addressing this issue and explaining these things is important in addressing the weird satanic conspiracy stuff flying around the Internet right now. This stuff will only get out of hand if people don’t understand it. That’s all she was doing, offering an understanding, not condoning.
I think objecting to spurious and inappropriate descriptions of children in this comments section is the right side of the line to be on to be perfectly honest, anyone telling me any different can b****r off.
And to everyone that’s slamming the pictures, you want to stop it? So they can’t do it again? You’re going to have to have the debate Brett was trying to instigate. Or take Paiges and Warren’s approach, and just shut down any debate, oh wait yeah, that’s a dictatorship.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

“No wonder Iran wants to wipe us off the map.”
Here we go again. What does that even mean?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Sorry, aren’t we allowed to have a conversation? Thought that was the point of being on here to be honest. Which bit was too far for you? Point is, censorship is a slippery slope too, in the age of cancel culture its a fair point to make, as far as I read the designer pulled the ad campaign, after facing a justified back lash.
But it does throw up a debate about how far fashion/ art should be allowed to go surely? I think that’s fair enough. Do you think then that we should be policing fashion houses and art studios? Or do you think that actually like has happened here, a public backlash is enough to keep this stuff in check?
People above are slating Kathleen stock saying she is defending the fashion brand or offering ‘innocent explanations.’ She wasn’t doing that, simply offering an explanation as to how it happened in the first place. Then Brett asked a perfectly legitimate question only to get down voted and slated down to merry hell. Surely that’s an important question to ask in regard to these adverts, I thought some of the descriptions of these photos people posted at the top that he was objecting to were actually very inappropriate too, and a reference to which campaign or magazine would be more appropriate than people’s lurid descriptions. I think that’s fair too, I don’t want to read weird descriptions of these photos thanks, I thought Brett made a fair point.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

In what way have we gone too far? If you can put up a comment of mine that’s gone too far I’m happy to address it.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

“No wonder Iran wants to wipe us off the map.”
Here we go again. What does that even mean?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

You guys have gone way too far on this point. Of all the issues to fall on your sword for. No wonder Iran wants to wipe us off the map.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

Of course it’s a cheap shot asking me if I’m a parent. Are you saying that only parents can have an opinion on this subject? That’s pretty insulting to people who don’t have children.
What point am I making that’s indefensible?
My point:
”Keep things in perspective, don’t exaggerate, don’t distort or spread nonsense as fact. Otherwise how can we address issues of importance if it’s all heated overstatement?”

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

You are missing the point quite a bit, that’s not really the argument. If you don’t like it, you would have to argue the case for censorship of art and fashion, that’s also a slippery slope. If you note the author points out it’s supposed to be an arty reflection of societies fears, that is the point being misunderstood, which creates this hype because people have misunderstood it. I think Brett is simply pointing that out, quite fairly I think.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

‘You’re trying to be subversive in arguing a point that’s not defensible. It’s neither intelligent or edgy and you lose the argument before you even begin’
Not very democratic is it? Says who? Dictator Paige?
‘When are you offended? When the children are naked? When they are engaging in sex acts?’
That is already illegal, condemned by society whole heartedly, no one is defending that or alluded to defending that.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Think this is a fair question, the article itself is quite scathing when it comes to children modelling, so perhaps not appropriate since it rails against this. But then it is already acceptable in society, the picture has been published before so maybe OK. I’m not sure to be honest, I would have to contemplate further I think 🙂 what do you think?

Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

You’re trying to be subversive in arguing a point that’s not defensible. It’s neither intelligent or edgy and you lose the argument before you even begin. What possible advantage do you gain in ceding ground to the crowd that juxtaposes children with adult sex themes? What’s your point? What’s the line in the sand for you? The extreme liberalization of sex is far from consequence free. Putting guardrails around children is not an unserious position. The question of whether you’ve had children is far from a cheap shot. I ask because your position is non-sensical as if the biggest issue here is exaggeration and that people are being overly sensitive here. When are you offended? When the children are naked? When they are engaging in sex acts?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

“Do you have children Brett?”
I’ve been waiting for this. If I say no, then you’ll say I don’t know what I’m talking about. If I say yes, you’ll say I should know better. So, a cheap shot, but you miss.
And why isn’t my point worth making?
Edit: Heres my point from another comment:
“It’s pretty clear what I’m saying: keep things in perspective, don’t exaggerate, don’t distort or spread nonsense as fact. Otherwise how can we address issues of importance if it’s all heated overstatement?”

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to