All the commotion about Balenciaga’s new ad campaign with children is totally misplaced, besides being just stupid.
Where are the complaints about their awful pantaboots worn to death by Kim Kardashian??
Where is the outrage?
These fucking pantaboots are so egregious, and worn by KK, they are an abomination. They probably cost a million dollars, they make your feet look enormous, and how do you wash them? Everything about them is just aggressively awful.
And yet it’s the ads with little kids that has the entire internet going nuts with inflated umbrage and puritanical pearl-clutching. Balenciaga has been forced to issue several apologies for the ads, evidently confirming that they are inappropriate child porn, and vowing to implement a barrage of “safeguards” so this will never, ever happen again.
Where the outraged masses see bondage paraphernalia, I see classic old-school punk.
Look at this stupid bear, for example. It’s punk, not B&D! Jesus Christ, people of Earth. Get a grip.
Sometimes, pornography, or inappropriate images, is in the mind of the beholder. I think the kids in these ads are cute. They are not sexualized, in my opinion, and there is nothing seductive about them. But the furor is off the charts, rife with allusions to pedophilia and child trafficking.
I would like to have seen a fraction of this outrage in response to the children separated from their parents at the southern border. Children in cages weren’t as incendiary as these kids with teddy bears. Instead of aiming some well-deserved wrath at Kim K for her fucking pantaboots, the internet condemned her for being too slow to denounce the brand currently most associated with her. She finally expressed her concern, even though she dresses her young children in heavy gold chains that she hastens to label as “real.” Her tone was mild but dutifully sanctimonious
Not too long ago, I spent time with my friend’s two year old daughter, who was running around their living room naked. The adorable little girl was making hilarious faces at me, and I took a couple of picture with my phone. I showed a picture to a family member, who accused me of imposing child pornography on her. I was genuinely shocked; all I saw was the funny expression, without noticing the body parts. We had a heated argument, that ended up with both of us threatening to ask our therapists to weigh in on it.
Her therapist sided with her, while mine sided with me. I can guess where they’d stand on the stupid Balenciaga controversy. But me and my therapist would be right.
What do you and your therapist think??
I’m so glad you bring this stuff to my attention, otherwise I’d never know much of what’s going on in this world. Except maybe the miserable Herschel Walker thing, since living down here, it’s impossible to not know all about it, which believe me, I really would rather not.
Of course I agree with you about the Balenciaga commotion, except maybe even more so since I didn’t notice the B&D&S&M/punk stuffed animals at all. Just saw the cute kids, like you said. Now if the toys had been outfitted is SS uniforms or terrorist garb, I think I would’ve picked right up on that. But, they weren’t, and is there some protesting too much? Without even asking, I know my therapist agrees with us. Or with me anyway, not wanting to drag you into my therapeutic relationship.
Now those Pantaboots, here’s the thing, in addition to the whole general nauseating idea of them that you covered perfectly – I bet they hurt like absolute fucking torture to wear. They probably rub every crack and crevice (or crevasse, in her case) raw from waist to toe. I’m positive they force bunions and hammertoes on once normal feet, and I’d bet money they grow killer athlete’s foot. I am just so glad the whoevers at Balenciaga didn’t put the kids in pantaboots. And Jeez I hope I’m not giving them any ideas.
There’s a difference between nudity and nakedness, but I forget which one is sexualized. Nudity, I think. Anyway, a picture of a naked kid isn’t necessarily pornographic. But also too one time a lady showed me a picture of her dog who was evidently quite excited by having his photo taken and I thought that this was part of some weird seduction thing and it made me very uncomfortable.
So I guess I have to ask if this picture of yours shows the little girl with an erection. Well? Does it?
Pretty astute of you to point out the punk aesthetic, which is probably what they were aiming for. I struggle to see how anyone could find even a whiff of eroticism in those photos, or how the the kids themselves were being abused. Am I missing something? That would mean every single ad campaign for children’s clothing is pornographic, judging from the shapeless normcore these tots are modeling. Because they’re in the same frame as some tatty stuffed bears? Evil is in the eye of the beholder.
Pantaboots! You score again by bringing up the hygiene deficiency, haha! The name was enough to make me throw up in my mouth, but that took it to a whole other level for me.
Bevitron – I’m always a little remorseful for bringing your attention to something frivolous. On the other hand, your suggestion of the kids wearing pantaboots proves it was the right thing to do!
Romeo – Zero erection.
Alison – Oh good, thank you for seeing punk instead of B&D! and making me laugh re shapeless normcore.
So, do you think I should return my Balenciaga sneakers that I refuse to wear bc of this ad incident?