Sadly, many of parents whose children were featured in the campaign said the same thing. The fact that many don’t see this as problematic is proof that we have been totally desensitized to the sexualization of children.
Even if a child looking half-drugged on a couch with empty wine glasses, bondage paraphernalia & pedophilia references …
Sadly, many of parents whose children were featured in the campaign said the same thing. The fact that many don’t see this as problematic is proof that we have been totally desensitized to the sexualization of children.
Even if a child looking half-drugged on a couch with empty wine glasses, bondage paraphernalia & pedophilia references littering the room doesn’t bother you as a parent, at least have some level of concern about the fact that they are obviously pushing boundaries and gaging our tolerance level for this kind of thing.
What, exactly, is sexualized about the Balenciaga ads? The court case thing is weird. But not offensive on the surface since it's totally not obvious.
Beauty pageants bother me. Some of the older CK style ads with tweens and 13 year olds are very distasteful.
This one? Doesn't bother me. Unless you can point to something that looks significantly different than my own kid's bedroom (hoodies and sweat pants and dolls with horrid makeup on them).
*edit*
Like what's being proposed here? That some barely visible piece of paper on a desk with fuzzy print I can barely read when I zoom in whose content is excessively dry legalese in a pornography case (that was a pro child protection finding) is going to subliminally influence me to find kiddie porn more acceptable?
*edit 2*
Went back and looked. The wine flutes are barely visible in the picture, didn't even notice the first time....and they're full of water. Big whoop.
This is a sort of no-true-Scotsman circularity: Any non-desensitized person can see why the ad is concerning; if you can't see why the ad is concerning, you must be desensitized. Therefore, there's no further burden to persuade you otherwise.
To your point about these ads not looking far off from your own kids’ rooms, this ad campaign got me thinking about similarities to other dolls and toys popular on the market. For example, Monster High and Shadow High dolls have some similar motifs, they are styled with punk and goth looks. I’d argue they’re a step up from previous dolls, their bodies aren’t too thin and their clothes are more stylish than sexy. While the purple Balenciaga bear is a bit more BDSM, I really don’t see the white one as too problematic— I could see it sold alongside these aforementioned dolls, and (had it not been for this debacle) not cause any controversy.
I just saw one of the "purple bear" images. Now that's definitely a BDSM harness.
Pretty weird choice and I'd say that's inappropriate. Not sure it crosses into the "save our children!" zone for me. Or implies some sneaky conspiracy to sexualize children and normalize pedophilia.
Sadly, many of parents whose children were featured in the campaign said the same thing. The fact that many don’t see this as problematic is proof that we have been totally desensitized to the sexualization of children.
Even if a child looking half-drugged on a couch with empty wine glasses, bondage paraphernalia & pedophilia references littering the room doesn’t bother you as a parent, at least have some level of concern about the fact that they are obviously pushing boundaries and gaging our tolerance level for this kind of thing.
What, exactly, is sexualized about the Balenciaga ads? The court case thing is weird. But not offensive on the surface since it's totally not obvious.
Beauty pageants bother me. Some of the older CK style ads with tweens and 13 year olds are very distasteful.
This one? Doesn't bother me. Unless you can point to something that looks significantly different than my own kid's bedroom (hoodies and sweat pants and dolls with horrid makeup on them).
*edit*
Like what's being proposed here? That some barely visible piece of paper on a desk with fuzzy print I can barely read when I zoom in whose content is excessively dry legalese in a pornography case (that was a pro child protection finding) is going to subliminally influence me to find kiddie porn more acceptable?
*edit 2*
Went back and looked. The wine flutes are barely visible in the picture, didn't even notice the first time....and they're full of water. Big whoop.
If you can’t see why the ad is concerning, and you’re desensitized to what others see that’s off... no one is going to be able to convince you.
But many people do see a problem.
This is a sort of no-true-Scotsman circularity: Any non-desensitized person can see why the ad is concerning; if you can't see why the ad is concerning, you must be desensitized. Therefore, there's no further burden to persuade you otherwise.
To your point about these ads not looking far off from your own kids’ rooms, this ad campaign got me thinking about similarities to other dolls and toys popular on the market. For example, Monster High and Shadow High dolls have some similar motifs, they are styled with punk and goth looks. I’d argue they’re a step up from previous dolls, their bodies aren’t too thin and their clothes are more stylish than sexy. While the purple Balenciaga bear is a bit more BDSM, I really don’t see the white one as too problematic— I could see it sold alongside these aforementioned dolls, and (had it not been for this debacle) not cause any controversy.
Haha, guess you’ve never dabbled in bondage or BDSM 😆😆
I just saw one of the "purple bear" images. Now that's definitely a BDSM harness.
Pretty weird choice and I'd say that's inappropriate. Not sure it crosses into the "save our children!" zone for me. Or implies some sneaky conspiracy to sexualize children and normalize pedophilia.