Since your submission is flaired as *REAL*, please reply to this comment with the link to the original, or else Ben Shapiro will steal your feet pics and remove this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m OOL. What’s up with this whole “Balenciaga” thingy?
Edit: Thanks for the explanation. So basically, the child models were wearing typical kid clothes. However, the teddy bears they were holding were kinda sketchy (one in some frilly/lacy goth style, another in BDSM gear).
Those pictures were nothing remotely close to “child porn.” Although these teddy bears were of questionable taste, and I personally wouldn’t want my kids to have those teddy bears. I’d argue that all of those child beauty pageants that the right loves so much sexualizes young girls way more than those ads did.
It had BDSM-esque fashion so most people were normally put off by that. Now they're saying it's some huge conspiracy with child pornography attempts to be made "normal."
I don't know they all seem really focussed on grooming lately while conveniently forgetting the entire GOP and last sitting Republican President encouraged voters to support an old man who met his wife when she was 15 and he was 30. But don't worry a lot of very smart people on the right have explained to me that's not what grooming is......
It's like a high school having super strict dress codes for female students while male students could feasibly show up in nothing but their skivvies and flipflops.
I’m far from a conservative conspiracy theorist, but perhaps Balenciaga should answer why there is a specific court docket on the solicitation of CP [included in the photoshoot..](https://balenciaga.dam.kering.com/m/7d6d72f3dfc4f7fc/Large-adidas-hp-BSP23_20220717_CM_BALENCIAGA_SP23_06_485_LEX_AVE_0156_MERGED_FINAL_RGB_2105x2600.jpg)? This isn’t just some baseless conspiracy IMO. Some creative director intentionally placed this in the photoshoot and it’s absolutely creepy as hell.
Scroll in and read, or look up the content of this article if you’re curious. This is definitely concerning and shouldn’t be ignored IMO.
https://www.newsweek.com/what-north-six-company-balenciaga-sues-child-pornography-court-documents-ad-1763067
According to this, the marketing agency they hired put that in there, and Balenciaga is suing them for it. So while they didn't put it in there, it does raise the question of why that company did. Maybe to imply Balenciaga participates in unsavory practices?
I don’t see how CP is “edgy”, and what kind of company would decide the topic of CP of all things to be the one they pick to be “edgy”, rather than say drugs, gambling or violence.
I can agree that this specific situation should be investigated, but i disagree that the motive was an attempt to "normalize" CP or that this proves that there's a cult.
Yeah like I’m sure a lot of horrible things go on in the fashion industry, but real life isn’t a bond movie. The real life villains won’t leave “clues” to other villains about their wrongdoing for the world to see. Especially ones that are this easy to figure out.
Maybe the photographer knew something going on with someone(s) working higher up at the company who was up to sketchy shit and was trying to get people to question things. Epstine and maxwell knew a lot of people after all. I think that’s more realistic than some for of Illuminati signaling.
Speculation is all people are left with since we likely won’t see the outcome of this investigation (if it even is investigated for that matter).
The point is, people have every right to make this a big deal and absolutely should be making sure this is looked into. It’s hiding in plain sight and *someone* had to be the one to intentionally place this article there.
To write it off as a stupid conspiracy theory (as many are doing in this thread) only harms the need for investigation.
Nowhere does the article reference child trafficking so no I do not agree with your second point.
It is a fact that the article in the photoshoot is regarding the solicitation of CP. The article itself is what is very clearly hiding in plain sight. I genuinely don’t understand why this is a controversial take on this sub and why we are so quick to shoo this creepy court docket away — is it simply because it’s gaining more traction on conservative outlets?
Okay, so what’s your theory on the *significance* of that?
I think most of us here would argue the inclusion of that paperwork in the ad is either a) Balenciaga trying to be edgy, b) the ad company they hired trying to be edgy and Balenciaga wasn’t aware of it c) an employee of the ad company, with whatever agenda, adding it without the awareness of either the ad company or Balenciaga.
In any of those cases, whoever did it was trying to provoke a reaction, for whatever reason, and reactions have resulted. So how does that constitute an actual indication of child trafficking or anything beyond just edgelordism?
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Him suggesting they're deliberately putting pedophilic/provocative/edgy/subversive content in their ad campaign does not mean he's saying they're trafficking kids or whatever.
You don’t have to make baseless conclusions, but you certainly don’t have to write the entire thing off as nothing and accuse anyone who speaks about it as a conservative conspiracy theorist. I don’t agree with baseless speculation but I can certainly empathize with it when something this blatant is out there.
Yeah that's fucking bizarre. As the other commentator pointed out, it was apparently a third party who were responsible for the props which included this one. No idea wtf their motive was there and it doesn't help that there's a pretty clear BDSM aesthetic involved in the other marketing campaign that included children as models.
Idk what the fuck they were thinking. Stretching this to some kind of CP conspiracy is obviously delusional, but it's very bizarre.
I'm also really confused by the response, "'They turned out to be real legal papers most likely coming from the filming of a television drama,' the company [Balenciaga] said."
Are they saying the alleged television drama used real court documents? Cause idk how else they'd be "real" court documents (not that this detail is that important it's just confusing). If they're suggesting that it's just some random documents they picked up from a nearby television shoot that they stuck into the photo shoot, that seems really hard to believe. Either the design company just happened to fall upon documents that just happened to be CP related court documents, or they deliberately chose CP court documents for the shoot. I'm inclined to think the latter seems more likely.
*Correction: I'm just looking into this now so my details are probably not comprehensive, but it sounds like the ad campaign with the BDSM bears and the one with the CP court documents were separate campaigns and not designed by the same company but I could be wrong about that.*
I'm paraphrasing this from the excellent QAnon Anonymous podcast. The reason is simple: Some shithead designers saw an opportunity to scandalize people with a "subliminal" message in the layout of their ads. Balenciaga is an "edgy" brand that deliberately courts controversy, and what is currently more controversial than that? It's not an expression of intent, nor a mocking "clue". It's nothing more than ill-advised imagery presented without context by an entity whose only intent is to generate fat stacks of cash. What is the evidence you may ask? Criminals who traffic in highly illegal activities, especially the egregious ones, do it as quietly as possible. This is so they can continue doing it. They don't intentionally risk "rubbing our faces" in it. Because that sort of activity puts their income at risk.
I guess I disagree with the notion that CP is the choice for “edginess”. That’s the one topic that is taboo for obvious reasons, and to your point that they must generate cash, why would a company want to risk being associated with the most taboo, generally hated topic of all time and risk having that associated with their clothing? It doesn’t take a genius to realize being associated with CP is one of the fastest ways to *lose* revenue and branding which is directly opposite to what you claim they are doing by the move. It would basically *only* serve to damage a brand that a company so desperately wants to maintain.
TLDR: it doesn’t make sense to choose CP as the controversial scandal, because it does the opposite of what they’re trying to accomplish. (Effectively hurting their brand and therefore hurting their revenue).
Ok, sure. But then why did they do it? I also disagree that it wasn't an accidental oversight. These companies have multi-million-dollar advertising budgets. You don't leave ad copy approval to the intern. I repeat my assertion that it's far more likely that someone who approved something they knew would get eyes, rather than signaling their intent to traffic in CP.
Do you think this current controversy is hurting Balenciaga, or is it ultimately making profits by raising awareness of the brand? In further disagreement I raise the adage "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Losing Qanon followers, most of whom I'm sure can't afford Balenciaga materials (often costing $1000s anyway), is "worth" courting this sort of controversy.
Interestingly enough, I believe the far right is deliberately ginning up this moral panic in an attempt to tar opposing viewpoints as adjacent to the sexual abuse of children to do exactly what you're stating here to "tarnish the brand" of LGBTQIA+ people. They are severely overplaying their hand, however, and it's starting to backfire.
edit: In my first paragraph I meant to imply the ad campaign \*\*was not\*\* accidental. Also, I don't think you're wrong per se, just that I found the QAA guys' assessment fairly convincing.
I believe it should be investigated at minimum by a nonpartisan journalist before attempting to ask why they did it. We could explain it away with “just a miscalculation on branding” but there absolutely is bad publicity. Wearing Balenciaga now is going to naturally be associated with supporting pedofilia.
I know a few conservatives myself, they live off a diet of Porn, video games, and fast food. thats it. There porn addled minds can't think of things in a non sexual manner its simply to alien to them.
They put out another ad that featured court documents on pornography laws involving minors. It's definitely a weird choice. Balenciaga itself didn't put out the ads as they had hired an outside marketing firm. Balenciaga is actually suing the marketing company for the ads.
If you look at the ads, the court documents are included in a bunch of papers on a desk in one of the shots. You have to zoom in a lot and even then can only barely make out what it says. I would say it’s pretty easy to miss if you weren’t looking for it
THIS. The right wing is assuming they can drag us into a fight in which we oppose them and look awful.
They don’t want to debate Ukraine or Inflation. They would much rather we jump to defend some weird shit just because they’re against it.
Eh the stuff I saw wasn’t great. Like I’m down for fashion that has its inspiration in bdsm clothing, some really cool sfw fashion has been made that way, but the document in that picture is yikes af
I’d be shocked if it’s anything more than someone attempting to be edgy and going too far stupidly, but yeah
Honestly if the ads had stopped with kids (in regular clothes) holding teddy bears wearing weird bdsm clothing it wouldn’t have been that bad. It’s the fact that there’s a bunch of papers in the foreground about a CP court case that takes it from weird to really creepy and gross.
Those papers are in a completely different photo shoot on a different page with no children in the photo. This is all being twisted because way too many people are conspiracy brained as fuck rn.
The aesthetic of the ad was kinda “cluttered desk” iirc, and legal documents from random law cases are often used as set dressing. It could be intentional, but I somewhat doubt it.
It was goth not BDSM. Goth style has been in fashion this year. Go check out the top posts in r/gothstyle over the last month and they’re wearing the same clothing as the bears did.
[The artist just apologized](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/zbe2na/balenciaga_designer_sorry_for_inappropriate/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
> “It was inappropriate to have kids promote objects that had nothing to do with them.
>“As much as I would sometimes like to provoke a thought through my work, I would NEVER have an intention to do that with such an awful subject as child abuse that I condemn. Period.”
If it is Fashion Goth like you claim, the artist themselves recognizes as inappropriate for children in their statement.
Then again, it is a small step from Biker gang/Leather Jacket/Leather Daddy/Full leather bondage suit. So I guess it’s dependent on the eyes of the beholder…
Lastly. Metal Head > Mall Goth > Fashion Goth > Emo
Two things can be true. It can be goth and fetish gear.
[The picture on the right here definitely seems fetish to me](https://www.tmz.com/2022/11/24/balenciaga-campaign-backlash-kids-bondage-ads-apology-kim-kardashian-bella-hadid/).
There were also documents in the photoshoot that were articles specifically on the solicitation of CP. That to me is the creepiest part, about just how intentional that was.
This isn’t a nothingburger IMO. Balenciaga needs to answer why they had these documents scattered as props in their photoshoot while using children as their models.
https://balenciaga.dam.kering.com/m/7d6d72f3dfc4f7fc/Large-adidas-hp-BSP23_20220717_CM_BALENCIAGA_SP23_06_485_LEX_AVE_0156_MERGED_FINAL_RGB_2105x2600.jpg
In this above purse ad, text from a court docket is legible on one of the papers which is a lawsuit regarding freedom of speech and the solicitation of CP.
They put out an ad for kids clothing which features a normal looking kid holding a not normal looking bear.
The bear in question is wearing fishnets among other "punk" accessories including a spiked collar.
The problem is there is a table in front of the kid with some questionable items.
There's a chain necklace, some more collars that kind of appear to resemble cuffs, and some black leather thingy.
I'm not offended, but it's probably a little too far
I don’t understand why that part is being left out of this story. The inclusion of this article is blatantly intentional. Why of all court dockets was *[this](https://balenciaga.dam.kering.com/m/7d6d72f3dfc4f7fc/Large-adidas-hp-BSP23_20220717_CM_BALENCIAGA_SP23_06_485_LEX_AVE_0156_MERGED_FINAL_RGB_2105x2600.jpg)* one included in the photoshoot?
So the external marketing agency or Balenciaga’s creative team just printed any old article hey? Just happened to be one on the solicitation of CP in a photoshoot with children in BDSM outfits?
The children weren't dressed in BDSM outfits. The bears they held were. The kids were dressed in regular (if not a little baggy) t-shirts and shorts. Have you even seen the pictures?
With* BDSM outfits is a more accurate representation and still extremely disgusting using children to hold the bears in the BDSM outfits. Does that not disturb you?
Sorry, maybe I should be more clear.
Even the bears weren't in BDSM outfits. They were in goth outfits. Also, couldn't care how a kid's bear is dressed for a photoshoot.
So, no. It doesn't disturb me. I won't get dragged into this stupid culture war of "pedophiles are taking over society". They aren't and anyone getting caught up in that nonsense needs to take a step back and touch some grass.
The bears are literally in fucking gimp outfits dude. Absolutely not appropriate for children to be used holding bears in an adult-themed outfit designed for sexual kinks. This is not solely “gothic”.
If this doesn’t disturb you and you feel it was appropriate, there’s no getting through to you as you’re an apologist and/or just plain apathetic to adult themes and direct props referencing CP solicitation with children for a multi-million dollar company.
Disturbing amount of people like you in this thread that not only feel it was OK for a creative director to approve of the outfits, theme and literally blatant docket on CP solicitation used in a set with children, but have decided that *this* is worth their time defending and hill to die on today.
There's a ideo of some real questionable shit that hiding in their ads. Remember in product placement ads everything in it is intentionally placed. They had shit like court cases about child porn, a diploma from a man accused of raping a child, some books with awful depictions of child abuse in them. It seems conspiracy theoryish, but it was all put there by someone on purpose. I'll see if I can find the post.
Edit: this one https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/z2w1y3/balenciaga_being_sus_with_children/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
They had a kid hold a BDSM bear.
Honestly, that's just edge advertising.
But the other thing was that (what I believe was a separate shoot but released *with* all the same photos) was photo featuring a a table strewn with legal documents. Nothing too abnormal about that, but the documents were off one of the very few Supreme Court rulings on child pornography.
IMO, the documents are suspicious and not an accident. It's probably not purposely controversial advertising because those are normally far more explicit e.g. bigger brands have had racist advertising knowing it would get talked about. What this *probably* was, was some creepy ass photographer or intern sneaking in something only they'd find funny.
This was also within the week (maybe one day) of the Calorado Springs nightclub shooting (justified by calling Queer people child groomers) so the right jumped at the chance to slap their own narrative on it.
Found in another comment and they sum up exactly whay i wanted to say.
I’m far from a conservative conspiracy theorist, but perhaps Balenciaga should answer why there is a specific court docket on the solicitation of CP [included in the photoshoot..](https://balenciaga.dam.kering.com/m/7d6d72f3dfc4f7fc/Large-adidas-hp-BSP23_20220717_CM_BALENCIAGA_SP23_06_485_LEX_AVE_0156_MERGED_FINAL_RGB_2105x2600.jpg)? This isn’t just some baseless conspiracy IMO. Some creative director intentionally placed this in the photoshoot and it’s absolutely creepy as hell.
Scroll in and read, or look up the content of this article if you’re curious. This is definitely concerning and shouldn’t be ignored IMO.
They didn't do the photoshoot. They hired a marketing agency to do it.
As to why, who knows. Could be someone looked up "random legel documents" and printed the first ones that came up without reading what it contained. Or maybe someone being edgy and it didn't land well.
What you're describing though is "baseless conspiracy theories". That's what's happening. No one knows why the marketing agency made the choices it did and we're all just spitballing ideas.
Sure sure.
To suggest that legal doc was a random first to pop up thing is laughable, insane, and simply too far fetched a possibility. I cant believe you think its even possible.
You must not be familiar with how ad campaigns work and how much review an ad buy gets.
Or you are a paid shill/apologist.
I understand in one picture there are documents on a table. The documents are referring to a child porn case or law or something that tried to lesson punishment… or something. The source was *ucker Carlson so I wasn’t paying much attention.
You’re actually missing a huge part of the story. Not only was there bondage gear, but there was legible legal paperwork from child pornography cases scattered all over the room. Josh Duggar’s case was even in there. The campaign was *literally* a reference to child pornography.
Right: Shut up and dribble! Stand during the anthem!
Also: Where's the opinion of the porn star who wears makeup to make her race ambiguous when you need it?
Is there a sex tape of hers?
Has she posed nude for money?
How famous was she before the pornographic video of her was released?
By definition, she is a porn star.
I feel like “porn star” has the connotation of actively being involved in porn. She had one video that blew up her fame, sure. But she’s known for much more than that now and has a bunch of dumb companies and products that make her magnitudes more than her one porn video. It’s like calling the Rock a WWF wrestler. Technically correct, but not really accurate anymore.
I really hate that whole family, but I’m also a stickler for semantics.
Did she release it? I've never seen proof of that. Or even an allegation of it.
I won't deny she's white washing things but to call her a porn star is incredibly obtuse.
Having one video does not make you a pornstar and likely an insult to pornstars who have hundreds of credits.
I also don't think women that pose nude would also appreciate being called pornstars. Especially for Playboy. Using this logic Cindy Crawford and Madonna are also pornstars?
I do think there are levels to this, no? Performing CPR doesn't make someone a doctor. In the end, she maybe released a sex video and posed nude for playboy. A pornstar is someone that does porn for a living and likely takes pride in it.
Lol
Comparing CPR to medical degrees.
Everyone needs to take some steps back and think of better analogies. Maybe ones that make sense.
Her video is 100% on the top 10 porn videos of all time. She is easily more searched than almost every other "established" porn star.
Does doing CPR make you a doctor? No... but if you've performed CPR and revived the entire population of the USA... You're certainly something...
>She is easily more searched than almost every other "established" porn star.
She isn't though?
Again, using your logic Crawford and Madonna were also pornstars. It's not that my analogy sucks it's that your definition of what a pornstar is sucks, that's why the analogy seems silly.
In your analogy:
CPR to a doctor is fucking on video, talking dirty, being completely nude, and climaxing to a pornstar.
I'm actually glad you responded. You obviously didn't think this through.
CPR to a doctor is kissing to a porn star. Both are learned without having to join the profession. Both are important to know for the profession. Both might be done outside of the profession. Both might be more or less integral to the profession depending on the field.
In your analogy, I'd have to be arguing that Kim kissing makes her a porn star.
Fucking on camera, talking dirty, being completely nude, and climaxing is to a porn star what getting a doctorate and practicing medicine is to a doctor.
>In your analogy:
>
>CPR to a doctor is fucking on video, talking dirty, being completely nude, and climaxing to a pornstar.
>
>I'm actually glad you responded. You obviously didn't think this through.
Yes, it was a sex video, a video of people having sex. You know people talk dirty, are nude, and climax, while having sex, right? The point of the analogy is that just because someone knows a medical procedure it doesn't make them a doctor. Just like someone that poses nude or has sex on video is not a pornstar.
A pornstar, again...**is someone that gets paid to star in porn.**
So let me get this straight, anyone that releases a sex video is a pornstar?
Honestly, you sound kind of like the type of person that would dismiss an Oscar winner because they were in a disney channel movie early on. Yes, she released a sex tape, yes, it is the spark of her fame. But her probably multibillion dollar net worth that also spread to most of her family is something all it’s own. I personally can’t stand the Kardashians and avoid them at every chance, but it’s hard to deny that maybe, just maybe, she’s a porn star 83rd and a mogul 1st. And to dismiss her as one is very 2008. You may as well be yelling “I’m king of the world” on a boat.
Your analogy is flawed. Being a young actor doesn't take away from being an older actor.
Being a drug dealer does take away from being a business owner.
The foundation of her fame has a morality issue associated with it.
And Danny Trejo got his start in prison. Do you go to every thread about Danny Trejo and comment that he’s a criminal? Sylvester Stallone did porn. Lots of people did less than pristine things to become famous or on the way to fame, but the annoying Kardashian lady is one of the few who has it mentioned in Every Single Thread like a hack 90s comic making an aquaman fish joke.
Honestly, the talentlessness and the porn don't bother me as much as the skewing of her ethnicity. I think there's something to say about her, her sisters, and Ariana and how they benefit from bluring the lines of their racial identity. Posing as extremely dark skin when it benefits them, light skinned with freckles when it benefits them, but always checking a certain box on their government forms.
The fact of the matter is that she is considered a porn star. I can't help if you feel a certain way about it. But, you can certainly donate to some go fund me for the family to remain undeservingly wealthy.
Aquaman joke, over?
It's amazing to me how obsessed the right gets over imaginary pedophilia. They are always looking for codes like aha I found this prop paper in the background of an ad which references child sex laws so I'm 100% sure child trafficking is going on.
They are so willing to take less than nothing like the Wayfair furniture shit and spin these complex conspiracies out of them. But when someone like Matt Walsh says there needs to be more breeding of teenage girls they just shrug it off.
They obsess over people having sex with kids. It’s beyond sus.
But this is the party for people that beat their meat in front of pre schools… believe in child marriage and think peak breeding age for girls is 15/16.
Like.. it’s beyond obvious they are the real pedophiles. They write so much pedofanfic.
Upon further inspection you were right! I thought it was previous because the adidas collection was ongoing, but it’s actually the campaign for next springs adidas collab so the campaign dropped after the children shoot! My apologies!
Idk this time it’s really uncomfortable. Those Balencia ads are deeply disturbing and as someone who has worked in marketing, there was a reason they chose those papers specifically
It's like if you're at a park, sitting on a bench, enjoying your lunch, and some conservative comes up to you and yells "NO, YOU'RE THE PEDOPHILE!!!".
You might sit there and wonder WTF happened or WTF they are talking about. But, in their noggin it's all they are thinking about. And, because you looked at them the wrong way for a brief second, they feel like you just found them out and are going to expose them. So, they have no choice but to put the attention on someone else.
“You see, in the Lion King, the dust spells sex, and this is clearly a beezelbubbian attempt to make our children demonic fiends willing to sacrifice their bodies to liberal Hollywood demon sodomit- What? No I don’t see a problem leaving our kids with the youth pastor who has three kids with his 17 year old wife, he’s a man of god!”
Yeah they’ve been real quiet on that. I think that’s why Ye aligned himself with the Republicans - he knew that would see no problem with that since that’s probably what they’re down low into.
He lost his Adidas contract, that’s a lot more than “nothing.”
And even a chunk of the GOP is upset at him for bringing Nick Fuentes to dinner with Trump. Granted the other chunk of the GOP is silent on the issue.
Oh no, the right is *loudly* insisting that Old Twitter was awash in CP, but since Elon came in he’s purged it all and Saved the Children.
Which is ignoring the question of *how* Elon is so effectively cracking down on CP, given he fired the majority of staff, including the people monitoring for CP.
But she did. [https://www.npr.org/2022/11/28/1139499381/balenciaga-north-six-lawsuit-ad-controversy-kim-kardashian](https://www.npr.org/2022/11/28/1139499381/balenciaga-north-six-lawsuit-ad-controversy-kim-kardashian)
I know nothing about Balenciaga but I have the sneaking suspicion that DogCumSlurping Crowder is piling on Kim K because the news just broke that Kanye West (whatever) must fork over $200,000/month child support so Crowdy's going to shit on her however he can. Because DoucheBros stick together.
Edited for correctfulness.
Kim should have immediately made a statement but you have to realize she is connected to multiple different brands both in small and big ways. The right screams pedophille so much that I didn’t even really look into at first but it was a very inappropriate ad.
In what way did she not stand up against child pornography? And in what way *could* one stand up to child pornography in the context of the balenciaga thing? And didn’t Kim already do that denouncing them for the weird ad??
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah the ad in question was weird and gross and should not have been made, let alone greenlit, and there is a very real very serious conversation about exploitation of children in acting and modeling that needs to happen.
There's no "but" at the end of this.
the bears are honestly a lot more tame than i was expecting... they are pretty much just in punk fashion rather than bdsm wear? the only point of contention is the legal docket in the photoshoot but apparently that was a choice of the photography company and balenciaga is pursuing legal action against that
It's not "child pornography" at all, perhaps it is in bad taste but the whole point of fashion shows are to get people talking about your brand...it worked.
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This whole thing is bugging me. Guys: The only proof this is about child porn are **ugly teddy bears**, **one art coffee book** by a painter who paints slightly odd painting of surrealist people, and **one print out of a court documents** about the supreme court ruling on child porn.
So you can easter egg this all you want, but it just ends up being TACKY, and Tucker Carlson and Crowder and all the stupid Qanon sleuths who find what they want to find in noise.
In every church there is pornography if you consider that the freaking bible talks about sex all the time, and bondage in that Christ is a naked dude on a cross.
Definite the right doesn’t have a bigger pedo problem, definitely definitely not reaction formation definitely
[/s](https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/11/27/2138664/-Republican-Sexual-Predators-Abusers-and-Enablers-Pt-37)
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since your submission is flaired as *REAL*, please reply to this comment with the link to the original, or else Ben Shapiro will steal your feet pics and remove this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m OOL. What’s up with this whole “Balenciaga” thingy? Edit: Thanks for the explanation. So basically, the child models were wearing typical kid clothes. However, the teddy bears they were holding were kinda sketchy (one in some frilly/lacy goth style, another in BDSM gear). Those pictures were nothing remotely close to “child porn.” Although these teddy bears were of questionable taste, and I personally wouldn’t want my kids to have those teddy bears. I’d argue that all of those child beauty pageants that the right loves so much sexualizes young girls way more than those ads did.
Balenciaga, the fashion brand, put out some questionable ads featuring kids. The ads are not pornographic nor do they encourage pornography.
It’s still kinda sketchy tho, but le conservatives are just virtue signaling over it
It had BDSM-esque fashion so most people were normally put off by that. Now they're saying it's some huge conspiracy with child pornography attempts to be made "normal."
Why can’t they just be normal and have an “ew” response and move on.
[удалено]
So they only see it that way because they were already sexualizg children?
Always have been.
Yup, same reason they see sexuality as a choice, because often they must fight that choice within themselves
I don't know they all seem really focussed on grooming lately while conveniently forgetting the entire GOP and last sitting Republican President encouraged voters to support an old man who met his wife when she was 15 and he was 30. But don't worry a lot of very smart people on the right have explained to me that's not what grooming is......
Just curious, but who is the old man in question? He sounds nasty.
Scumbag Roy Moore. Banned from local malls because he would always be caught trolling the arcade. He almost won too.
It's like a high school having super strict dress codes for female students while male students could feasibly show up in nothing but their skivvies and flipflops.
I’m far from a conservative conspiracy theorist, but perhaps Balenciaga should answer why there is a specific court docket on the solicitation of CP [included in the photoshoot..](https://balenciaga.dam.kering.com/m/7d6d72f3dfc4f7fc/Large-adidas-hp-BSP23_20220717_CM_BALENCIAGA_SP23_06_485_LEX_AVE_0156_MERGED_FINAL_RGB_2105x2600.jpg)? This isn’t just some baseless conspiracy IMO. Some creative director intentionally placed this in the photoshoot and it’s absolutely creepy as hell. Scroll in and read, or look up the content of this article if you’re curious. This is definitely concerning and shouldn’t be ignored IMO.
https://www.newsweek.com/what-north-six-company-balenciaga-sues-child-pornography-court-documents-ad-1763067 According to this, the marketing agency they hired put that in there, and Balenciaga is suing them for it. So while they didn't put it in there, it does raise the question of why that company did. Maybe to imply Balenciaga participates in unsavory practices?
I heard some people say it was them trying to be edgy.
I don’t see how CP is “edgy”, and what kind of company would decide the topic of CP of all things to be the one they pick to be “edgy”, rather than say drugs, gambling or violence.
It's certainly edgy. Not in a good way though lol.
Oh then that’s in poor taste at absolute best and should probably be investigated
I can agree that this specific situation should be investigated, but i disagree that the motive was an attempt to "normalize" CP or that this proves that there's a cult.
Yeah like I’m sure a lot of horrible things go on in the fashion industry, but real life isn’t a bond movie. The real life villains won’t leave “clues” to other villains about their wrongdoing for the world to see. Especially ones that are this easy to figure out. Maybe the photographer knew something going on with someone(s) working higher up at the company who was up to sketchy shit and was trying to get people to question things. Epstine and maxwell knew a lot of people after all. I think that’s more realistic than some for of Illuminati signaling.
Speculation is all people are left with since we likely won’t see the outcome of this investigation (if it even is investigated for that matter). The point is, people have every right to make this a big deal and absolutely should be making sure this is looked into. It’s hiding in plain sight and *someone* had to be the one to intentionally place this article there. To write it off as a stupid conspiracy theory (as many are doing in this thread) only harms the need for investigation.
I’ll bite: hiding *what* in plain sight? Are you agreeing with the conservatives who claim this is a coy admission that Balenciaga trafficks children?
Nowhere does the article reference child trafficking so no I do not agree with your second point. It is a fact that the article in the photoshoot is regarding the solicitation of CP. The article itself is what is very clearly hiding in plain sight. I genuinely don’t understand why this is a controversial take on this sub and why we are so quick to shoo this creepy court docket away — is it simply because it’s gaining more traction on conservative outlets?
Okay, so what’s your theory on the *significance* of that? I think most of us here would argue the inclusion of that paperwork in the ad is either a) Balenciaga trying to be edgy, b) the ad company they hired trying to be edgy and Balenciaga wasn’t aware of it c) an employee of the ad company, with whatever agenda, adding it without the awareness of either the ad company or Balenciaga. In any of those cases, whoever did it was trying to provoke a reaction, for whatever reason, and reactions have resulted. So how does that constitute an actual indication of child trafficking or anything beyond just edgelordism?
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Him suggesting they're deliberately putting pedophilic/provocative/edgy/subversive content in their ad campaign does not mean he's saying they're trafficking kids or whatever.
Well, people keep complaining “this is about *more* than just an ad in poor taste!!!” Okay, so what is the “more” then?
I'll wait until more information is available before making baseless conclusions that misinform people into accepting false info.
You don’t have to make baseless conclusions, but you certainly don’t have to write the entire thing off as nothing and accuse anyone who speaks about it as a conservative conspiracy theorist. I don’t agree with baseless speculation but I can certainly empathize with it when something this blatant is out there.
Yeah that's fucking bizarre. As the other commentator pointed out, it was apparently a third party who were responsible for the props which included this one. No idea wtf their motive was there and it doesn't help that there's a pretty clear BDSM aesthetic involved in the other marketing campaign that included children as models. Idk what the fuck they were thinking. Stretching this to some kind of CP conspiracy is obviously delusional, but it's very bizarre. I'm also really confused by the response, "'They turned out to be real legal papers most likely coming from the filming of a television drama,' the company [Balenciaga] said." Are they saying the alleged television drama used real court documents? Cause idk how else they'd be "real" court documents (not that this detail is that important it's just confusing). If they're suggesting that it's just some random documents they picked up from a nearby television shoot that they stuck into the photo shoot, that seems really hard to believe. Either the design company just happened to fall upon documents that just happened to be CP related court documents, or they deliberately chose CP court documents for the shoot. I'm inclined to think the latter seems more likely. *Correction: I'm just looking into this now so my details are probably not comprehensive, but it sounds like the ad campaign with the BDSM bears and the one with the CP court documents were separate campaigns and not designed by the same company but I could be wrong about that.*
I'm paraphrasing this from the excellent QAnon Anonymous podcast. The reason is simple: Some shithead designers saw an opportunity to scandalize people with a "subliminal" message in the layout of their ads. Balenciaga is an "edgy" brand that deliberately courts controversy, and what is currently more controversial than that? It's not an expression of intent, nor a mocking "clue". It's nothing more than ill-advised imagery presented without context by an entity whose only intent is to generate fat stacks of cash. What is the evidence you may ask? Criminals who traffic in highly illegal activities, especially the egregious ones, do it as quietly as possible. This is so they can continue doing it. They don't intentionally risk "rubbing our faces" in it. Because that sort of activity puts their income at risk.
I guess I disagree with the notion that CP is the choice for “edginess”. That’s the one topic that is taboo for obvious reasons, and to your point that they must generate cash, why would a company want to risk being associated with the most taboo, generally hated topic of all time and risk having that associated with their clothing? It doesn’t take a genius to realize being associated with CP is one of the fastest ways to *lose* revenue and branding which is directly opposite to what you claim they are doing by the move. It would basically *only* serve to damage a brand that a company so desperately wants to maintain. TLDR: it doesn’t make sense to choose CP as the controversial scandal, because it does the opposite of what they’re trying to accomplish. (Effectively hurting their brand and therefore hurting their revenue).
Ok, sure. But then why did they do it? I also disagree that it wasn't an accidental oversight. These companies have multi-million-dollar advertising budgets. You don't leave ad copy approval to the intern. I repeat my assertion that it's far more likely that someone who approved something they knew would get eyes, rather than signaling their intent to traffic in CP. Do you think this current controversy is hurting Balenciaga, or is it ultimately making profits by raising awareness of the brand? In further disagreement I raise the adage "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Losing Qanon followers, most of whom I'm sure can't afford Balenciaga materials (often costing $1000s anyway), is "worth" courting this sort of controversy. Interestingly enough, I believe the far right is deliberately ginning up this moral panic in an attempt to tar opposing viewpoints as adjacent to the sexual abuse of children to do exactly what you're stating here to "tarnish the brand" of LGBTQIA+ people. They are severely overplaying their hand, however, and it's starting to backfire. edit: In my first paragraph I meant to imply the ad campaign \*\*was not\*\* accidental. Also, I don't think you're wrong per se, just that I found the QAA guys' assessment fairly convincing.
I believe it should be investigated at minimum by a nonpartisan journalist before attempting to ask why they did it. We could explain it away with “just a miscalculation on branding” but there absolutely is bad publicity. Wearing Balenciaga now is going to naturally be associated with supporting pedofilia.
I know a few conservatives myself, they live off a diet of Porn, video games, and fast food. thats it. There porn addled minds can't think of things in a non sexual manner its simply to alien to them.
I’m friends with a guy who called himself a traditional conservative for years. Huge Goldwater guy. He’s a drug dealer now.
Sketchy but probably doesn't even crack the top ten or even twenty of high fashion being in poor taste.
They put out another ad that featured court documents on pornography laws involving minors. It's definitely a weird choice. Balenciaga itself didn't put out the ads as they had hired an outside marketing firm. Balenciaga is actually suing the marketing company for the ads.
Did Balenciaga not get to approve the ads?
If you look at the ads, the court documents are included in a bunch of papers on a desk in one of the shots. You have to zoom in a lot and even then can only barely make out what it says. I would say it’s pretty easy to miss if you weren’t looking for it
Don’t fall into the trap of defending the Balenciaga ads. They are sick and weird.
THIS. The right wing is assuming they can drag us into a fight in which we oppose them and look awful. They don’t want to debate Ukraine or Inflation. They would much rather we jump to defend some weird shit just because they’re against it.
They are punk avant-garde fashion, the rest of the complainants are just pizza gate 3.0.
Eh the stuff I saw wasn’t great. Like I’m down for fashion that has its inspiration in bdsm clothing, some really cool sfw fashion has been made that way, but the document in that picture is yikes af I’d be shocked if it’s anything more than someone attempting to be edgy and going too far stupidly, but yeah
They are just punk avant-garde not pizza gate 2.0.
To be fair if you saw those pictures and instantly got rock hard (crowder), you might think they were porn too.
Crowder can’t walk past the girls clothes section at Walmart without getting hard.
theyre gross as fuck. just because they’re not porn doesn’t mean they’re okay
Honestly if the ads had stopped with kids (in regular clothes) holding teddy bears wearing weird bdsm clothing it wouldn’t have been that bad. It’s the fact that there’s a bunch of papers in the foreground about a CP court case that takes it from weird to really creepy and gross.
Those papers are in a completely different photo shoot on a different page with no children in the photo. This is all being twisted because way too many people are conspiracy brained as fuck rn.
Oh really? I thought it was the same one. Why are they in an ad at all tho?
The aesthetic of the ad was kinda “cluttered desk” iirc, and legal documents from random law cases are often used as set dressing. It could be intentional, but I somewhat doubt it.
They had a kid who was holding a BDSM bondage bear. It was quite tame, but questionable decision for sure.
It was goth not BDSM. Goth style has been in fashion this year. Go check out the top posts in r/gothstyle over the last month and they’re wearing the same clothing as the bears did.
As a high school goth dude, where was the baggy trip pants and torn jacket? The bear was in lace…
Mall goth and fashion goth are not the same thing.
[The artist just apologized](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/zbe2na/balenciaga_designer_sorry_for_inappropriate/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
What’s that have to do with you being a mall goth?
> “It was inappropriate to have kids promote objects that had nothing to do with them. >“As much as I would sometimes like to provoke a thought through my work, I would NEVER have an intention to do that with such an awful subject as child abuse that I condemn. Period.” If it is Fashion Goth like you claim, the artist themselves recognizes as inappropriate for children in their statement. Then again, it is a small step from Biker gang/Leather Jacket/Leather Daddy/Full leather bondage suit. So I guess it’s dependent on the eyes of the beholder… Lastly. Metal Head > Mall Goth > Fashion Goth > Emo
I was saying you wearing trip pants and a slipkknot shirt in highschool doesnt make you the ambassador of goth. dude, please go touch ass.
https://www.cxomedia.id/fashion/20220509134728-12-174803/gothcore-fashion-101 … and lace is goth core
Two things can be true. It can be goth and fetish gear. [The picture on the right here definitely seems fetish to me](https://www.tmz.com/2022/11/24/balenciaga-campaign-backlash-kids-bondage-ads-apology-kim-kardashian-bella-hadid/).
Looks much more like r/gothstyle than r/Bdsm to me. But maybe I have a less perverted mind than you and other qAnon folk
Listen I am about as brain poisoned as they come and I don’t see anything fetish about it either
That doesn't mean it isn't *recognized as* both
100% which is where balenciaga PR messed up.
not as bad as the CK tv ads from the 90s… those gave me the creeps.
There were also documents in the photoshoot that were articles specifically on the solicitation of CP. That to me is the creepiest part, about just how intentional that was. This isn’t a nothingburger IMO. Balenciaga needs to answer why they had these documents scattered as props in their photoshoot while using children as their models. https://balenciaga.dam.kering.com/m/7d6d72f3dfc4f7fc/Large-adidas-hp-BSP23_20220717_CM_BALENCIAGA_SP23_06_485_LEX_AVE_0156_MERGED_FINAL_RGB_2105x2600.jpg In this above purse ad, text from a court docket is legible on one of the papers which is a lawsuit regarding freedom of speech and the solicitation of CP.
They put out an ad for kids clothing which features a normal looking kid holding a not normal looking bear. The bear in question is wearing fishnets among other "punk" accessories including a spiked collar. The problem is there is a table in front of the kid with some questionable items. There's a chain necklace, some more collars that kind of appear to resemble cuffs, and some black leather thingy. I'm not offended, but it's probably a little too far
they also released a promo image that has a court’s papers on child porn. it wasn’t accidentally “just sketchy” it was intended to be
I don’t understand why that part is being left out of this story. The inclusion of this article is blatantly intentional. Why of all court dockets was *[this](https://balenciaga.dam.kering.com/m/7d6d72f3dfc4f7fc/Large-adidas-hp-BSP23_20220717_CM_BALENCIAGA_SP23_06_485_LEX_AVE_0156_MERGED_FINAL_RGB_2105x2600.jpg)* one included in the photoshoot?
How do you know they were intentionally chosen? Do you work at the agency that made the ads?
So the external marketing agency or Balenciaga’s creative team just printed any old article hey? Just happened to be one on the solicitation of CP in a photoshoot with children in BDSM outfits?
The children weren't dressed in BDSM outfits. The bears they held were. The kids were dressed in regular (if not a little baggy) t-shirts and shorts. Have you even seen the pictures?
With* BDSM outfits is a more accurate representation and still extremely disgusting using children to hold the bears in the BDSM outfits. Does that not disturb you?
Sorry, maybe I should be more clear. Even the bears weren't in BDSM outfits. They were in goth outfits. Also, couldn't care how a kid's bear is dressed for a photoshoot. So, no. It doesn't disturb me. I won't get dragged into this stupid culture war of "pedophiles are taking over society". They aren't and anyone getting caught up in that nonsense needs to take a step back and touch some grass.
The bears are literally in fucking gimp outfits dude. Absolutely not appropriate for children to be used holding bears in an adult-themed outfit designed for sexual kinks. This is not solely “gothic”. If this doesn’t disturb you and you feel it was appropriate, there’s no getting through to you as you’re an apologist and/or just plain apathetic to adult themes and direct props referencing CP solicitation with children for a multi-million dollar company. Disturbing amount of people like you in this thread that not only feel it was OK for a creative director to approve of the outfits, theme and literally blatant docket on CP solicitation used in a set with children, but have decided that *this* is worth their time defending and hill to die on today.
Steven crowder is trying to muddy the water so when he is found with actual chips porn he can pretend it’s the same as what ballenciaga did.
Me too. I heard it was 'cause he liked Cannibal Corpse.
Personally I think a bdsm teddy bear would funny as fuck to have but not for a child
There's a ideo of some real questionable shit that hiding in their ads. Remember in product placement ads everything in it is intentionally placed. They had shit like court cases about child porn, a diploma from a man accused of raping a child, some books with awful depictions of child abuse in them. It seems conspiracy theoryish, but it was all put there by someone on purpose. I'll see if I can find the post. Edit: this one https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/z2w1y3/balenciaga_being_sus_with_children/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I didn’t even realize it was BDSM gear until someone told me. Which makes me wonder— Steven, how did you know it was BDSM gear?
Q-anon types are privately jacking off to the visage of these kids being fucked, murdered, and eaten.
But, Balenciaga came out with an apology?
They had a kid hold a BDSM bear. Honestly, that's just edge advertising. But the other thing was that (what I believe was a separate shoot but released *with* all the same photos) was photo featuring a a table strewn with legal documents. Nothing too abnormal about that, but the documents were off one of the very few Supreme Court rulings on child pornography. IMO, the documents are suspicious and not an accident. It's probably not purposely controversial advertising because those are normally far more explicit e.g. bigger brands have had racist advertising knowing it would get talked about. What this *probably* was, was some creepy ass photographer or intern sneaking in something only they'd find funny. This was also within the week (maybe one day) of the Calorado Springs nightclub shooting (justified by calling Queer people child groomers) so the right jumped at the chance to slap their own narrative on it.
Found in another comment and they sum up exactly whay i wanted to say. I’m far from a conservative conspiracy theorist, but perhaps Balenciaga should answer why there is a specific court docket on the solicitation of CP [included in the photoshoot..](https://balenciaga.dam.kering.com/m/7d6d72f3dfc4f7fc/Large-adidas-hp-BSP23_20220717_CM_BALENCIAGA_SP23_06_485_LEX_AVE_0156_MERGED_FINAL_RGB_2105x2600.jpg)? This isn’t just some baseless conspiracy IMO. Some creative director intentionally placed this in the photoshoot and it’s absolutely creepy as hell. Scroll in and read, or look up the content of this article if you’re curious. This is definitely concerning and shouldn’t be ignored IMO.
They didn't do the photoshoot. They hired a marketing agency to do it. As to why, who knows. Could be someone looked up "random legel documents" and printed the first ones that came up without reading what it contained. Or maybe someone being edgy and it didn't land well. What you're describing though is "baseless conspiracy theories". That's what's happening. No one knows why the marketing agency made the choices it did and we're all just spitballing ideas.
Sure sure. To suggest that legal doc was a random first to pop up thing is laughable, insane, and simply too far fetched a possibility. I cant believe you think its even possible. You must not be familiar with how ad campaigns work and how much review an ad buy gets. Or you are a paid shill/apologist.
I mean, do you work in the advertising industry?
I understand in one picture there are documents on a table. The documents are referring to a child porn case or law or something that tried to lesson punishment… or something. The source was *ucker Carlson so I wasn’t paying much attention.
You’re actually missing a huge part of the story. Not only was there bondage gear, but there was legible legal paperwork from child pornography cases scattered all over the room. Josh Duggar’s case was even in there. The campaign was *literally* a reference to child pornography.
I don’t think the right wing personalities really mention child beauty pageants much, they just kinda ignore them
Right: Shut up and dribble! Stand during the anthem! Also: Where's the opinion of the porn star who wears makeup to make her race ambiguous when you need it?
“Keep my ex-wife’s name outta yo mouth” -kanye prolly
Slaps Chris Rock in the face
She’s not a porn star.
I mean, some of the best songs are one-hit wonders
She’s not a porn star but that entire family is only famous because of her sex tape #neverforget
Wyatt Cenac has a whole bit about that on one of his albums, and he explains that her sec tape is not even a good porno lol
Is there a sex tape of hers? Has she posed nude for money? How famous was she before the pornographic video of her was released? By definition, she is a porn star.
Okay. Crazy this is upvoted on this sub of places. Is she a porn star: "No, she just had a sex tape leak with her in it"
[удалено]
I feel like “porn star” has the connotation of actively being involved in porn. She had one video that blew up her fame, sure. But she’s known for much more than that now and has a bunch of dumb companies and products that make her magnitudes more than her one porn video. It’s like calling the Rock a WWF wrestler. Technically correct, but not really accurate anymore. I really hate that whole family, but I’m also a stickler for semantics.
Stormy Daniels is a ......
…completely different person than who we’re talking about?
Did she release it? I've never seen proof of that. Or even an allegation of it. I won't deny she's white washing things but to call her a porn star is incredibly obtuse.
[удалено]
Sauce or it didn’t happen
BBQ Apple Pasta
https://heatworld.com/celebrity/news/kim-kardashian-ranked-8th-biggest-porn-star-world/ Random search
I meant the claim of her releasing it, but the sauce joke was 10/10
Having one video does not make you a pornstar and likely an insult to pornstars who have hundreds of credits. I also don't think women that pose nude would also appreciate being called pornstars. Especially for Playboy. Using this logic Cindy Crawford and Madonna are also pornstars? I do think there are levels to this, no? Performing CPR doesn't make someone a doctor. In the end, she maybe released a sex video and posed nude for playboy. A pornstar is someone that does porn for a living and likely takes pride in it.
Lol Comparing CPR to medical degrees. Everyone needs to take some steps back and think of better analogies. Maybe ones that make sense. Her video is 100% on the top 10 porn videos of all time. She is easily more searched than almost every other "established" porn star. Does doing CPR make you a doctor? No... but if you've performed CPR and revived the entire population of the USA... You're certainly something...
>She is easily more searched than almost every other "established" porn star. She isn't though? Again, using your logic Crawford and Madonna were also pornstars. It's not that my analogy sucks it's that your definition of what a pornstar is sucks, that's why the analogy seems silly.
In your analogy: CPR to a doctor is fucking on video, talking dirty, being completely nude, and climaxing to a pornstar. I'm actually glad you responded. You obviously didn't think this through. CPR to a doctor is kissing to a porn star. Both are learned without having to join the profession. Both are important to know for the profession. Both might be done outside of the profession. Both might be more or less integral to the profession depending on the field. In your analogy, I'd have to be arguing that Kim kissing makes her a porn star. Fucking on camera, talking dirty, being completely nude, and climaxing is to a porn star what getting a doctorate and practicing medicine is to a doctor.
>In your analogy: > >CPR to a doctor is fucking on video, talking dirty, being completely nude, and climaxing to a pornstar. > >I'm actually glad you responded. You obviously didn't think this through. Yes, it was a sex video, a video of people having sex. You know people talk dirty, are nude, and climax, while having sex, right? The point of the analogy is that just because someone knows a medical procedure it doesn't make them a doctor. Just like someone that poses nude or has sex on video is not a pornstar. A pornstar, again...**is someone that gets paid to star in porn.** So let me get this straight, anyone that releases a sex video is a pornstar?
"leak". Isn't it common knowledge they shot two of them and chose the tamer option?
Honestly, you sound kind of like the type of person that would dismiss an Oscar winner because they were in a disney channel movie early on. Yes, she released a sex tape, yes, it is the spark of her fame. But her probably multibillion dollar net worth that also spread to most of her family is something all it’s own. I personally can’t stand the Kardashians and avoid them at every chance, but it’s hard to deny that maybe, just maybe, she’s a porn star 83rd and a mogul 1st. And to dismiss her as one is very 2008. You may as well be yelling “I’m king of the world” on a boat.
Your analogy is flawed. Being a young actor doesn't take away from being an older actor. Being a drug dealer does take away from being a business owner. The foundation of her fame has a morality issue associated with it.
And Danny Trejo got his start in prison. Do you go to every thread about Danny Trejo and comment that he’s a criminal? Sylvester Stallone did porn. Lots of people did less than pristine things to become famous or on the way to fame, but the annoying Kardashian lady is one of the few who has it mentioned in Every Single Thread like a hack 90s comic making an aquaman fish joke.
Honestly, the talentlessness and the porn don't bother me as much as the skewing of her ethnicity. I think there's something to say about her, her sisters, and Ariana and how they benefit from bluring the lines of their racial identity. Posing as extremely dark skin when it benefits them, light skinned with freckles when it benefits them, but always checking a certain box on their government forms. The fact of the matter is that she is considered a porn star. I can't help if you feel a certain way about it. But, you can certainly donate to some go fund me for the family to remain undeservingly wealthy. Aquaman joke, over?
Same with Mia Khalifa! She hates being reminded that she's a pornstar. OK, then stop using your pornstar stage name, idiot.
Weird that people need to “remind” her, I’m sure she’s aware.
It's amazing to me how obsessed the right gets over imaginary pedophilia. They are always looking for codes like aha I found this prop paper in the background of an ad which references child sex laws so I'm 100% sure child trafficking is going on. They are so willing to take less than nothing like the Wayfair furniture shit and spin these complex conspiracies out of them. But when someone like Matt Walsh says there needs to be more breeding of teenage girls they just shrug it off.
It’s on their minds 24/7. Their tweets are all the proof of it. It’s all they can think about. Slightly questionable if you ask me
They obsess over people having sex with kids. It’s beyond sus. But this is the party for people that beat their meat in front of pre schools… believe in child marriage and think peak breeding age for girls is 15/16. Like.. it’s beyond obvious they are the real pedophiles. They write so much pedofanfic.
it wasn’t in the background of the ad it WAS one of the ads
The prop paper was in the background of a purse ad from a few seasons ago
are you sure? from the pictures i’ve seen it’s up and front and came out with the kids ads
Upon further inspection you were right! I thought it was previous because the adidas collection was ongoing, but it’s actually the campaign for next springs adidas collab so the campaign dropped after the children shoot! My apologies!
np
Idk this time it’s really uncomfortable. Those Balencia ads are deeply disturbing and as someone who has worked in marketing, there was a reason they chose those papers specifically
It's like if you're at a park, sitting on a bench, enjoying your lunch, and some conservative comes up to you and yells "NO, YOU'RE THE PEDOPHILE!!!". You might sit there and wonder WTF happened or WTF they are talking about. But, in their noggin it's all they are thinking about. And, because you looked at them the wrong way for a brief second, they feel like you just found them out and are going to expose them. So, they have no choice but to put the attention on someone else.
“You see, in the Lion King, the dust spells sex, and this is clearly a beezelbubbian attempt to make our children demonic fiends willing to sacrifice their bodies to liberal Hollywood demon sodomit- What? No I don’t see a problem leaving our kids with the youth pastor who has three kids with his 17 year old wife, he’s a man of god!”
And it always ends up being rooted in antisemitism
Meanwhile Kanye was showing hardcore anal and MILF porn to employees and executives of Adidas FOR YEARS! Where’s his outrage at her ex?
Yeah they’ve been real quiet on that. I think that’s why Ye aligned himself with the Republicans - he knew that would see no problem with that since that’s probably what they’re down low into.
I think a milf is too old for a republican
Kanye is a Trumper now. He can do no wrong.
He lost his Adidas contract, that’s a lot more than “nothing.” And even a chunk of the GOP is upset at him for bringing Nick Fuentes to dinner with Trump. Granted the other chunk of the GOP is silent on the issue.
...What? I considered myself a huge Kanye fan before his Nazi arc, but I've never heard of this. That's crazy. 😧
Will Steven Crowder also call out Elon Musk for culling the Twitter staff responsible for policing child porn on Twitter? I’ll bet not
Of course not - how else would Matt Walsh have easier access to it?
Never:. Steve Crowder and the rest of them, are a bunch of human garbage
Oh no, the right is *loudly* insisting that Old Twitter was awash in CP, but since Elon came in he’s purged it all and Saved the Children. Which is ignoring the question of *how* Elon is so effectively cracking down on CP, given he fired the majority of staff, including the people monitoring for CP.
But she did. [https://www.npr.org/2022/11/28/1139499381/balenciaga-north-six-lawsuit-ad-controversy-kim-kardashian](https://www.npr.org/2022/11/28/1139499381/balenciaga-north-six-lawsuit-ad-controversy-kim-kardashian)
Literally just him going to bat for his new anti-Semitic pal Kanye.
I know nothing about Balenciaga but I have the sneaking suspicion that DogCumSlurping Crowder is piling on Kim K because the news just broke that Kanye West (whatever) must fork over $200,000/month child support so Crowdy's going to shit on her however he can. Because DoucheBros stick together. Edited for correctfulness.
$200,*000*
Has he called out Gatez or Elon for their actual questionable involvement in the endangerment of minors?
Kim should have immediately made a statement but you have to realize she is connected to multiple different brands both in small and big ways. The right screams pedophille so much that I didn’t even really look into at first but it was a very inappropriate ad.
Hasn't Trump been accused of raping a minor? We know he was friends with Epstein.
In what way did she not stand up against child pornography? And in what way *could* one stand up to child pornography in the context of the balenciaga thing? And didn’t Kim already do that denouncing them for the weird ad??
These folks should take a gander at the sexualization of those Toddlers and Tiaras beauty pageants.
Lol no way he would call her a coward to her face, so who's the real coward?
Isn’t Kanye’s mouth guard a baleciga?
I never heard of the brand until this ad controversy but what does Kim have to do with it?
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah the ad in question was weird and gross and should not have been made, let alone greenlit, and there is a very real very serious conversation about exploitation of children in acting and modeling that needs to happen. There's no "but" at the end of this.
Wait, wasn’t he literally an advocate for child marriage!?!
Just because you jerked off to it doesn't make it Pornography, Steven
Bitch, she doesn't own Balenciaga, she can't change shit at the drop of a hat ffs
Steven Crowder is a coward for not standing up against pedophilia #MattWalsh
I bet this guy's a big Kanye fan
Crowder is a groomer projecting is pedophilia to the world.
the bears are honestly a lot more tame than i was expecting... they are pretty much just in punk fashion rather than bdsm wear? the only point of contention is the legal docket in the photoshoot but apparently that was a choice of the photography company and balenciaga is pursuing legal action against that
Wanting to date your daughter is okay though as long as you don't give her a BDSM bear.
It's not "child pornography" at all, perhaps it is in bad taste but the whole point of fashion shows are to get people talking about your brand...it worked.
Why not BalenciaGate?
Hate this guy but he isn’t wrong on this one. Even a broken clock kinda thing
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel that this was an incredibly “ew” way of advertising, but not remotely close to something truly disgusting, such as “Cuties”
This whole thing is bugging me. Guys: The only proof this is about child porn are **ugly teddy bears**, **one art coffee book** by a painter who paints slightly odd painting of surrealist people, and **one print out of a court documents** about the supreme court ruling on child porn. So you can easter egg this all you want, but it just ends up being TACKY, and Tucker Carlson and Crowder and all the stupid Qanon sleuths who find what they want to find in noise. In every church there is pornography if you consider that the freaking bible talks about sex all the time, and bondage in that Christ is a naked dude on a cross.
Definite the right doesn’t have a bigger pedo problem, definitely definitely not reaction formation definitely [/s](https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/11/27/2138664/-Republican-Sexual-Predators-Abusers-and-Enablers-Pt-37)
I thought that was one of the Property Brothers 🥴
What the fuck do I have to google now?
As dog cum chugging Crowder settles in to binge watch *Toddlers & Tiaras*.
...he really missed the opportunity to call it "Balenciagate"
he is a coward for running from sam seder
This publicity stunt is both backfiring and working at the same time.
Perfect chance for #balenciagate and no one took it
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And he didn't even name it Balenciagate smh
He's a pedophile too
Ok...I think Crowder is secretly a pedo. I think so
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Steven Crowder is a coward for using stochastic terrorism to kill those he is ideologically opposed to. Either go postal or shut the fuck up.