Benetton goes Balenciaga
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (22)
sorted by:
Tell me what "this" is. What am I supposed to be offended by here? You can go to any department store that sells underwear for kids and see pics of kids in underwear on the packaging.
If there were bondage bears, okay. If there were sexually suggestive poses, okay. But my only takeaway from this is "you can never show pics of kids in underwear for any reason because people trying to stir up a moral panic will latch onto it, even though you're literally selling underwear and you have models for all your clothes."
Of course you can do that by looking at the packaging. This is an Instagram post. What is this Instagram post selling exactly? It's not even clear.
Not "for any reason", but this is definitely inappropriate to the extreme.
That, and... it's not like I go around looking at packages or children's underwear, so I might be wrong, but I don't think the kids on there usually 1) look like someone just tore half their clothes off of them, and 2) have these fucking looks on their faces.
That is part of the issue. Maybe they're all this bad? But I doubt it. It's certainly not something I want to research.
That's the issue for me, too. The shirt tucked into the underwear, and the sweater or whatever half off. That's what gave me the immediate 'ick' factor. What the heck? If you need to show models in underwear for your ad*...do that. Why does it look like they were either stripping or, as you say, sexually assaulted? And, yeah, they look dead inside. The additional clothes make it creepier than if it had just been underwear.
* which you don't.