[Major_Tom]

Originally Posted by v1r ↗

How is letting fully dressed children in an entirely non-sexual situation, holding teddy bears bondage purses normalizing child abuse though?

Because the word bondage is included in your sentence. Everything about your post I thoroughly agree with, but bondage is an adult thing that should not be mixed with children.

"What's this collar for daddy?" is a sentence I don't think child that age should be asking. They should be asking about spiders and rainbows. Not asking about bondage.

[v1r]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom ↗

Because the word bondage is included in your sentence. Everything about your post I thoroughly agree with, but bondage is an adult thing that should not be mixed with children.

"What's this collar for daddy?" is a sentence I don't think child that age should be asking. They should be asking about spiders and rainbows. Not asking about bondage.

I doubt the children have any thoughts about what exactly the clothing on the teddy bear purses means. We don't put blindfolds on our children when we leave the house right? I feel like this quick call to cancel everyone and everything is getting stupid.

[Steve]

[Massacreman]

Children who live on farms know about sex because they live on a farm.

I think the issue is that children who live on a farm can ask their parents and have it explained in a way that isn't particularly harmful, yet the children in cities have an egregiously high chance of having the person committing an act also be the one using it as a grooming opportunity.

*Susie sees animal banging on the family farm*

Susie: "Mah, what's that?"
Susies mah: "Oh, that's how they make new animals."
Susie: "Haha, animals are weird."

Vs.

*Susie is involved in a photoshoot with BDSM bears, whips, chains, etc all done by some producer names, say, Mott or something*

Susie: "Mott, what's all this?"
Mott: "Oh, that's how adults play!"
Susie: "I can't wait to be an adult and play!"
Mott: "Well, you're in luck because everyone here probably wants to use this stuff on you, just ask around!"

And that's how future mental breakdowns start.

[RUTHIE7]

Originally Posted by v1r ↗

Absolutely. I just don't see it in this case. Balenciaga wanted outrage, and they got outrage. There has got to be a line between art and pornography. I'm possibly being too ultracrepidarian.

'Wanted outrage.'

That could then be said for 'rape.'

Or anything pertaining to an upsetting or abnormal scenario.

Children being portrayed in any sexual or 'bloody' Photos surely would be considered an abnormal scene... and yes, also 'shocking.'

All very wrong. Our society is truly fucked.

Someone press the reset button. Please.

[v1r]

Originally Posted by RUTHIE7 ↗

'Wanted outrage.'

That could then be said for 'rape.'

Or anything pertaining to an upsetting or abnormal scenario.

Children being portrayed in any sexual or 'bloody' Photos surely would be considered an abnormal scene... and yes, also 'shocking.'

All very wrong. Our society is truly fucked.

Someone press the reset button. Please.

Kids holding a teddy bear in a bondage outfit is the same as rape? Gotcha.

[Neek21]

Originally Posted by RUTHIE7 ↗

: rockon

Well, most of the time, the hardest thing about discerning what is real or fake on the internet is that the 'truth' can be so absurd, so fucking utterly mind blowingly unbelievable, that to think it's REAL would be just... a joke.

For example, if you came across this advertisement on Twitter, featuring a young child holding a teddy bear in bondage gear, you would be forgiven for assuming you were being trolled.

If you came across an up market, most ridiculously expensive, posh fashionable 'institution' parading CASTRATED toddlers and babies being sacrificed to a DEVIL type figure... you'd just not believe it would you.

Yet this is a real campaign by Balenciaga, the high-end fashion line with over 11 million followers on Instagram.

The more you look, the worse it gets

Pictures featuring young children holding toys wearing fishnets, restraints and padlocks, with bruised purple and blue eyes (Balenciaga have been called out before for glamourising domestic violence)

The thing is, I have to repeat this:-

This is FACT!

THIS IS REAL!

THIS IS HAPPENING!

Right in front of us guys!

It doesn't take but a few minutes to go into your social media platform, head to them, and BLAST THEM AWAY!

LET'S ALL DO THAT NOW!

WE HAVE TO STOP THIS BECAUSE... IT'S GONE ON FOR FUCKING DECADES!

Yanno who is really normalizing sexual abuse of children? Raping kids inc aka the Catholic Church. The adds are disgusting for sure however the church lies, covers up, & does nothing to change the rampant LITERAL RAPING of kids. I’m a bit more upset about a tax free organization having more pedophiles in it then a guest book from Epstein Island then I am about some disgusting shock advert. Why are you more upset about “normalizing child sexuality” then you are about sexual abuse of children? It would be like your child having pictures taken by some perv in public upsetting you more then them being systematically molested & groomed on Sundays.

If that add is “satanic” then it seems much less harmful then something that’s actually happening by a religious group. Do you care about kids or just showing social media you care about kids? Wake the fuck up

[DEWBZ]

Originally Posted by v1r ↗

Kids holding a teddy bear in a bondage outfit is the same as rape? Gotcha.

This is what happens when you let feelings connect the dots, over facts. It's almost as if some people WANT this CP theory to be proven right. Fuckin weird

[Neek21]

Mean while a very brief overview of the Catholic Church which noone cares about.

[Neek21]

Pics are a pain in the ass on here