Bondage Teddy Bears?

The fashion brand Balenciago recently came under fire for sexualizing children in one of their ad campaigns. The ad shows little girls holding a purse in the image of a teddy bear in BDSM attire.

Since then, a number of other creepy child porn type images and references have come to light in other ads. Balenciago is blaming their advertising agency and suing them. Hmmmm.

Not quite as creepy as some of the art Tony Podesta, a lobbyist for Ukraine and China and the brother of former White House chief of staff and Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta.

What do I think of all this stuff?

First, let me start with my view on anybody proven to have directly hurt young children in a sexual way.

Was that sufficiently concise?

I worded it the way I did deliberately. Statutory rape of older teenagers is, I think, in a different category from a grown man sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl. Not the wood chipper for them, but prison is fine. We need to draw the lines somewhere, and while we may each disagree on where exactly the lines should be drawn, there are valid compromises.

For example, in Canada, the age of consent is 16. However, if there is a position of trust or authority, it raises to 18. There are also some close-in-age exemptions. It's a compromise, and I'm willing to support that. I don't find it "immoral" if other jurisdictions have reached different, reasonable, compromises.

If young children are pressed into making explicit child porn for whatever purposes: wood chipper. If you consume that, knowing real children were involved in creating it: prison. Again, loosening that up if it's in the older teen category. E.g.,  if you need to be 18 to act in a porn video, but it's later found out you're almost 18, I can't get too excited if it was the girl pulling off a fast one, and I won't criticize the guy for being taken in.

The lines get way, way murkier for art.

Let's start with the Balenciago ad. I don't see as how the children themselves were harmed in the making of the ad. I doubt they had any awareness whatsoever that the teddy bear they were holding was a BDSM-related image. I don't know if there was or ought to have been anything illegal about it. I think it was in remarkably poor taste, and is quite justifiably hurting the brand. I'm also very concerned that the people involved are doing worse things in their private lives. I also wonder about the parents who allowed that.

How about the Podesta art? Again, not to my taste. It sort of creeps me out. But perhaps the artist himself was abused as a child and is trying to deal with it in this manner? Or he's making some kind of artistic metaphorical point, like our innocence is being taken from us? I would not buy it and hang it on my wall, and I won't go out of my way to see an exhibition from the guy. I'm also very concerned about the people who would hang that stuff in their houses and what else they may have going on.

How about spanking illustrations that depict bare-bottomed children being spanked by adults?

Damn. Now we're hitting close to home, aren't we? Are you squirming yet? I am.

If it's a photo and a real kid was involved, and it was made for the purpose of spanking porn: wood chipper for the producers. And consumers should avoid it like the plague because of potentially contributing to the exploitation of real children, and face prison if they deliberately re-distribute it. If it was a real historical spanking captured involving nudity, and the photo was somehow distributed? I don't know how you tell the difference, and would err on the side of making it illegal to distribute.

But what about illustrations? And what about hyper-realistic illustrations, or computer renderings almost indistinguishable from the "real thing"? Or even very young-looking adults being photographed to appear as children? Ouch again.

However, these I would allow. No actual children were harmed. I would apply the same reasoning to works of fiction involving childhood spankings. If no actual children were harmed, I would not make it illegal to produce or distribute.

One of the kinks of spankers is that we get turned on imagining an authority figure taking us in hand and correcting us. The archetype of that is the Daddy-daughter and Mommy-son. I have intense fantasies imagining I am back in childhood and being spanked by my Daddy. It's very Freudian I imagine. I confess that I also imagine getting fuckings from Daddy as punishment, not as a little girl, but as a more grown-up teenager, maybe being punished for some misbehaviour involving boys. I know, I know, I'm messed up.

How does an illustration of spanking a teenager differ from fucking her? Both are intensely sexual acts in my mind. I have way less problems with the spanking illustrations, however. There's a certain innocence in a well-meaning Daddy spanking his girl "for her own good" with only the best of intentions (as misguided as that may or may not be given the more recent attitudes on that). I can't really imagine an innocent fucking "for her own good".

If it's an illustration of a young girl being spanked "for her own good", I would allow that. If it's an illustration of a young girl being fucked by a grown man, or even diddled, then no. No. I'm sorry. I can't. I know I'm being inconsistent here (no actual children are being hurt), but I just can't. Make it illegal. I don't care. Once she's more grown-up, then ok fine, back to my standard of "if no actual children were harmed". I know I would be both drawn to and repulsed by such an image, knowing my own sexuality.

Hard to write this. And I know many people will have very different standards than me, and I may come under a lot of criticism, but trying to keep it honest... sorry.

In my own art, such as the book I am working on now, I have kept the boy character 18-years-old. I do this for several reasons. It's still young enough in my mind that he can be an immature, naughty child in need of discipline. But he is also old enough to consent, in real life, according to Canadian law (and I have explicit consent and a means to de-consent at any time built into my book that way). It still hits all the high spots, and everybody can feel good about themselves and not deal with those ugly psychological issues I refer to above. I feel better doing it that way.

What are your views, dare I ask?