Designer & Fashion Insiders Behavior (PLEASE READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING)

[fakeawake]

You're not an intellectual if you think everyone should think the same thing. That's anti intellectual. I can't believe such basic stuff needs to be explained to 'educated' people but you know teaching people common sense isn't beneficial for the elites who donate to universities. lol

 

[Benn98]

I appreciate your sentiment and principle— but their current fashions are more offensive than any thoughtless and stupid comments they’ve spat out high above their ivory tower, frankly. Not sure in what context their anti-gay family stance was said in (was it a personal preference or a blanket statement for all gays?). There’s a good number of old guys that aren’t feeling the whole gay nuclear family model: I always got the impression that the nuclear family represented the ultimate oppression and anti-gay construct to them when they were growing up, so why adopt it now that they have the choice…??? Wasn’t Karl also not fond of gay marriage as well? Being in my 30s, I’ve never fantasized about a big wedding day nor having a “husband” to raise children with that so many gay kidz seem to be so fond of, so I get the older gays' resentment of copying the traditions of breeders. This doesn’t make them awful people.

I despise this “it’s not OK to think this way blah blah blah…” It’s such a brainwashing, dictatorship-mentality to finger-wag others into your way of PC-thinking that some kidz really like to do nowadays. I’d rather people express their opinion— no matter how asinine it may be; As long as I know how they’re really thinking, rather than censor and edit themselves to a popular opinion, only to express a totally different one in private.

I think dismissing what they've said as thoughtless and stupid is like giving them a slap on the wrist. They have a massive platform and fanbase and that can be both a gift and a curse. They can either win people over with words or alienate them. And as we all know by now they've alienated enough customers to the point that they're prepared to prioritise dragging an IG meme page to court for damages.
And I actually agree with you, I'm all for them expressing their opinion. That way some of us can see if their values align with ours. Just remember, conscious shopping wasn't ever as polarising a deciding factor as it is today. And that's not because 'cancel culture is out of control', it's because a bunch of figureheads felt they should have the freedom to say whatever they wish without any consequence. That would have been fine, but they forgot that they were also business owners, CEOs speaking to a massive, diverse audience. So you expect me to buy your pitiful, dates wares after basically calling my way of life unnatural?
By stepping up on the platform and mouthing off, D&G forced their clientele to reflect on their own stance and to either continue supporting them and brush what they've said aside, or equate buying into their RTW, accessories and perfumes with supporting oppression. I'm doing perfectly fine without Light Blue, btw.

Just for context on what they said....

The fashion power-duo, who are worth $1.65 billion each and are the 27th richest men in Italy, were the subject of a cover story for Italian weekly Panorama titled “Long-Live the [Traditional] Family,” in which the designers came out against the use of surrogate mothers while claiming children need “a mother and a father.” Dolce, in part of the interview, added “I’m not convinced with what I call chemical children, a rented uterus, semen selected from a catalogue.”

Gabbana went deeper into the concept of the “classical” Italian family, noting, “family isn’t a fleeting trend, in it there’s a sense of belonging.” In another point of the interview, they said "life has a natural trajectory, there are things that should not be altered."

So as you see they are actually very much in favour of the traditional nuclear family concept, only involving straight people of course. It's beyond me, not that they're gay men (we've been over this before), but that this topic of conversation is still coming up when I thought we've settled it decades ago. Lapierre nailed this with all his counter-arguments, btw.

 

[JPineapple]

Delusion, convince yourself

 

[LostInNJ]

Madonna was way more famous and successful than LNX at that point. But I think she didn't get another brand deal until the 2000s with H&M. SO she went like 20 years without a deal because of that .What do you think theyre gonna do to LNX who doesn't have Madonna's catalog, at that point Madonna already had her most famous international hits under her belt. LNX has one international hit song.


Gay men don't have to act any particular way FOR YOU. Gay men owe you NOTHING. We do not exist to carry water for others, we are not mules.

LNX needs to be cancelled for invoking Satan, Dolce on the other hand is clearly trying to not invoke satan. I'd rather be with the people who are dealing with Jesus over the people who arent, regardless of their 'politics'. Everyone in the world thinks this...You haven't seen the backlash to Biden's trans policies? People are about to vote Republican straight up and down the ticket over that, because there are fundamental values that won't ever change.

There is so much to unpack here, but I don't have the time today, so I'll only comment on the Madonna bit to say that she was the face of Versace in 1995, mind you. So, she didn't have to wait about 20 years for a deal. I think the point being made here is that regardless of his current catalog of work, he will be just fine. The fact that he still has a legion of growing fans and is about to drop another album is enough of a sign IMO.

Not to mention, the uproar and swift action to him supposedly damaging the youth of today with this imagery, but not the toward the mass shootings and racist beatings throughout the country speaks volumes.

I think dismissing what they've said as thoughtless and stupid is like giving them a slap on the wrist. They have a massive platform and fanbase and that can be both a gift and a curse. They can either win people over with words or alienate them. And as we all know by now they've alienated enough customers to the point that they're prepared to prioritise dragging an IG meme page to court for damages.
And I actually agree with you, I'm all for them expressing their opinion. That way some of us can see if their values align with ours. Just remember, conscious shopping wasn't ever as polarising a deciding factor as it is today. And that's not because 'cancel culture is out of control', it's because a bunch of figureheads felt they should have the freedom to say whatever they wish without any consequence. That would have been fine, but they forgot that they were also business owners, CEOs speaking to a massive, diverse audience. So you expect me to buy your pitiful, dates wares after basically calling my way of life unnatural?
By stepping up on the platform and mouthing off, D&G forced their clientele to reflect on their own stance and to either continue supporting them and brush what they've said aside, or equate buying into their RTW, accessories and perfumes with supporting oppression. I'm doing perfectly fine without Light Blue, btw.

Just for context on what they said....

The fashion power-duo, who are worth $1.65 billion each and are the 27th richest men in Italy, were the subject of a cover story for Italian weekly Panorama titled “Long-Live the [Traditional] Family,” in which the designers came out against the use of surrogate mothers while claiming children need “a mother and a father.” Dolce, in part of the interview, added “I’m not convinced with what I call chemical children, a rented uterus, semen selected from a catalogue.”

Gabbana went deeper into the concept of the “classical” Italian family, noting, “family isn’t a fleeting trend, in it there’s a sense of belonging.” In another point of the interview, they said "life has a natural trajectory, there are things that should not be altered."

So as you see they are actually very much in favour of the traditional nuclear family concept, only involving straight people of course. It's beyond me, not that they're gay men (we've been over this before), but that this topic of conversation is still coming up when I thought we've settled it decades ago. Lapierre nailed this with all his counter-arguments, btw.

Well said Benn98. Very well said.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I appreciate your sentiment and principle— but their current fashions are more offensive than any thoughtless and stupid comments they’ve spat out high above their ivory tower, frankly. Not sure in what context their anti-gay family stance was said in (was it a personal preference or a blanket statement for all gays?). There’s a good number of old guys that aren’t feeling the whole gay nuclear family model: I always got the impression that the nuclear family represented the ultimate oppression and anti-gay construct to them when they were growing up, so why adopt it now that they have the choice…??? Wasn’t Karl also not fond of gay marriage as well? Being in my 30s, I’ve never fantasized about a big wedding day nor having a “husband” to raise children with that so many gay kidz seem to be so fond of, so I get the older gays' resentment of copying the traditions of breeders. This doesn’t make them awful people.

I despise this “it’s not OK to think this way blah blah blah…” It’s such a brainwashing, dictatorship-mentality to finger-wag others into your way of PC-thinking that some kidz really like to do nowadays. I’d rather people express their opinion— no matter how asinine it may be; As long as I know how they’re really thinking, rather than censor and edit themselves to a popular opinion, only to express a totally different one in private.

Gay men don't have to act any particular way FOR YOU. Gay men owe you NOTHING. We do not exist to carry water for others, we are not mules.

If you're offended by their 'fashions,' you're easily offended

What I find offensive is their pushing an outdated and exclusive idea of the nuclear family through items they are selling and their ad campaigns. They have made this part of their brand, and if I buy from the brand, I am supporting this idea--which is not what I want to do.

They can think whatever they want, and do whatever they want. But when they push a narrative that limits the choices of other people, both gay and straight, and make that retro narrative part of their brand, I take issue with that. It's not FOR ME. It's FOR OTHERS.

 

[dsamg]

I appreciate your sentiment and principle— but their current fashions are more offensive than any thoughtless and stupid comments they’ve spat out high above their ivory tower, frankly. Not sure in what context their anti-gay family stance was said in (was it a personal preference or a blanket statement for all gays?). There’s a good number of old guys that aren’t feeling the whole gay nuclear family model: I always got the impression that the nuclear family represented the ultimate oppression and anti-gay construct to them when they were growing up, so why adopt it now that they have the choice…??? Wasn’t Karl also not fond of gay marriage as well? Being in my 30s, I’ve never fantasized about a big wedding day nor having a “husband” to raise children with that so many gay kidz seem to be so fond of, so I get the older gays' resentment of copying the traditions of breeders. This doesn’t make them awful people.

I despise this “it’s not OK to think this way blah blah blah…” It’s such a brainwashing, dictatorship-mentality to finger-wag others into your way of PC-thinking that some kidz really like to do nowadays. I’d rather people express their opinion— no matter how asinine it may be; As long as I know how they’re really thinking, rather than censor and edit themselves to a popular opinion, only to express a totally different one in private.

It seems to me though that their views on IVF weren't just directed towards gay men but towards all people. I don't really GAF what those idiots think but I would say it is quite a horrible thing to say about innocent children, and their parents given IVF is already such a challenging and traumatic process. I'm not sure if it's PC to think it's just not appropriate to say these things to children - in fact it is very cruel.

 

[Phuel]

I think dismissing what they've said as thoughtless and stupid is like giving them a slap on the wrist. They have a massive platform and fanbase and that can be both a gift and a curse. They can either win people over with words or alienate them. And as we all know by now they've alienated enough customers to the point that they're prepared to prioritise dragging an IG meme page to court for damages.
And I actually agree with you, I'm all for them expressing their opinion. That way some of us can see if their values align with ours. Just remember, conscious shopping wasn't ever as polarising a deciding factor as it is today. And that's not because 'cancel culture is out of control', it's because a bunch of figureheads felt they should have the freedom to say whatever they wish without any consequence. That would have been fine, but they forgot that they were also business owners, CEOs speaking to a massive, diverse audience. So you expect me to buy your pitiful, dates wares after basically calling my way of life unnatural?
By stepping up on the platform and mouthing off, D&G forced their clientele to reflect on their own stance and to either continue supporting them and brush what they've said aside, or equate buying into their RTW, accessories and perfumes with supporting oppression. I'm doing perfectly fine without Light Blue, btw.

Just for context on what they said....

The fashion power-duo, who are worth $1.65 billion each and are the 27th richest men in Italy, were the subject of a cover story for Italian weekly Panorama titled “Long-Live the [Traditional] Family,” in which the designers came out against the use of surrogate mothers while claiming children need “a mother and a father.” Dolce, in part of the interview, added “I’m not convinced with what I call chemical children, a rented uterus, semen selected from a catalogue.”

Gabbana went deeper into the concept of the “classical” Italian family, noting, “family isn’t a fleeting trend, in it there’s a sense of belonging.” In another point of the interview, they said "life has a natural trajectory, there are things that should not be altered."

So as you see they are actually very much in favour of the traditional nuclear family concept, only involving straight people of course. It's beyond me, not that they're gay men (we've been over this before), but that this topic of conversation is still coming up when I thought we've settled it decades ago. Lapierre nailed this with all his counter-arguments, btw.

Absolutely your prerogative, Benn. You can shut them down/cancel them: Your choice.

And it’s their prerogative to support the traditional heterosexual family unit of “producing a child”. Unless they’ve taken/contributed to any legislative actions against LGBTQ individuals to rise children, it’s still their personal preference that they’re not opposing onto anybody else.

My issue with surrogate/IVF for both hetero/LGBTQ is that there are so many unwanted children in an already overpopulated world… I don’t want to preach /lecture about the need for some of the unwanted children to be blessed with a home with individuals that are desperately and compassionate about raising a family: I understand the drive to have a child/children that is/are “theirs”— for so many personal, and societal reasons. and I’ll reserve judgment on those that choose such a manner to have children, that some may feel is a selfish act. And once again, it’s a personal choice.

 

[Benn98]

Unless they’ve taken/contributed to any legislative actions against LGBTQ individuals to rise children.......

Which if they did, what would happen then? I'm just trying to figure out what is your threshold. LOL. At which point would you consider a statement/line of thinking to be so out of order that it would be considered dangerous? Once it actually becomes legislation? I have a theory that many outlandish and hateful rhetoric didn't just pop out of nowhere. It started with casual chatter, then prominent figures preached it to a large audience, and ultimately with public support, it became law. That's why imo society reacts so quickly to this type of statement. Because they know that the threat, even if not imminent, is too costly.

It wasnt just D&G's preference or their privately held beliefs. They've based both the women's and men's F/W 2015 collections around that with a strong message about family, and that's how the entire thing started. Because a reporter innocently asked them about the idea behind it, and out came all the bile. That's quite public and definitely meant to influence people which I find quite dangerous.

I also know that should I wish to have kids, they will likely be adopted. I've seen and heard both sides of the coin and see nothing wrong with either choice. And I will add that in the UK the majority of children ready to be placed are not newborns or infants, they are kids of school age and upwards. That immediately comes with a different skill-set that I don't think a lot of people meet, you can be the most loving and patient parent.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Their personal opinion is now dangerous…??? Not sure if you’re being serious...LOL... I suppose that moron Mona and her squad's lack of consideration in these pandemic times is also dangerous then, Benn. These are people with strong opinions— but they’re not advocating nor set to legislate their opinions into marshal law to deny anyone of any freedoms of choice; they’re not remotely even implying that anyone that chooses these means of producing a child is a lesser person or deserving of anything less. If your implication that their views deserve censoring because they have a high profile platform, then why not resort to book-burning while we're at it??? And if there are people that take the beliefs of fashion models/fashion designers as gospel, then these people deserve to be led by the Pied Piper.

 

[dsamg]

Absolutely your prerogative, Benn. You can shut them down/cancel them: Your choice.

And it’s their prerogative to support the traditional heterosexual family unit of “producing a child”. Unless they’ve taken/contributed to any legislative actions against LGBTQ individuals to rise children, it’s still their personal preference that they’re not opposing onto anybody else.

My issue with surrogate/IVF for both hetero/LGBTQ is that there are so many unwanted children in an already overpopulated world… I don’t want to preach /lecture about the need for some of the unwanted children to be blessed with a home with individuals that are desperately and compassionate about raising a family: I understand the drive to have a child/children that is/are “theirs”— for so many personal, and societal reasons. and I’ll reserve judgment on those that choose such a manner to have children, that some may feel is a selfish act. And once again, it’s a personal choice.

I understand your view. But as one of those people, a 28 year old hetero woman who has spent her whole life in hospital with various health problems, lost most of her reproductive organs and now is undergoing IVF to have a baby, I have to say that maybe you think that is selfish but why is the burden on infertile people to be the selfless ones? If there are so many unwanted children and the world is so overpopulated, why is it not just as selfish for fertile people to keep having unprotected sex and bringing more children into it? Why to you, is me (or any other homosexual or heterosexual couple) mixing my eggs with my partner's sperm in a dish and transferring it to my womb, so much more selfish than a regular couple having unprotected sex? Should they not be thinking of all those unwanted children?

As Benn said, not many children up up adoption here are babies or infants. I would add from my experience that most require ongoing indirect contact. So it is amazing and wonderful for any heterosexual or homosexual couple to adopt, but I don't think I am any more or less selfish for having a baby via IVF than any 'normal' couple is. We are entitled to want what they want, and be equally selfish for wanting it.

Either way, you are very much entitled to your opinion and so is anyone else. What I object to are D&G targeting innocent children and insulting their existence when the way they came into this world was not their own choice.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Never would make a blanket statement nor impose judgement that IVF/surrogacy is selfish/self-serving. As mentioned, I reserve judgement-- for precisely the individual cases such as yours.

I’m not convinced they’ve set out to dismiss the children of IVF/surrogacy as irrelevant humans. That would be like being convinced that children of unexpected births being insulted/offended by someone making a pro-choice preference, and demanding that such statements be banned.

I believe yourself and anyone else in a similar situation have every right to choose. That should be your freedom of choice. And I also believe others have a right to be critical of IVF/surrogacy and choose to reject it on a purely personal basis. It’s not a choice I would make, but I would support a friend/family member who chooses this route.

 

[LostInNJ]

My takeaway with all of this is that EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, however, when you run a business/are a public figure you cannot expect people to not only disagree with you, but to publicly call out something they take umbrage with.

For me it's no different than if Steve Jobs had came out and said he is against a specific race of people using Apple products (typing this on my Mac made me think of Apple and he was the owner...at some point). It's his opinion, which he is entitled to, but as a consumer, I have a right to disagree with him and voice my disdain with what he said. As well as no longer support the company by buying its products.

 

[fashionista-ta]

What D&G said had nothing to do with themselves, but was specifically judging and criticizing what other people are doing, from the selflessness of surrogates to single mothers, gay couples, and many others. If they were talking purely about their own preferences and decisions for their family or lack thereof, the reaction would be quite different.

I have seen many straight/cis people express revulsion about the idea of being gay or trans. I always like to say, that means it's not for you. If D&G are repulsed by these means of reproduction, certainly no one on earth is telling them they have to do it.

I agree with Benn about the danger of pushing such narratives. For many years, I never dreamed that the 'settled law' of Roe v Wade would be threatened in the way it absolutely is today. If you think your rights are safe from fools ... think again.

 

[Benn98]

I have seen many straight/cis people express revulsion about the idea of being gay or trans. I always like to say, that means it's not for you. If D&G are repulsed by these means of reproduction, certainly no one on earth is telling them they have to do it.

That's actually a very diplomatic way of putting it, lol. I'd add more but it wouldn't be allowed on here.
I do wonder if they'll ever bounce back because their issues with the brand run far deeper than just mouthing off hateful rhetoric. There's also the design element as well, or lack thereof.

 

[susseinmcswanny]

Hella side note lol but I'm so excited next season of real housewives of Beverly Hills apparently there is some D&G drama between Sutton Stracke (real life couture client) and the new girl Crystal Kung Minkoff because Crystal is Chinese and takes issue with Sutton being close friends with Domenico and a HUGE D&G client (she buys tons of rtw and ALTA MODA)

 

[squilliam]

A bit late to the party but here's my take:
The thing about them publicly expressing such an opinion, is that it normalizes such ideas. For example, white supremacists weren't so upfront some years ago but with public figures spewing such rhetoric it's made thse people come out of hiding because they see it as more acceptable now, like there's more acceptance for this kind of thought. The thing is, D&G don't have to be involved in creating any legislation, they don't have to have any political involvement, because by simply stating such opinions they normalize it. When people see something like this said and it spreads and can eventually affect legislation and lives. There's a reason why many governments censor free speech. Hitler had an opinion, and it spread and lead to something horrible. Anti vaxxers have an opinion, and it spread and now there are outbreaks of diseases that were practically eradicated. Plenty of philosophers and their works could be considered as some guy's personal opinion. The spread of an opinion can lead to both bad and good. D&G have a right to their opinions and a freedom of speech, at least from government, but that doesn't there won't be consequences for their actions and people who will disagree and argue against them.

Also their argument against IVF is pretty weak. Of all the valid reasons against fertility technology they went with "it's unnatural" and "synthetic babies". It seems like they're deeply religious and just following church ideas...then again these two evaded following the law and paying taxes to the country they supposedly love so much.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I'm annoyed by people who are traditional when it suits. Examples abound. Matt Gaetz anyone?

 

[dsamg]

YIKES at Michel Gaubert's behaviour this week. I don't follow DP anymore as they irritate me too much but his post went well beyond the realms of the world becoming too PC. Actually defies belief and if we just put the racism aside also, also just wasn't even funny?

 

[KoV]

YIKES at Michel Gaubert's behaviour this week. I don't follow DP anymore as they irritate me too much but his post went well beyond the realms of the world becoming too PC. Actually defies belief and if we just put the racism aside also, also just wasn't even funny?

Truly a shocking display. These people are so out of touch.

 

[THD96]

First of all I want to know which edition of HB commission that woman to create those masques. The fact that she think it look good tell me about her taste. Why create something inspired by different culture only to make it ugly. The tacky oriental decor is more offensive than these people action. Like you're hosting a party and your budget is an umbrella and a red tablecloth. Choices.

Michel is a teasing around so I don't think he mean any harm. I hope they don't drag Olivier R into this because he like Michel post. Interesting that Peter Philips and Mert Alas like DP post.

One thing that I have to say tho, link Michel and friends action toward Asian violent is a bit stretch. Asian mostly get attacked in the USA. And I'm doubt their influence reach that far.