High Art and Human Trafficking
Balenciaga was only the most recent instance of the art & entertainment world's "revelations of the method."
When a photoshoot collaboration between Balenciaga and Adidas sparked backlash from all sides for its use of young children in their Spring 2023 advertising campaign featuring creepy BDSM teddy bear purses and adult scenarios, a key element that contributed to the outrage was the inclusion of paperwork that contained excerpts from the U.S. Supreme Court Decision United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008). I don’t feel the need to reprint the ad featuring the young children, but you can see a screenshot of the one with the page from the Williams decision below.
Here’s a link to a more high-resolution, zoomable version. Most news stories at the time that mentioned the advertisement with the Williams case provided a perfunctory explanation that the case generally concerned “pornography” or “child pornography” (CP). Actually, what is interesting is not that this decision was merely present. Rather, it is the specific page and section of the opinion shown in the advertisement (especially taken in context with the rest of the campaign) that are so revealing. The excerpt shown is from Part II (A) of the Scalia majority opinion, in which the definition of “sexually explicit conduct” is being discussed. In this paragraph, Scalia distinguishes the circumstances of the present case (Williams) from those in another SCOTUS case, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234 (2002). The exact quote shown in the advertisement is:
“The portrayal must cause a reasonable viewer to believe that the actors actually engaged in that conduct on camera. Critically, unlike in Free Speech Coalition, §2252A(a)(3)(B)(ii)’s requirement of a “visual depiction of an actual minor” makes clear that, although the sexual intercourse may be simulated, it must involve actual children (unless it is obscene). This change eliminates any possibility that virtual child pornography or sex between youthful-looking adult actors might be covered by the term “simulated sexual intercourse.”
I draw your attention to the phrases “virtual child pornography” and “sex between youthful-looking adult actors.” These were the subject of the Free Speech Coalition decision, in which the Court ruled that “Artists are protected when they show children engaging in sexual activity if it is not for ‘pornographic pursues,’ ” further providing that “computer-generated images are protected as a substitute for actual children.” Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that “the boundaries between actual and virtual child pornography remain sufficiently distinct that the latter, lawful form of speech does not need to be suppressed to prevent the circulation of the former, unlawful form of speech.”
In her concurring opinion, Justice O’Connor agreed that youthful-looking adults portraying children should not be considered child pornography, but disagreed about “virtual depictions” CP. She argued that depictions of children that are “virtually indistinguishable” from actual children, should be covered as CP and banned because it helped to shield actual children from sexual predators. Personally, I agree with Justice O’Connor’s view. However, many in the world of “High Art” agree with the majority, and uses these loopholes to get away with depicting minors in sexually inappropriate ways.
To review, there are 3 loopholes available for portraying children engaging in sexual activity: 1) use actual minors and simply argue it is not for “pornographic pursuits,” (very easy to say when it is for “modeling”), 2) use models 18 and older who look like minors, or 3) use “virtual” depictions of minors. These are the subject of the specific page and section of the Williams opinion that is visible in the Balenciaga advertisement.
Now, especially in the age of OpenAI and the abilities of digital photography, I think this begs the question: What is a “virtual” depiction of a minor? What makes a depiction virtual as opposed to actual? Everyone knows the abilities of programs like Adobe Photoshop and what it can do to an actual photograph. If a picture starts out as real, and then is heavily digitally edited, does it become virtual? What if an image of an actual child is fed into an AI generator to produce a pornographic “virtual” image? What about a digital copy of a painting, or physical photograph, that is computer-edited? These are all ways that someone could argue an image is “virtual,” even though it is (as Justice O’Connor pointed out) indistinguishable from actual CP.
For their part, Balenciaga filed and then subsequently dropped a lawsuit against production company North Six and set designer Nicholas Des Jardins, who were hired for the photoshoots in question, blaming them for the PR disaster. In a separate statement Balenciaga made on or about November 29, 2022, the runway brand claimed they suspected the documents were leftover from the “filming of a TV Drama.” I would be very interested to know which TV Drama was being filmed, in the same place that these pages of the Williams decision were photographed for a high fashion campaign. Perhaps Law & Order: SVU?
For the average person, this excuse may seem at least somewhat plausible, even if not very probable. But for anyone who has ever worked on a photoshoot for a luxury brand like Balenciaga, this explanation strains credulity—meaning “is complete bullshit” in legalese.
If the inclusion of this specific case excerpt was intentional, that would mean set designer Nicholas Des Jardins meticulously placed it exactly where it was. He’s also the set designer for the images of the young children with the bondage bears, placed on couches and beds with wine glasses strewn about. Let’s take a look at some of his past work, and see if there’s any reason to think the inclusion was intentional.
Do you see any recurring themes in Des Jardins’ portfolio? When I reviewed his work, I was struck by how overtly sexual much of it is, as well as the themes of “youth” and imagery that made me uncomfortable, as it felt like a fetishization of something. While these are all undoubtedly of adult models, they are also all extremely young-looking. That is, except the creepy older man juxtaposed next to a very young-looking woman in some sort of old motel room with a vintage TV set on the floor. You have design elements including bondage and captivity; sexual posing on beds, chairs, and couches; teddy bears, dolls, horses, and skateboards used as props to symbolize lost innocence; nudity and women that do not appear conscious laid out on slabs of stone, positioned on plastic sheets. Every image has gone through heavy digital editing and retouching, to the point I can see a good attorney successfully arguing that they should be considered computer-generated or virtual.
To be clear, my point is not that all of Des Jardins’ work is obscene or CP. Again, these are all models aged 18+, and I’ve certainly seen much more “obscene” material. While I personally find his aesthetic to be creepy and sexual, it is very much in line with what the art world considers “tasteful” and “edgy.” My point is that he’s at the very top of his industry as a highly sought after set designer by people seeking out his exact aesthetic, and that every design element that appears on one of his sets is intentional. To argue that Des Jardins was unaware of the text on the page shown in the Balenciaga advertisement, would be like arguing that he was unaware of the teddy bear floating face-down in the fish tank in the background, unaware of the drawings of horses on the closet. If the placement was intentional (and I believe that it was), then it was also intentionally done alongside its sister advertisement featuring the minor children with the bondage bears. Why would Des Jardins intentionally create such a campaign?
If you are unfamiliar with the phrase “Revelation of Method,” it refers to the concept that the real power structures in society—the great, all-powerful “THEY” (think: Council on Foreign Relations, Davos)—engage in an almost ritualistic process of gas-lighting the public about the truth, only to later openly acknowledge what had been previously denied. For example, immediately after 9/11, anyone who questioned whether Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction/WMDs” and the wisdom of going to war in Iraq were labeled anti-American, unpatriotic, and worse. Every Cabinet member and representative gave speeches in favor of the Iraq War, swearing under oath that there was evidence from every intelligence agency in the world backing up that Hussein had stores of WMDs. Of course, none were ever found, and it is now widely acknowledged and admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack, and that the War was largely waged for geopolitical reasons, including control of Iraqi oil reserves.
Another more modern example of “Revelation of Method” would be the many evolutions the “official” narrative of Covid-19 has undergone. Anyone who stated belief about a connection to the Wuhan Lab was called a crazy, possibly racist, conspiracy theorist and told that it was the result of some sort of “wet market” (an explanation I always personally found much more racist). Anthony Fauci swore under oath that no “gain of function” research at Wuhan had ever been done or funded by the NIH. Now, U.S. intelligence admits it was most likely a lab leak from exactly that.
The idea is that by first vehemently denying the truth and gaslighting any members of the public for exposing it, only to later admit to the truth when it’s more convenient/after they have accomplished their goals, the message is effectively sent to the public that “we are above the law, you have no recourse.” This public “Revelation of Method” is like a flex by the elites, meant to show the masses that there is a class of people who are beyond reproach, suffering no consequences for their crimes.
I believe that the final version we all saw of Des Jardins’ Spring 2023 Balenciaga X ADIDAS campaign was an example of Revelation of Method taking place, in which the open secret of the modeling industry’s involvement with pedophilia and sex trafficking was being teased to the public.
Just after Thanksgiving in 2007, I entered a voluntary inpatient treatment facility in a 90-day rehabilitation program in South Florida. It was a women-only facility for what is called “multiple track” patients, meaning there were several overlapping diagnoses. For instance, I was on a substance abuse track and sexual abuse/PTSD track, with concurring diagnoses of EDNOS (eating disorder not otherwise specified), OCD, and Bipolar II. This was not a fancy, rich people rehab place. This was a few steps above a state-run psych ward, which I have also spent some time in.
There were not many things I enjoyed or found helpful about the “program” at the facility I was in, in fact I was constantly being punished for violations of dumb rules that I didn’t understand. Who had the bright idea to take a bunch of the most unstable, fucked up, type-A women with mental illnesses and drug abuse issues and PUT US ALL IN A FACILITY TOGETHER?! Of all the activities I was forced to participate in during my time there, group therapy for the sexual abuse track was my least favorite. I did not think that sharing details of what happened to me with other victims was helpful to them, nor did I find hearing the details of what happened to others helpful to me.
It was in this one of these group therapy sessions that I first heard horrific, first person accounts of sexual abuse and trafficking from girls as young as 15 years old. I was extremely affected by the experiences of others in the group; they shook me to my core and kept me up at night. I felt like I had gone through what they went through after hearing them relive it. I repeatedly implored the therapist assigned to me to get me out of the group therapy sessions, with exactly zero success.
There were four young women in this group who were professional models, ranging in ages from 17-24. I heard them tell stories about parties in NYC, LA, and Miami in which they were essentially “served” as menu options to VIP guests while working for high-end modeling agencies and fashion labels. One of the women said she was a former Victoria’s Secret model. She told a harrowing tale of being practically kidnapped from her family in South America when she was 16 by Victoria’s Secret “scouts” who brought her to the U.S. on a modeling contract, and proceeded to traffic her to wealthy men at posh sex parties held in mansions with sex dungeons.
It was too much for me to take in. Add that to the 15 year old who had been trafficked by her own father since she was 11 years old, and I was actually starting to feel like I got off pretty easy just being regular-old raped as a legal adult. I remember telling the head psychiatrist there that I was being re-traumatized by hearing all these other tragic rape and sexual abuse stories, and that doing so held no therapeutic value for me. No one listened to me (because I was a psychiatric inpatient, lol) and I kept having to attend the group sessions. I dreaded when the VS model spoke. I’d try to tune out completely, and sometimes I’d disassociate or forget to breathe & nearly pass out. Her accounts were straight out of a rape-fetish pornography film.
Most of the women I shared the center with were from out of state, but I was a local. A Ft. Lauderdale native, I used to work at the dock inside Bahia Mar Marina. Met a lot of guys with boats working there, as you can imagine. Got to know most every boat owner who docked at the marina at the time. The majority of them were good guys, but as in life, some of them were pretty shady characters. There were many rumors on the dock about which captains made boatloads of cash on the side from “running.” Running, in this context, means shuttling alcohol, drugs, and girls on your boat to wealthy clients in the Virgin Islands and the Bahamas.
I would always flash back to some of those conversations at the Marina when the VS model spoke. She claimed to have been chauffeured by private boats to remote beachfront properties in South Florida, the Keys, and the Virgin Islands. After 2-3 weeks in the program, she was caught smuggling coke in—and I don’t mean the poisonous carbonated beverage. She was kicked out and I thanked God for it, I was so relieved that I wouldn’t have to ever hear one of her stories again. My university insurance cut out at some point between days 60 and 90, and I was “released” early without officially completing anything. Once I left that place, I did my damndest not to think about or dwell on anything I heard in that godforsaken group ever again.
It was not until 2012, when I was in law school in NYC, sitting in one of my classes, that a slow motion frame of her talking about one of parties she was trafficked at flashed across my brain. Suddenly I was there on the disgusting blue couch again listening to her, desperately trying to tune out. I must have disassociated into the memory, because the next thing I remember is someone saying my name and snapping back to reality without knowing how much time had passed. This was one of the more embarrassing symptoms of PTSD that I was dealing with at the time, slipping into memories and losing track of time. At my next appointment, my doctor asked me to retrace the conversation that led up to my “episode,” and to attempt to identify what the trigger had been.
“The professor had been talking about a real life example,” I heard myself say. As I said it, the Bahia Mar Marina flashed. Then the two fishermen on the white boats who used to come over to flirt with my coworkers. Boats. Boats with pretty girls on them. Her face, the blue couch, the words “rape” and “island.” Before I knew it, it was happening again. The doctor told me to take a deep breath, and reminded me to do the grounding exercises I had been taught. “A real-life example of what, can you recall?” I wracked my brain trying to remember what cases were on the syllabus for that day, and it started to come back to me. Civil rights of felons. Sex offenders, the constitutionality of sex offender registrations. Yes. It was a high profile case of someone registering as a sex offender. “Jeffrey Epstein?” the doctor offered. Yes. “That was it, something about him.”
“So, hearing about Jeffrey Epstein’s case was triggering to you, because it reminded you of your own assault?” No, that wasn’t it. “No, I don’t know anything about his case.” Somehow I had never really heard about Jeffrey Epstein when he was convicted in 2008—I was having a bit of a rough year that year, spending New Year’s in rehab and then struggling to graduate undergrad while in recovery. From 2008-2011, my main focus was staying sober and not killing myself while I attempted to get my shit together enough to salvage what remaining chance I had of getting into any law schools. “What was it, then?” he continued to ask. “I don’t know, something about boats…someone was talking about the case…she said something about an island, and I started having flashbacks.” “Of your rape?” “No! Fuck! Why are you not listening to me? It has nothing to do with me!” “Flashbacks of what, then?” “Conversations. Different conversations. From when I worked in the marina, and from rehab. Things people said.” “Like what?” “You know what, actually, I don’t find this useful.” “Fine, I’ll see you next week.”
Back at my apartment, I began Googling things. I started out with Jeffrey Epstein’s name, and caught up on everything I had missed in the news about his case. It was not long, maybe 3 or 4 articles in, before I found articles linking Jeffrey Epstein with Victoria’s Secret owner, Leslie H. Wexner. Here is a NY Times article from 2019, summarizing their relationship, complete with an account eerily similar to what I heard in that damned group therapy back in late 2007.
As chills ran down my spine, I kept seeing her in front of me on the blue couch telling her story, then seeing those two guys from the other dock with the white boats. All at once I became aware that my heart was pounding and my chest muscles were painfully tight; I realized I was holding my breath again and gasped. I just knew in that moment that the young woman had been telling the truth, and that she was most likely a victim of these two men. I also knew, with a sickening certainty, that those guys who used to brag about making money running girls between the islands, were telling the truth, most likely working for people like Epstein and his clients. “Jesus,” I thought, “everything she said was true.”
My husband practices immigration law, with a specialty in refugee & asylum law. Before I passed the CA Bar, I did contract legal drafting, working twice at the same firm as him. The two firms could not have been more opposite, one representing affluent international clients on O-Visas or investment visas who wanted to travel for their careers, the other representing disenfranchised and impoverished victims of unspeakable cruelty forced to flee their home countries. Shockingly, our work at both firms exposed us to knowledge about the inner workings of international and domestic human trafficking rings.
Most Americans are familiar with the “modeling” scam parodied in sitcoms where someone calling themselves a talent agent compliments an insecure young person, and convinces them to get into a career of modeling if they pay $500 or more for headshots. I remember these people at the mall growing up, but they never tried to get me because I was too short & ugly for the proposition to be plausible. Imagine that, but instead of scamming an unsuspecting teen & their gullible Mom out of a few hundred dollars, the “talent agent” tricks them into signing an employment contract and immigration documents, with promises of making them rich in the U.S. as a model. Instead, they are sex trafficked through shell “modeling agencies.”
Something that I found very perplexing about O-1 visas was that, they were incredibly difficult to get for practically every type of profession except modeling. An O-1 visa is nicknamed “Outstanding” as in reserved for outstanding individuals in their field. Outstanding meaning, the absolute top, which had to be proven with relevant awards and prestige among peers. If your field was neuroscience, for example, you would have to show you were among the top 5-10% of neuroscientists in your country, demonstrated by scholarship and grant awards, your position at hospitals or research centers, peer-reviewed journal articles, books and published works, professional accolades, any patents you were a part of developing, etc.
I will never forget that we had a Portuguese architect who was truly the top of her field, had won regional and national contests, had an incredible portfolio and letters of recommendation from the highest levels in Brazil on both private and government projects she had worked on. She was denied because USCIS claimed she didn’t have enough national awards where she was ranked in the top 5 of the entire country. It was so preposterous to me—if anyone deserved an O-1 visa, it was this architect. She was who the category was created for. We did everything in our power to get her approved, sending more and more pieces of her portfolio and letters from Brazil’s top architecture firms explaining that they don’t have enough national competitions for it to work that way—that she had won every regional competition and that was the highest honor they had. Nothing worked, her denial became final.
Compare that to our experience with anyone signed with a modeling agency. The modeling O-1 applications were processed quicker than any other type, and approved easily with only meeting the most bare minimum requirements showing that the person was a model. I once sat at a computer for 3 hours taking screen shots of a “model’s” Instagram account, then using each photo as if it was a part of her modeling portfolio—which it was, being that IG models only have their IG to show for their work. All you needed was enough pictures half naked and any random photographer willing to write a 2-paragraph letter saying they would photograph them if they came to the U.S., and boom! O-1 visa approved!
I wondered how it was possible that all models needed to do was vaguely show they have some artsy photos of themselves in various states of undress to show they were “outstanding” in their field, but we couldn’t get a Brazilian architect at the actual top of her field approved. It seemed there were two completely different standards in place for “models” and everyone else.
I started writing this piece when the Balenciaga and Adidas photoshoot happened in Spring of 2023, and stopped writing it at various points over the last year+, overwhelmed by it all. Now it’s October 2024, P. Diddy has been arrested, and the stories about Hollywood and his “freak off” parties abound, along with new lawsuits every day. When the news that over 1,000 bottles of baby oil had been seized in a raid on P. Diddy’s home, something didn’t sit right with me about it.
Yes, obviously, it’s a shit ton of baby oil. But it was something else. I read a criminal complaint about a year back for a rape case, where the Defendant allegedly figured out how to use the date-rape drug GHB that is typically put in drinks, in hand lotion. 1,000 bottles of baby oil is a lot, but it’s not illegal. Why would they actually seize them all? The night of September 25th, I told my husband when we laid down for bed that I thought the baby oil was spiked with something—which I have to say did not elicit the response I had hoped for. He was not particularly impressed or sold on my theory, just said “maybe” and went to sleep.
The next morning, September 26th, I posted about my theory on X and Instagram. I received several responses from people ranging from “wow this makes sense” to an old friend who was informing me that GHB is highly corrosive and would burn the skin if it were in baby oil, so it wasn’t possible. I worked in the cannabis industry long enough to know a little bit about the science of creating a concentrate of a substance using a solvent. I also knew it could be done because the Defendant in the rape case had figured it out with and lotion. I theorized that there must be a way to reduce GHB into a concentrated form that binds to fats or oils, much like the process for creating THC concentrate. Alternatively, the reason GHB is not corrosive in drinks is because something is neutralized when it hits sugar or alcohol. So, I imagined it also wouldn’t be very hard to mix sugar or honey or anything like that into a lotion or oil that would then be perfect for GHB. OR, my third theory was that it might not be GHB at all, it could be something very similar that was new or chemically altered so as to bind perfectly with a substance like baby oil.
I got many responses on Instagram to my theories, but practically none on X. That night, I received several texts from East Coast friends telling me that I needed to watch Gutfeld that night. I’n not a particularly big fan of the show, but looked it up and saw Dr. Drew would be a guest, whom I love. I’ve loved him since the Loveline days, I feel like he was more my therapist than my actual therapists were at times. To my shock, Dr. Drew floated the idea that P. Diddy’s baby oil may have been laced with GHB. He said that having 1,000 bottles of it screamed addiction to him, either a sex addiction or drug addition, and that there was surely more to the story. A couple weeks later, court filings in the P. Diddy case now show that he is being accused of lacing the baby oil with GHB.
Today, I woke up to the news about former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries, along with his “partner” Matthew Smith and a third man named Jim Jacobson, being arrested as part of a criminal sex trafficking investigation by the FBI &n federal prosecutors in Brooklyn. Prosecutors are saying that Jeffries “used his status” to “coerce aspiring models” into attending lavish sex-parties hosted by himself and Smith. One of the Plaintiffs named David Bradberry has alleged that Jeffries, Smith, and Jacobson used Abercrombie as a front to lure attractive young men under the guise of making them Abercrombie models, then forcing them to take drugs and perform sex acts.
Exactly what the young women had told me all those years ago in group therapy sessions about their experience modeling for Victoria’s Secret, Chanel, and Louis Vuitton. Exactly what we now know Epstein and P. Diddy were doing within the modeling and entertainment industry. I’m afraid that the fact is, we have only just begun to scratch the surface on the depth of the darkness and depravity that have been hidden by the Art & Entertainment industry in plain sight for decades—possibly longer.
Since I’ve been on a roll with my theories lately, here’s what I think: Practically the entire “high art” industry is an elaborate money laundering and sex trafficking operation that conceals payments for sex acts & drugs at these “parties" within the outrageous prices of the so-called “art” being produced; i.e. a $6,000 pair of disgusting, ugly, ripped up jeans; a $50,000 painting of a square, a $30,000 purse, etc. As a society we mock when such ridiculous items are priced this way, wondering “who on earth would ever spend that for that?” Well, it makes no sense at all, unless that’s not what the money is actually for.