Apparently the picture above was way too much for the UK Ad Standards Authority and has banned Dakota Fanning's magazine ad for Marc Jacobs. They said that, “the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality. Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualize a child.”
Dakota is just 17. If she was 18, then hey, this would be perfectly acceptable and they would have a fine time with it. It is certainly sexually suggestive, but aren't actors allowed to be naked at the age of 17 in the UK? I don't think it is 18 like it is here, so how can naked actors be fine but this ad not be fine? Two 17 year olds can be having sex on camera, but this ad is wrong? I guess because it is an ad and not a movie? It's ok to pay to see teens have sex, but you should not get clothed ones for free? I don't get it. I do get the fact that no one probably knew that Marc Jacobs had a new perfume that is out, but they do now.
She IS 17, and I've seen 14 year old models posing in much more suggestive attire for clothes or anything fashion: American Apparel anyone?
ReplyDeleteBut if the UK is taking a harsher stand on anything pedophile suggestive, then good for them. Wonder if they let Polanski film in their country.
Meh, I have seen worse from the UK, I believe they had a Calvin Klein ad that was very risque several years back and nothing was done about it.
ReplyDeleteI have seen worse, but from what I read their reasoning is that she appears much younger than 17 and I have to agree. I personally am glad they are being careful. It would be nice to see more of that to be honest.
ReplyDeleteridiculous. after reading their reasoning, i'd say these people have very dirty minds. i see nothing wrong with it at all.
ReplyDeleteOff topic, but am I the only one that wonders why Enty is suddenly posting at all hours plus on weekends? He used to start a little after noon eastern time and post for about four hours... with how much he posts now, I don't see how it's possible to also have a separate career.
ReplyDeleteI think we long established that he employs "help" with his postings. I don't care, whoever it is cracks me up. I think it's him on the weekends though.
ReplyDeleteWAAAAYYYY too suggestive for a minor. I don't care if she's 17 or 18. I know 18 is the legal age, but I don't care. It's still too young...and she looks young. Why does everything have to be sexual? There are other ways to sell a product than just sex...especially with a minor. This just feeds all the perverts and pedofiles out there.
ReplyDelete@cathy:ditto
ReplyDeleteOMG they're pruddish,i saw more suggestive ads with younger teens
I already have an English magazine from around a month ago with that advert in :-/
ReplyDeleteAlso, I wonder if they would have been as pissed if it were for any other perfume. There are obvious parallels between "Lola" and "Lolita" that I'm sure people pick up on either consciously or sub-consciously.
ReplyDeleteIt is a somewhat suggestive ad, but the name of the perfume is Oh, Lola! which I guess is a play on Lolita. I've seen far worse, but I'm fine with the UK banning it, although I think Enty is right. This is probably a publicity stunt dreamed up by both the Marc Jacobs PR people and Fanning's people. Marc Jacobs gets a lot of free press for their new perfume, and Fanning gets to be seen as more "adult" now that she is of an age where she will be trying to go from "child star" to just "star".
ReplyDeleteI think if the flower bottle had been placed anywhere but atop her vag, it probably wouldn't be nearly as scandalous?
ReplyDeleteBut it is a play on Lolita, so, I don't know what to think.
I think that the perfume could have been placed in a better place than right beside her crotch. It is a bit too much. Other than that, I am fine with the picture.
ReplyDeleteDakota may be 17, but to me, she looks 12, and I think that was probably the deciding factor.
ReplyDeletei'm sorry, but this is a bit ridiculous and over the top. do they ban all of the mostly naked models that look far younger? i don't really see the suggestiveness in this pose, but i'm not a pervy-pie, so i don't always see things in a dirty way. i think there might be more to this story...
ReplyDeleteI think it's just for attention for Mark Jacobs and her as well.
ReplyDeleteThis picture is not that big of a deal.
I'm surprised those ads (didn't her younger sister do some?) were made in the first place. She is styled to look like a young Lolita and they are very suggestive.
ReplyDeleteIf you could ban the Helena Bonham Carter ads, I'd be happy with that. Gives me nightmares.
The recent Marc Jacobs campaigns absolutely are going for the pedophile crowd -- why, I don't know. (I also don't get why everyone is so flip about this when I just read through the aggressive exact opposite comments about the Penn State developments.)
ReplyDeleteDefinitely a play on "Lolita" and with the flower coming out of her vag? Come on. Definitely suggestive and unnecessary. It makes me uncomfortable and I"m not a prude, promise ;)
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't the bottle-in-crotch that caught my eye at first. It was the stoned-outta-her-mind look in her eyes. I had to look for a while before catching onto the crotch placement.
ReplyDeleteMeh. But guess what? the stuff is getting hella press now, isn't it?
I see why some people find the picture suggestive....but I find it odd that THIS was the ad that drove them over the edg considering the amount of ads and pictorials in magazines that objectify and sexualize very young women and girls.
ReplyDeleteDo pedophiles by designer perfume? And if you want to talk about young sexuality, nobody did it like Brooke Sheilds back in the day and she was 12 and younger.
ReplyDeleteoops, buy.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Enty is really posting at those early hours - with Blogger you can write a post and schedule when it will be go active.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's all that suggestive. Maybe 'symbolic' to the sort of people who have to read sex into everything, or find symbolism in everything. But like Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." And sometimes a pretty young woman is just holding a bottle of perfume.
ReplyDeleteI don't think she looks underage, as the age of consent in the UK is 16. She's fully dressed. She is holding the bottle on her lap, but it's not like she's humping it.