(UK) Dakota Fanning's 'Lolita' perfume ad for Marc Jacobs is banned for 'sexualising children'

[The Straight Story]

Dakota Fanning's 'Lolita' perfume ad for Marc Jacobs is banned for 'sexualising children'



A perfume advertisement featuring teen actress Dakota Fanning has been banned on the basis it appeared to ‘sexualise a child’.

The actress is 17, but she looked younger in the magazine ad for ‘Oh Lola!’, where she was sitting on the floor with the perfume bottle between her thighs.

The scent is the creation of U.S fashion designer Marc Jacobs, who said he chose the young actress because she could be a ‘contemporary Lolita

The perfume was made by the global beauty brand Coty, which has previously come under fire for its use of sexual imagery.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2059097/Dakota-Fannings-Lolita-perfume-ad-Marc-Jacobs-banned-sexualising-children.html

[TwilightGardener]

1. That's an interesting place to rest the bottle.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dipsydoodle]

3. lol

.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Disturbing, but not new...

Wrong on so many levels.

--Sexualizing young girls;

--Perpetuating a myth that younger is better;

--Perpetuating a sense that it's OK to lust after minors;

--Perpetuating a sense that little girls need to look sexually mature (marketing-$$$);

--Engendering a sense of worthlessness among women over 12 (marketing-$$$);

$ick $ick $ick Free Marketing of our children and of our values.

Fucked up.

x(

[hlthe2b]

6. Our society is so screwed up that protecting children is less important than $$$$$

And that girls (and women) are so diminished. We may not hide them under Burkhas or ban them from driving, voting or education, but misogyny flourishes nonetheless in our "enlightened" society.

[seabeyond]

13. +1. all around. nt

[lbrtbell]

5. Her age is only one problem

The main issue here is the disgusting placement of that bottle. I don't give a damn if she's 45, that's a bit too out-there for a mainstream ad.

[Javaman]

7. I find these "outrages" amusing, considering just about our entire advertising

industry is based on sex. And use much more obvious promotions than this.

[redqueen]

8. It's a little silly, yes.

Sexualizing women and pushing the younger is better meme re: women is not exactly novel. It's everywhere.

Hopefully this will cause some people to stop and think about the ethics involved in using sexualized images of women as if they were nothing more than a nice font.

[dipsydoodle]

10. Checkout Europe's Orangina ad.

Orangina Naturally Juicy French version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck14LKBI9GM UK ran that version too

[immoderate]

21. I lived in Paris a bit. Love Orangina!

Tip: mixing OJ and seltzer 50/50 comes close, maybe better.

This commercial is very strange.

--imm

[progressoid]

24. Ok...ummm...errr

:wtf:

[dipsydoodle]

27. Our advertising over here

hadn't born any resemblance to yours for years now. We've got ads where even the product isn't named.

[octothorpe]

37. I find those type of ads tend to stick with me more...

but they tend to stand out more since they are not like all the other ones. How does it work when all/most ads are like that?

[qb]

9. Marc Jacobs is one sick fuck - he bases his perfume on a 12-year-old rape victim.

:puke:

[MedicalAdmin]

16. Um ... a little help here.

What rape victim? Am I missing something?

Or are talking about the fictional character of Lolita?

[redqueen]

17. The fictional character was a rape victim.

In the book, she was raped.

Just because she's a fictional character, that doesn't make celebrating the concept of lusting after and having sex with minors any less horrific.

[MedicalAdmin]

32. Yes and thanks.

I just thought I was missing something ( as usual).

Lolita - book character - check. I'm on board now. Thanks for connecting the dots for me.

[pipi_k]

11. A creepy look back...

At the 1970s...





http://pzrservices.typepad.com/vintageadvertising/2007/06/creepy_ad_for_l.html

[lame54]

12. It's good we at DU can see it so we can judge whether others should be allowed to see it...

:crazy:

[redqueen]

15. So for you, the more important issue isn't the hyprsexualization of women and girls...

it's censorship?

[lame54]

25. it's the showing of a pic that you think shouldn't be seen

[redqueen]

26. Aha... yes...

well if it wasn't provided the 'thread is useless without pics' crowd would show up crowing for it, so ... can't be denying people their entitlement to such images.

[lame54]

28. it is a quandry

[LynneSin]

14. Really? Are you kidding me?

I have no problem with a young girl hawking perfume

But a flower coming from her crotch? Seriously, like we can't see what kind of sick message he is promoting.

And Dakota Fanning should be ashamed of herself for even doing that pose. But I'm sure she was offered enough cash to do it.

[pipi_k]

18. OK I have to say...

that I am probably one of the biggest prudes a lot of people will ever meet.

But I didn't see anything sexual about that photo. Seriously.


The photo I posted above, from the 1970s, is way more disturbing (IMO) than the one in the OP...

Some people here are going on about what a pig Marc Jacobs is. I wouldn't know him from a hole in the wall, so I have no opinion.

But let's say the photographer were someone people don't have an issue with. Would the photo still be objectionable? See, I think the issue here is more the photographer than his photograph...

:shrug:

[LynneSin]

19. Really?

A perfume, named after a notorious sexually active 12 year old child, use a model who is 17 years old but madeup to look like she's 12-14 and she's got a giant flower growing out of her crotch.

The photo is sick.

[redqueen]

20. It's the name of the perfume + the picture.

The picture you posted is more disturbing, but the name was only hinting at pedophilia. This one alludes to a very well-known book in which the story centers around a man who sexually molests his daughter-in-law repeatedly.

[redqueen]

29. Step-daughter, not daughter-in-law.

Oops.

[KittyWampus]

36. Hey Pipi, long time no see. My problem is with mindfucking children with ads directed at them

specifically.

[octothorpe]

38. I'm with you on that one. I didn't see the sexual message in it...

Well, at least not as much as other. The flower thing didn't even stand for me. I thought it was the "skimpy" dress that was the objection at first.

[Locrian]

22. 17 in that pic? - really?

I dunno - maybe I don't get it but I think she looks like a 30+ something barfly in that pic...

[redqueen]

23. The 30+ something barflys in your area must have great plastic surgeons

and lots of disposable cash.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. You need to draw the line somewhere. I'm not sure I agree that this is over the line

but I can see why some might.

[seabeyond]

31. lol. i am glad to hear at least one person say, there needs to be a line.... somewhere

anyway.

better than a free for all i hear too much now a days

[MicaelS]

33. I think many of these "fashion designers" are sick fucks...

Many of them use models who look like they are survivors of a concentration camp to model their clothes on some runway some where. Then the Drop Dead clothing line uses the "Dachau look" in their ad. And then Marc Jacobs pulls shit like this with this ad.

I swear I'd like to have a bunch of these "fashion designers" caned in Singapore just on general principles. :mad:

[efhmc]

34. Yucky ad just in general.

[KittyWampus]

35. There's an entire subculture around Lolitas. Young women of age intentionally playing up the school

girl look/vibe.

[redqueen]

39. The most popular form of porn - by far - is of the 'barely legal' variety. (nt)