on Nov 15, 2011 @ 11:44 am|
Dakota Fanning's ad for the Oh Lola! fragrance by Marc Jacobs was banned for 'sexualizing children'.
Here is the ad in question:
For the record, Dakota is underage at 17 years old.
Here is a statement regarding the decision to ban the ad:
"We understood the model was 17 years old but we considered she looked under the age of 16. We considered 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 sexualise a child. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offence."
What do you think? Is this sexually suggestive- do you find it offensive and should it be banned?
|Myself on Nov 15, 2011 @ 11:52 am|
It doesn't really bother me, but I can see where others could get upset
|Yes on Nov 15, 2011 @ 12:10 pm|
I think it is a pretty inappropriate ad. If I were to have just stumbled upon it in a magazine or on a billboard I would be mildly shocked. Removing the ad before it caused a scandal was the responsible thing to do I think.
|this picture was actually on the back of a magazine i had on Nov 15, 2011 @ 12:36 pm|
It would be a simple fix to move the bottle. She is underage so I understand the issue.
Personally though I see it as dakota has parents, they should be the ones paying attention to this.
There will always be something that offends...
Ali de Bold
|I thought so on Nov 15, 2011 @ 12:42 pm|
I saw this in a magazine too and my first reaction was that it was a bit too much. Children should never be sexualised. There is no gray area. She is 17, so I don't think of her as a child but she does look younger so it could be perceived that way.
|other references on Nov 15, 2011 @ 01:08 pm|
So the perfume is called "Oh Lola" which many would interpret as a reference to Lolita - a story from the 1950s about a pedophile who falls in love with a 12-year-old.
The bottle is between her legs, and frankly looks a little like an erection.
Bubblegum pink is a little girl colour, and Dakota looks very youthful here.
It raises my eyebrows. I'm glad it was removed!
|Shouldn't have been released on Nov 15, 2011 @ 01:23 pm|
I actually heard the same interpretation somewhere- I don't know if this was intentional or not though.
I think the biggest problem I have with this is the fact that she looks so young- way younger than 17- her high forehead, large eyes and baby doll dress are very infantile. I also think that they need context for the ad- shot in an old, amateur style way in a nondescript room is shady- and makes me uncomfortable.
|i also thought it was inappropriate on Nov 15, 2011 @ 04:57 pm|
I saw this in a magazine and right away I thought it was inappropriate. I often read about subliminal messaging in media and sexualizing underage models and that sort of thing so this ad stuck out right away to me. The fact that shes underage (not to mention people with think she looks younger as mention and as a young star many probably still see her as the little girl we used to see her as) I found the ad inappropriate.
A poster above said the bottle looks like an erection, which I can see why they say this. However my first thought when I saw the placement and design of the bottle was a different take. It's between her legs and the lid is a flower (as in deflowering?). I just find that both inappropriate abd creepy. good on them for pulling it
|INAPPROPRIATE on Nov 15, 2011 @ 05:32 pm|
Totally agree with the Anonymous poster's comments.
Sexualization of children has been really a heightened topic in fashion since the 10 year old model (yes, a model at 10) Thylane Blondeau was in a hugely contested campaign from French Vogue.
In addition to this shoot, there have been some ads pulled earlier this year and various products deemed "age inappropriate" for girls.
Personally I think this is NOT for little girls, tweens, even teens for that matter. Half the time I can't believe half the stuff I'm seeing in La Senza Girl. And speaking of that, when I was 12 there was no special shop for underwear....we got standard drawers from Zellers. I just think it's damn ridiculous that kids are buying underwear at grown woman lingerie shop. Ridiculous.
As far as the ad above, again totally inappropriate both in terms of the age of the model and the innuendo.