Marc Jacobs Ad Featuring Dakota Fanning Banned In The UK

11/10/2011 1:00 pm by

The British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently banned an advertisement featuring 17-year-old Dakota Fanning for the Marc Jacobs perfume Oh, Lola!, claiming that it sexualizes a child. In the ad, Fanning is wearing a short dress, giving the camera a slightly come hither glare and holding a bottle of the fragrance between her legs.

“We considered that the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality,” stated the perverts at the ASA. “Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child.”

So here’s the provocative photo:

dakota fanning ad banned1 Marc Jacobs Ad Featuring Dakota Fanning Banned In The UK

Are you scandalized?

I personally think Coty, the makers of the perfume, fully intended for this ad to be sexually provocative. Anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot or a Coty representative. In fact, Marc Jacobs himself told Women’s Wear Daily that he cast Fanning because she could be a “contemporary Lolita, seductive yet sweet.”

Lolita, of course, is a 1955 novel by Vladimir Nabokov about a middle-aged man who falls for a 12-year-old girl. So, yea, apparently it’s no secret what Jacobs and Coty were trying to accomplish. They clearly just succeeded too well and were totally busted.

chris hansen Marc Jacobs Ad Featuring Dakota Fanning Banned In The UK

Come on in and take a seat, Coty.

As the father of a young girl, I probably should rant and rave and scream, “What’s wrong with this sick world we live in?!” I just don’t have the energy to get worked up over this. Would I let my 17-year-old daughter pose in an ad like this? Maybe, because I feel that 17 is old enough to make decisions and explore the idea of sexual attraction. Since my daughter will be locked away in a tower until she’s 35, though, we’ll never need to worry about that.

Here is my main problem with the ad — it’s not good! As far as advertising campaigns go, this looks like something a freshman marketing student would create for a college class and not something a huge ad agency would put together for a major brand. Now this Tommy Lee Jones ad for Boss coffee is more like it:

boss tommy lee jones ad Marc Jacobs Ad Featuring Dakota Fanning Banned In The UK

Tommy Ree.

Also, this type of sexual portrayal of minors for marketing purposes is nothing new. I mean, check out this perverse advertisement:

Photo Nov 09 10 43 56 PM e1320898756643 Marc Jacobs Ad Featuring Dakota Fanning Banned In The UK

It’s gonna blow? Choking hazard? Well, I never…

Commenters: What say you of the Fanning ad? Something to be upset about? Should it have been banned? Does it make you want to buy perfume?

chris hansen Marc Jacobs Ad Featuring Dakota Fanning Banned In The UK

Well… does it?

source

source

TOP POSTS
About Brad

And so Brad Stephenson finds himself leaping from life to life, striving to put right what once went wrong and hoping each time that his next leap will be... the leap home.

Filed Under: Advertising, Celebrities, Celebrity Fashion, Celebrity Kids Tagged With: , , , ,


From Our Partners

  • http://twitter.com/nyoprinces Bonnie

    I mostly just want to know why her leg looks like a 4-year-old sculpted it out of clay… why is it so stripey?

    • http://www.twitter.com/bstephenson Brad Stephenson

      I wondered that, too. I stared for a while to try to figure it out, and then I realized a picture of a sultry Dakota Fanning was open on my monitor at work and I should stop it immediately.

    • Sarah Smith-Frigerio

      I was wondering the same darn thing! Do you think they photo-shopped her to give her body a more childish appearance? Because if they did, then I’m glad that the UK labeled it as sexualizing a child.

      The sad part? We’ve all seen the ad now. We all know the perfume. More people will buy it. Lolita-like or not, they win!

    • Anonymous

      She’s wearing tights.

  • http://www.fictionaut.com/users/joe-lyons SweetMonkeyCreek

    Dakota Fanning needs to do something to get her name out there since Elle Fanning is now the new Dakota Fanning of acting.  Must make for some tense family night dinners.

    Also, we’re all now on a list just for looking at this ad.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bstephenson Brad Stephenson

      Yea, Elle Fanning > Dakota Fanning > Tebow.

      • http://www.facebook.com/caitlin.lenon Caitlin Lenon

        I just got yogurt up my nose.

  • Anonymous

    Well, if the intent was to be icky, then hats off. Even if Dakota was of age, the pose, the styling, everything is all very little-girl-as-sex-symbol. Kind of like the Love’s Baby Soft ads from the 80s, the person in the ad doesn’t need to be a little girl for the ad to be sexualizing young girls. So, while I don’t see anything inherently wrong with a 17-year-old posing in a provocative way (I don’t think there’s any magical change between the ages of 17 and 18), I do have a problem with the idea that little girls are sexy, which is definitely what this ad’s subtext suggests.

    Lolita is not supposed to be a sexy book, so I don’t know why Jacobs would look to it as inspiration for a perfume ad. 

    • http://www.twitter.com/bstephenson Brad Stephenson

      Like I said, it’s very clear what they intended. And that’s wrong. But with other things to be more irritated about, I can’t seem to get my feathers ruffled over this.

      I do also think it’s funny that the ASA said she looks younger than 16, which makes this ad worse. But I think maybe they’re using movie and TV versions of 17 year olds as their basis here. I think she looks like a normal 17 year old. I don’t think she looks like a ‘Friday Night Lights’ 17-going-on-40 year old.

      • Anonymous

        Good for them.

        No it’s not the worst offender out there. But society needs to take a stand against the  sexualization of young girls (and boys). And it needs to start somewhere. And this is as good a place as any.

        Now if only other countries would take the same stand and ban this and other ads.

        But they won’t. So it will continue.

  • Anonymous

    Also, that creepy Chris Hanson picture makes me guffaw every time I see it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Simon-King/100000677194879 Simon King

    Nothing wrong with that ad other than it lacks originality.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bstephenson Brad Stephenson

      Right? Just plain awful work. 

  • Judy P

    Am I the only one who looks at that and thinks “Wow, that’s a really big bottle of perfume!” (and not in the dirty way). That bottle would last me the rest of my life and my grandkids would still be all “Damn, there is still half a bottle of Grandma’s awful perfume… What do we do with it?”

    • http://www.twitter.com/bstephenson Brad Stephenson

      I think you’re sexualizing grandmas, and I am NOT OK with that.

    • Anonymous

      Not only would it last the rest of your days, but perfume does not last (that is:  smell good) forever.   I used to know the shelf life of perfume, but can’t remember now (and am too lazy to Google).  I know it’s not more than a year or two though.  So you’d basically have to bathe in this shit – and that would make you stink even before the shelf life had come and gone.  Double-edged sword…in the shape of a flower…in the suggestive lap of Dakota Fanning.

  • http://twitter.com/mollygmartin Molly Martin

    Yeah, it’s clear what they were intending and it’s icky and it’s all too common but I also agree with Amber (17-year-olds can decide) and you (I’m not upset, it’s not a good ad).  In fact, were the ad super offensive, we could have a really meaty chat and really respond to what’s wrong with it.  Marc Jacobs phoned it in.  He should’ve called American Apparel to find out the secret to truly offending me.

  • Anonymous

    Good for the U.K. banning it. Like Amber said, it’s not the age of the model that is the issue, it’s that the ad is purposely trying to make a “Lolita” sexy. Only pedophiles should find this ad or the book that inspired it sexy.

  • Anonymous

    Good for the U.K. banning it. Like Amber said, it’s not the age of the model that is the issue, it’s that the ad is purposely trying to make a “Lolita” sexy. Only pedophiles should find this ad or the book that inspired it sexy.

  • Anonymous

    Really, you’d let your 17 year old child pose for this ad? You are so insensitized to the sexualization of all women, you can’t even see what’s in front of your face.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bstephenson Brad Stephenson

      OK, to be fair, I also said I was going to lock her away in a tower until she’s 35. Clearly, I am still getting the hang of this parenting thing.

      I will rephrase: I would let my 17-year-old make some adult choices about ads if I had a 17-year-old daughter and she were a model. The blatant Lolita-ism in this image is not cool and was obviously intentional. 

  • Anonymous

    My two cents:
    Since none of us are pedophiles, it’s really hard to say if this is sexy or not. But since the intent of the ad is to be suggestive and to make Fanning look more juvenile rather than less, I say err on the side of caution. In other words: Don’t feed the pedophiles.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bstephenson Brad Stephenson

      Right. And even if the model were 30 instead of 17, the ad would still not be sexy. It just looks awkward.

  • Anonymous

    And, duh, of course it’s meant to be suggestive, the cap is a Georgia O’Keefe in 3D. Everyone knows those paintings are about girl parts…

    • http://www.twitter.com/bstephenson Brad Stephenson

      This is the second comment thread on MamaPop in one day to mention Georgia O’Keefe and her lady bit paintings. Let’s not make this a trend, people! ;)

  • http://twitter.com/FawnTrue Fawn True

    Tommy Ree…DYING…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OXFGXPRKSMDBW677YASBPWD2SA Savannah Lucas

    I think most of you people have lost your minds. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this Ad, other than it looking awkward and as if were cheaply made. But hell, maybe it was SUPPOSED to look that way? I wouldn’t have a clue. I see Ads all the time and think “WTH were they thinking with THIS one?”  She isn’t revealing anything! Not even a bra strap. All this fuss because of the look on her face and where the bottle is placed! Guess what? That’s how I hold my Coke bottle people! I’m not being perverted, I’m just holding my friggin coke!  I will admit the Lolita story and a few of Jacobs’ comments are creepy ( I dont understand why he would want to create/replicate a “Lolita”-maybe he’s coo-coo), but I knew nothing about his perfume being based on the book until 10 minutes ago. I really wish someone would explain to me how this sexualizes young girls? Because she’s a girl? Wearing pink? A frilly polka dot dress? Cause she’s holding a perfume bottle in her “suggestive” lap? Still confused here! Yeah, sure he SAID he was going for seductive, but—1st, it was a SWING & MISS and 2nd, even if he did hit his mark, NOTHING IS INAPPROPRIATE ABOUT THIS PICTURE. Matter of fact, the only difference in this pic and my (3 yo) nephew’s fall photos is the look on their faces, he has both hands placed behind him, and he has a small pumpkin in his lap where her perfume bottle is. IT IS ALMOST THE EXACT SAME POSE. *Sigh* I guess I had better get DHR over to my sisters house to look into this. 
       P.S.    If you want to see girls sexualized, head on over to facebook, photo bucket, and myspace. 13, 14, and 15 year old IN THEIR UNDERWEAR, puckering their lips. Topless, covering their tidbits with their hands. It makes me mad that an ad like this can be banned, but no one is doing anything to these girls who actually ARE sexualizing themselves and putting their selves in danger. Dakota is 17, old enough to make her own decisions and a good role model for girls (dont give a shit what you people think this ad says about her).