It's only a perfume:
"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.
The ASA said the ‘Oh, Lola!’ advertisement showed Dakota Fanning, sitting on the floor, alone, wearing a pale coloured thigh length dress. ‘We noted that the model was holding up the perfume bottle which rested in her lap between her legs and we considered that its position was sexually provocative,’ it said.
Source
12 comments:
I think she looks a little older than seventeen in the ad...she could pass for at least nineteen or twenty.
Considering that this is Britain, they would probably prefer a nine-year-old in a burkha anyway.
Antis are such perverts.
-L
A ban because it sexualizes a 17 year old. Interesting! But provide condoms in school, with explicit material to 12 year olds is OK?
PC another word for SOCIALISM
IDIOT another word for MR. BIRD
Of course it sexualizes the model, that is the point of such an advertisement. Why did Dakota's parents allow such an advertisement using their daughter?
Everything about that ad—especially "Lola", which is short for Lolita—screams "underage sex!" Mark Jacobs even admits that is what he was going for.
Since when is sexualizing children—even in artsy-fartsy high style—considered acceptable?
I really feel sorry for Dakota. Not only is she being abused, she's being abused in public. Not just with this ad, but also her movie role in Hounddog, which was made when she was actually 12, the same age as the Lolita character.
How did our culture sink so low that such people aren't rotting in jail?
I think Anon 7:03 had a REALLY good point that should be explored. How is this bad when it insinuates sex but handing out condoms and graphic insrtuctions about the real thing to tweens is fine??
"I really feel sorry for Dakota."
Why? She got paid for it. Payment for services rendered.
Some conservative you are... antibusiness.
Anon 1:50,
I'm not quite sure how to take your comment. Are you being deliberately ironic?
Condoms and sex-education in schools are not the cause but the consequence of sexualizing teenagers with such advertizing (or on tv, movies, dvds, internet etc.) everywhere teenagers look. For once I agree with Luke (wow next he'll make me a bible-freak! - sorry if that's also a back-handed compliment).
Stupid another word for a liberal annon 9:34
Post a Comment