'11
Do you remember this really obnoxious, offensive Dakota Fanning for Marc Jacobs’ Lola perfume ad, above? Kaiser covered it back in June when it came out, and she mentioned back then Dakota’s parents should oversee their daughters’ photoshoots more closely, especially when it comes to their up-and-coming 13 year-old daughter, Elle. At least Dakota was all of 17 when she shot this ad, which is still underage but isn’t 13, you know? Well the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK has banned that ad, saying that while Dakota may be over 16 she’s styled to look like a much younger girl and that the photo appears to be sexualizing a child.
A provocative ad campaign for Marc Jacobs perfume featuring 17-year-old Dakota Fanning, the US actor who has starred in films including War of the Worlds and Charlotte’s Web, has been banned following accusations that it sexualised children.
The magazine campaign, which featured in the London Evening Standard’s ES Magazine and Sunday Times Style magazine, featured Fanning wearing a short skirt and holding a bottle of Marc Jacobs perfume in what the advertising regulator deemed a “sexually provocative” position between her legs.
The Advertising Standards Authority received four complaints from that the ad was offensive and irresponsible because it portrayed the young model in a “sexualised manner”.
The press ad ran with the strapline “Oh, Lola!”, the name of the perfume, which is produced and distributed by Coty UK.
Coty UK, ES Magazine and the Sunday Times Style magazine said they had not received any complaints about the campaign.
Coty said that most readers of the titles would be over 25 years of age – the target age for the perfume – and the type of picture was “similar to many other edgy images in those magazines”.
The ASA said that the way the perfume bottle rested in Fanning’s lap was “sexually provocative” and considered that the actress actually looked to be 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,” the ASA said.
“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.”
The ASA banned the ad in its first ruling since a Downing Street summit in early October attended by senior executives from from the media and retail industry – including broadcasters, magazine editors, trade bodies and advertisers – who updated the prime minister about cracking down on the “sexualisation” of TV programmes, advertising and products that may be inappropriate for children.
I appreciate how the Advertising Standards Authority tries to keep ads in the UK in check, particularly cosmetic ads. They’ve banned some overly photoshopped ads and required mascara ads using falsies to include disclaimers informing consumers. (They haven’t been as aggressive towards ads for hair products that use models with hair extensions, however.)
This ad just goes beyond what should be acceptable for a young girl, though. I like that they’re pointing out that Dakota was styled to look younger, not more mature, while holding a perfume bottle between her legs that looks like a phallic Georgia O’Keefe painting blooming from her crotch.
Getting back to Dakota and her little sister, Elle – they just did a photoshoot for notorious perv creeper Terry Richardson. I like that when you google his name this article on Jezebel is the fourth result. He doesn’t care at all. Sexually abusing young models hasn’t hurt his career one bit. I hope that the Fanning sisters had an entire entourage with them when they did this shoot.
Written by Celebitchy
Posted in misc
- Zach Galifianakis is awesome [Buzzfeed]
- Prince at the Billboard Music Awards [D-Listed]
- Bieber’s Billboard look [Go Fug Yourself]
- Married to Medicine recap [Reality Tea]
- Celebrity first marriages [Pajiba]
- The last Mad Men baffled a lot of people [Lainey]
- Karolina Kurkova’s crazy hot dress [Moe Jackson]
- Jennifer Garner on set [Popsugar]
- Kitten vs. Lizard [CDAN]
- Doetzen Kroes’ great butt [Celebslam]
- Shameless star Jeremy Allen White [OMG Blog]
- RIP Ray Manzarek [Bossip]
Dakota needs kristen stewart to accompany her to all Terry shoots. Kristen and Dakota did a photo shoot a couple years back for Terri/Terr/whatever for their Runaways promotion, and Kristen basically told him to f*ck off when he tried to get them in some suggestive poses for Rolling Stone. The end resulting pictures are just them side by side, completely clothed,and Rolling Stone scrapped the pictorial all together.
I know kristen annoys people here and I understand, but at least she refuses to give head to an ice cream cone ala Blake Lively/Leighton Meister when Uncle Teri says so, and Dakota should follow suit for her freaking underaged sister. She’s only 13!!!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Oh, that ad is so gross! A pedophile’s dream. Kudos to the Authority for banning it. What is wrong with the kid’s parents????
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I’m afraid FBI is going to harpoon my arse just buy clicking this link, viewing that pic and typing about it.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I don’t think it is that suggestive. In fact, I don’t think it is suggestive at all. I’m confused as to why these pictures are a big deal.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
the big deal is she has a flower placed strategically on her crotch while her baby doll dress is hiked up to her thighs, that’s where the suggestive and crude labels are coming from.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I’m sure he was intentionally going for “Oh, Lolita!” and that makes it extra pervy to me. If we had the equivalent of the Advertising Standards Authority for television content I wonder how quick “Toddler and Tiaras” would be off the air?
The shots of the sisters aren’t flattering at all.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
lol @ Artisan
Poor child looks like Kate Bosworth in the last pic.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
@Katie – I didn’t know that about Kristen. Regardless of what people say about her, she’s not afraid to stick to her guns and eschew PR in order to keep true to herself. That’s admirable, especially in Hollywood.
I commend the UK ASA for objecting to this. Sometimes it’s hard to know where to draw the line, but I completely agree with them on this one.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Absolutely vulgar! Ban Marc Jacobs!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
That ad is discusting! Dakota is 17, she should have more judgement and choose better, I think she has enough money to say no.
(Elle looks like a young Kate Bosworth in the last picture)
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Team Kristen (just this time)!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
The placement of the “flower” topped perfume bottle is in itself suggestive. I find this offensive.
Kudos to Kristen Stewart!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
how do you guys even know this whole Rolling Stone KS and DF thing happened, is there video?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Um have you seen Dakota in The Runaways??? hello???
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I was looking at this ad yesterday (on the back of an old TIME) and I thought it was so innapropriate. I’m glad the UK banned it.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
This series of advertising appeared in this month’s Teen Vogue magazine here in the U.S. I’m not surprised this is being banned in UK just like they banned the Julia Roberts cosmetic ad because it was deceptive while the U.S. allowed it. The UK, along with Canada, Australia, and every other developed English-speaking nation (except the United States) have media literacy programs in their curriculum from Kindergarten up and have stronger laws and penalties regarding unethical media behavior. One of the many ways in which our school system is setting children in this country up for failure.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Good on the U.K. terry richardson,joe francis,brett ratner all exploit woman.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
@ Jessica – “Um have you seen Dakota in The Runaways??? hello???”
So true. The Runaways did not sit well with me because of how young she was. I think the only justification I could give for it was, “well, she appears to have a good head on her shoulders, unlike some other child stars.” But I don’t know why there wasn’t more of an uproar when that movie came out.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Yeah, that perfume is her virgin flower offered as a big male organ. Just distasteful. But better than most of the Lola ads. I hate the ads that show women with their legs spead eagle too. In the 80′s those ads were thrown in the trash. They need a director with creativity, not just looking for a shock value. Remember the ad for Marc, with him neked just holding his perfume bottle, hilarious! showing off that he works out a lot. What is their target audience?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Good. Next time a perv or pushy parent shows up with a sexualized little kid maybe instead of putting them on cover of Rolling Stone someone will think twice.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Why the hell would I care about kind of perfume a catatonic teenager wears? Save your bubble gum antics for the Lip Smackers Expo.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I’m a total prude but I really am not seeing the suggestiveness of this ad at all! It reminds me of an ad from the 60′s. I just don’t find it sexual AT ALL!
And really, trust me, I am a total prude when it comes to sexualizing young girls and trashy clothing.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Real talk though, I thought this was exactly what made Britney Spears famous.
It was a pretty perverted phenomenon in the beginning.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Good on the UK. I agree with their reasoning — that photo shoot seems created to turn straight up pedophiles on. It is not presenting her as a teen, but as a young adolescent, offering herself up sexually. That’s fine but for the fact most normal males her age would prefer a girl who is not styled to look 6. Also, @Katie I didn’t know that about K-Stew? Never get the hate for her on here anyway, she seems so harmless and she does not seem stuck up at all. Her cred just went up in my book, hearing this story.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
That kristen girl who pose in glamour with her ass out and is always unclothed or hypersexualized in her indie movies. (sarcasm)
By the way, i find this ad disguting. What a good model for teenager.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Not that I approve of the ad (I don’t), but I remember reading that the age of consent in Britain was 16?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Why would I, a grown woman, care about kind of perfume a catatonic teenager wears? Save the trite, trite, trite doe-eyed stare sex and bubble gum misadventures for the Lip Smackers Expo; oh, if you have time, perhaps sort out your demographic confusion, as this makes about as much sense as hiring a Boy Scout as the face of a new Skoal campaign. How long until we find out they’ve been adding rohypnol to the Flintstone’s Vitamins supply?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Terry Richardson is scum. I don’t know why Jennifer Aniston and all these other celebrities continue to support him.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I don’t see this ad as a problem at all. She’s completely covered and I don’t see how the dress is supposed to make her look younger than her age. She is a young looking 17, that’s just a fact. By saying they have styled her to look younger, they are essentially saying that if you’d styled her to look older, maybe show a little cleavage, that that would have been ok.
This one is all in the dirty mind of the beholder.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
She looks 14 or 15 in that photo.
I wish they had the same standards in the US regarding cosmetics ads, especially mascara ads. I’m sick and tired of seeing blown-up eyes wearing a pound of false eyelashes that practically reach their foreheads.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Double post. Sorry!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
i am so over marc jacobs. his ads gross me out. ick.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
@Lairen – THANK YOU!!!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Good for the UK! I wish all countries were more restrictive, and not only with ads but with actual big brands selling slut-clothes for kids, slut-toys for kids, slut… well slut-everything for kids, it seems.
Stop the sexualizing of minors! How do some people not get it?!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
@Jay: I thought the same thing. But it seems they’re saying it’s because she was intentionally styled to look under 16 even though she is technically of age, which I can’t necessarily disagree with. This ad seems innocuous to me, but I can see the grossness. It is definitely suggestive.
But we can’t seriously pretend that this kind of stuff is new or shocking. As @Callumna said, that Britney cover of rolling stone back in the day was pretty sexified. And the runaways casting didn’t actually bother me because that’s really how young Cherie and Joan were at the time. The ick factor was sort of the point to me. And seriously, those girls were crazy sexualized and that was almost 40 years ago.
Not that any of that makes it ok, I’m just pointing out that this kind of shit has been going on forever.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Those ads are disgusting and I am sure the pedophiles love them. I say good for the UK and I wish someone in the US had the courage to say no to these types of ads.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Wow, it’s almost like they actually *gasp* care about their youth in Great Britain! Thank God some countries do, here in the US I feel there is a serious issue with the way we’ve been sexualizing children in the past 10-15 years. Just look at all the silky underwear available to little girls! (Sorry to be gross.)
Calluma – I completely agree about the Brit Spears thing. I remember being in middle school when she came out and thinking, “How come none of the adults are telling us how wrong this is? Wait, are they seriously encouraging this????”
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I predict Dakota Fanning will go the way of Lindsay Lohan. This is the beginning.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I gotta say it, i hate that scum (douche is too good for him) bag Terry Richardson. But the question still begs to be answered…why do these girls make his wishes their commands?
Young, yes. Stupid, yes. And full of ambition, yes, that, too. They are truly hype-notized by him, and are just as sick as he is for realizing his perverted projections.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I may be liberal, but I don’t support this nonsense. It’s so ingrained in our culture that half the people out there don’t even see a problem with it. They are used to seeing the sexualization of children in everything from toys (ie Bratz Dolls) to Toddlers & Tiaras, and they keep making excuses to justify its existence and support it. Humans are famous for not understanding that media impacts them. This reminds me of those awful photo shoots recently of the Glee star with the makeup done to look like she’d been beaten and it was supposed to be glamorous. There’s nothing sexy about violence or children. Wake up, America.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I don’t know about this perfume, but the regular Lola stinks.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Meh – it’s not that big of a deal to me, but I don’t mind the UK banning the ad. Considering all the different kinds of crazy that have been in ads since ads have been around, this barely pings on the crazy-ad radar. Besides, she’s 17, not 12, and ads like these have been around for a while; it’s not new by any stretch of the imagination.
I agree with you, RobN; this seems like an eye of the beholder thing. The ad might be a little suggestive, and that’s a BIG might, but I’m not seeing anything that is “disgusting” or “overly sexualized”. I’m not seeing all of the issues that some of these people are seeing.
Did it ever occur to some of you that you might be the one sexualizing her? You might want to take that into consideration.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Perhaps I’m naive, but I didn’t see the sexualization in the pic. I had to stare at it awhile thinking, “Um…is it the bottle? Maybe the flower? What’s bad about a flower? Hm…” and then had to read the other posts to see what the stink was about. Dakota Fanning looks younger than 17 anyway, so it didn’t seem to me that she was intentionally made to look young. The dress isn’t hiked up, it’s just looks a little short but laid out nicely around her. And the bottle placement just looked silly and awkward to me.
What I really want to know is, why–who is this ad directed toward? Women buy women’s perfume, right? What grown woman wants to buy a perfume that looks like it appeals to 13yr olds?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
the terry richardson photos (as in elle and dakota) are creepy to me. the make-up on elle’s face the photo with dakota in shprt skirt…i feel dirty and creepy just by seeing them. also, i’d never, ever let my kid take those kind of pictures, nomatter the entourage. 17 is still immature in my book (and i’m 25 and i consider myself pretty liberal in my views).
and yes, the ad is inappropriate.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
***OK, I can’t believe I am about to contribute to the The Bey Bump Conspiracy…BUT…
I was just scrolling through Uncle Terry’s (ew!) blog and once I got to page 11 of 257 in the People section, I saw of pic of Bey from 10.23.11 and there appears to be ZERO bumpage. Like none. At all.
Warning, you have to get past a lot of Paz de la What’s her name’s bush to get to the Beyonce pic, so it may not be worth the visual assault.
that is all.
except
EW!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Scarlet vixen, that’s a good point. I don’t understand the logic behind having pre-pubescent-looking girls represent big labels (see: Dakota Fanning for Marc Jacobs, Hailee Steinfeld for miu miu). Unless it’s an appeal to the tween/teen set and their buying power, which I doubt.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Why use 13-y-olds for advertising products for women?
*The Runaways did not sit well with me because of how young she was.*
Co-sign
Report this comment as spam or abuse
So glad someone banned this ad. I was totally creeped out when I saw it in all the Fall fashion mags.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
@Scarlet Vixen #43
You need to have a bent perverted mind to see it right away, we see it instantly because we are borderline perverts ourselves, otherwise it’s just a young girl sitting with a bottle.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
It’s kind of hypocritical though for the UK to ban this ad. Their age laws are different than the U.S. Case in point: Keira Knightley did a movie called the Hole back in 2001 and she went topless in a scene. She was 15 years old at the time. Her mother had to consent, but they still allowed that and let the film release in the UK. Over here that would be considered child pornography. While I agree that this ad isn’t appropriate for what’s it’s suggesting, it’s almost tame in comparison to what a then 15 year shows on screen.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Here’s the thing they are calling it art i’m calling it cheap way to get an attention.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
While I agree about this ad, did the UK also ban ad of the 10-Year-Old Child Model Sexualized In French Vogue Magazine.
http://boingboing.net/2011/01/05/in-vogue-magazine-6-.html
http://img.izismile.com/img/img4/20110106/640/children_models_for_640_02.jpg
http://talkingwithtami.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/orig-16472361.jpg
Now these photos are just sick…
Report this comment as spam or abuse
It’s an inappropriate ad. As a parent, I’d be livid if my child was styled and posed like this. I assume Dakota’s parents are either okay with it or oblivious.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I’m the one who mentioned the photoshoot for Rolling STone earlier. Kristen Stewart doesn’t have a problem with being sexy from what I’ve seen her do. What she had a problem with was Teri Richardson trying to sexualize her in tandem with Dakota who was a minor at the time. Dakota talked about the fact that Kristen was very protective of her in that sense on the set of the Runaways, treating her like a little sister. There was a blurb about the scrapped photo spread in Rolling Stone a couple years back on some sites, and the inference was that Kristen was being “difficult” yet again. In light of Teri’s tendencies with young nubile girls though, it’s a feather in her cap.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I see nothing wrong.
If they were a couple of uglys or fatties everyone would be “You go girls!”
Report this comment as spam or abuse
These photos are actually pretty dull.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
@wildone:
wow after clicking on that last link I had to delete and scramble my internet cache. That is seriously child porn.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
@ Daniel
OMG I know! I saw that last pic and was like WTF?
The only people I know who would allow that are Dina Lohan and Kris Kardashian, but they would sail their grandma down the river for 5 bucks…
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Honestly, I think people are reading way too much into this ad. The only sexual meaning in the ad is whatever sexual meaning the individual viewing the ad gives it. To me, it just looks like a girl holding an oversized bottle of perfume. I don’t think the bottle looks phallic, and the flower is just a dumb plastic flower. It’s a floral perfume, so having a flower on top makes sense.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
@Deb – You are missing the point – you need to be a pervert yourself to realize how sexual it is.
To you it’s just dumb boring, trying too hard to be artsy photos, but to the trained pedophile hunters here they see all that SEX jumping out at us, crawling all over their skins forcing them to sexualize it and condemn it.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
“Come on!” for people who doesn’t read anything in the add: the bottle is almost in her vag! Suggested child porn or not, this is tastless and just want the attention that we give now.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
It’s seen as offensive because of the flower. The flower symbolizes her vagina, and it symbolizes innocence, and these two symbols can, in turn, be seen as representing her virginity (seriously, people, even those who have only taken high school-level English classes should understand this.) The way she’s posed, it’s as if she’s offering her virginity to the viewer. I don’t know if it’s worth banning, but there’s no question it’s HIGHLY suggestive.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
They thought they were being so clever with the whole lady flower thing. Please. We all know it’s a word for vagina, already. What a bunch of sick f**ks these people are.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lady%20flower
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I don’t get the Marc Jacobs advertising strategy generally. They spend millions to run those Christmas-1976-Polaroid-style Juergen Teller photographs that actively put me off an otherwise well-designed product.
LVMH should step in and tell Jacobs to stop goofing off with their money. They already had the Galliano non-P.C. meltdown.
These ads specifically are actively offensive in that objectification and cheap sexual imagery not just of a young woman, but a girl.
They’re in every glossy U.S. magazine. It’s amazing.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
This is disgusting. These girls are very vulnerable to creeps that work alongside them in their biz, so I hope her parents or someone they trusted was with them.
It makes me wonder though, how they (parents etc.)allowed these poses?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I guess some of you are too young to be acquainted with Georgia O’Keefe? The flower is a highly sexualized object. Even in fine art.
My 13 yo won’t be posing for Pervy Richardson, that’s for freaking sure. You are an irresponsible mother from the point you let a known pedophile photograph your minor children or anyone you know, in fact.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
1. Age is just a number.
2. Human beings sexually develop in various ways and at various rates.
3. The Fannings are young chronologically.
4. Emotionally and intellectually, the Fannings are OLDER THAN MOST PEOPLE IN THIS DISCUSSION.
5. Period.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I’m going to hell for the thoughts I am having for the first picture.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
To those who are calling the UK hypocritical or wondering if these ads are as shocking as made out to be on websites such as this one, you have to take into account the difference between Keira going topless in a movie about teenagers stuck in a hole and the fact that was what banned was the way a product was marketed.
This is about selling a perfume called “Oh, Lola” which already has a serious sexual undertone and is an obvious reference to the Lolita syndrome (older men lusting over a very young but also extremely seductive young “lady” AKA very young teenage girl). This plays on the male perception of how (some) young girls try to portray themselves as being attractive, desirable and a sexualised being. This doesn’t mean they do it (or understand the full meaning of them “playing woman” and pushing boundaries): it is to be seen as from the other side, the men’s interpretation.
These ads portray this exactly.
Flower, crotch, suggestive posing that doesn’t try to imitate the typical goddess woman but plays on the boundaries of childhood and teenage lust years (that look in the eyes between innocence and I-want-your-sex, the milky skin and peachy atmosphere with the phallic bottle being the big colourful spot in the picture meaning she looks so innocent, vulnerable and young but is burning with desire down there, the dotty dress that is extrashort, etc.).
To me, it reeks dollhouse gone wrong.
The problem isn’t that a young lady posed for this (after all, she’s nearing 18). It’s the suggestion of her being even younger (borderline 14), the perfect capture of the Lolita phenomenon, the vulgar (because much too obvious) exploitation of the lady flower symbol(and thus virginity/pure girl in bloom),and so on.
If you’re wondering who this is marketed to:
1. the younger audience (more Dakota’s own age group: 16 to 21), specifically the slightly hipster wannabes (those who are interested in fashion, who want to be artists, have seen movies about Paris in the 1960′s and other “cool indie flicks” which aren’t so indie, who run Tumblr blogs featuring ice-cream cones, long and thin model legs in short shorts standing in Coney Island with an old illuminated ferris wheel in the background, old stuffed animals on abandoned granny couches outside in the rain, etc.). You get the picture. They’ve got money, they read lots of fashion magazines, they’re usually connected online, they know Marc Jacobs, their generation’s got quite some girls actually named Lola, they were raised on open (mediatised) ambiguity of the end of childhood and the sexual milestone connected to it (you know, they’re cool as cucumbers talking about vibrators and how it’s “normal” although, really, they don’t often actually feel that comfortable about it individually, once taken out of the social group).
2. The just-outside group. The women stuck in the 20+-30 zone. The fashionistas who are settling in life. Those who keep fond memories of Marc Jacobs, the big brand. Those who treat themselves to the very occasional perfectly looking, pastel-coloured pastry/macaroon, those who either live in Paris or would want to. London’s cool too. Those who were brought up and read all the semi high-fashion mags when Marc made his big break as a household name.
I should know: I used to target my audience back when I worked in fashion. And that was not long ago.
I quit, I couldn’t take it anymore. I stopped caring and started understanding how much is wrong.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
*Emotionally and intellectually, the Fannings are OLDER THAN MOST PEOPLE IN THIS DISCUSSION.*
Yeah, right…Everyone who works with Terry developes sexually way faster than usually. Or is it the other way round – to get sexualized for a paycheck. Anyway it makes her a bad role model.
And this attitude sounds a bit… not polite to say the least.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
@ Magoichi Saika
1. Age is NOT just a number, laws of consent and sexual representation offer protection (however limited) to stop young boys and girls from being exploited.
2. Yes, human beings do develop sexually at different ages, but these girls aren’t expressing their OWN sexuality, they are reflecting the sexuality of the (adult) photographer.
3 + 4. Do you know them personally? How do you know they actually are mature and not just play acting at ‘adult’? Besides it is healthy at that age to actually BE a child and not be mature!
5. Are you the photographer? Or just an apologist for child exploitation?
Anyhoo, re the KStew story, I wish we could hire her to protect Courtney Stodden and then sic her on Courtney’s husband and mother
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I just saw the runaways…these pictures are nothing in comparision.
I didn’t think she was very good though. She was very stiff and calculated in her movements. Kristen rocked it tho.
Elle is the prettier Fanning.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Wow, there are some of us that will read into things that aren’t there, to me that ad said aliens are real and are in control of our lives. Don’t you see that?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Big eyeroll. 16- and 17-year-olds are hardly CHILDREN. And what exactly are you supposed to look like at 17? Like Courtney Stodden? I would never have thought this was a picture of a girl much younger than 16. That’s in fact how normal 16- and 17-year-olds look like. Not painted, high-heeled and looking well into their 20ies.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
normades, I agree with you
Dakota was stiff in the movie
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Like other posters have pointed out, I don’t think it’s so much about the actual photograph; it’s the styling and not-so-subtle symbolic placement of the flower.
I would have thought nothing about the picture had the bottle been simply in her hand. But what a flower traditionally represents (sexuality, “blooming”) and its placement makes this squicky. I have a feeling that, considering the name of the perfume and the immature styling, this wasn’t an accident.
It’s meant to make you vaguely uncomfortable.
I love the dress Fanning is wearing, though. It’s very pretty. This would have been such a cute shoot if they had done a few things differently.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
@katie thanks so much for that story about Kristen Stewart and Terry (the perv) Richardson, I just became a huge fan of Kristen.
It is disgusting to me how the fashion industry embraces this asshole, why???
Report this comment as spam or abuse
::It’s kind of hypocritical though for the UK to ban this ad::
The UK, Canada, and Australia have media literacy programs (which have been in their curriculum for 30 years), whereas we Americans don’t even know what “media literacy” means. Pretty scary. The UK also banned the Loreal Julia Roberts ad that showed bogus advertising (the usual photoshopped ad claiming that the star actually looks like that when they have just been subjected to countless touch-ups). They have much stricter laws when it comes to ethics in advertising and also have several privacy laws to afford celebities and royals less camera exposure (post-Diana). Consequently, Canada has a national organization that holds media accountable and inaccurate information isn’t allowed to be given on news programs or there is a huge fine. In the UK, they also don’t cover actors in makeup so much they don’t even look human anymore – if you watch UK Skins, you’ll notice the teenagers are allowed to have acne and imperfections and still be stars – in other words, teens on TV look relatively normal, letting other teens know they are, too. Things like this are so healthy, I really wish more people would stop excusing half of what goes on in American media and start realizing that as consumers, we have the power to see change. We don’t have to blindly accept the portrayals on television and in magazines, we can call out these corporations, boycott shows, write letters, etc. After all, revenue comes from consumer ratings, we can choose to give in or not to. I wish our country took advertising more seriously, teens on television weren’t airbrushed to perfection, that news wouldn’t be allowed to fabricate stories for attention, and that celebrities didn’t have to risk their lives driving down the street. It doesn’t take another Princes Diana to realize that’s messed up.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I’m not a lawyer, but I’d give the importance of age some serious thought before jumping headlong into the felony pool. I’m not convinced that whole nations came to the same decision about the appropriateness of this shoot independently of each other because of a cancerous hivemind. Whether it offends us personally isn’t the issue because our personal convictions can’t cut across history and context. There are tropes being used here that reference a tradition and if we say, ‘Well, I didn’t see it, so the problem is the warp of your own mind’, it’s entertaining a fantasy. In this case, the references are hundreds and hundreds of years old and those in charge of it get to in the position of waving everybody off in protest. If we don’t understand the reference, that isn’t Marc Jacobs’ problem. At the same time, flowers and let down hair have always been framed as trademarks of female ‘purity’, whereas a broken mirror or soiled glove transmits the image of innocence lost, add to that loftiness a handful of gauzy pink and you have a image that is more aesthetically pleasing than whatever you’re picturing now. They even tossed in the ‘sinnocent’ … blah, blah male gaze. Yawn.
*
We do (or did, when I was that age) have media literacy units at school with the added bonus of instruction about caveat emptor. Those were always everyone’s favourite, as we got to engage in socially-mandated destruction of small household objects and criticize commercials we hated. We did a lot of really fun stuff in those times, conducting little experiments, learning about major advertising strategies and how and why they were directed at kids our age. We got to compare brands, brand imaging, demographics, hunt out prejudice/exclusion, advertising across all kinds of different media, brand loyalty, watch commercials from all over the world, award-winning commercials, differences in standards, differing roles of the celebrity spokesperson and how that changes with countries, Superbowl commericials, consumer reports, false advertising and even do little research projects on significant ad campaigns in history. It was always so entertaining because we were interacting with something that mattered to us at that moment, something that affected us and not just another chunk of the cirriculum that you would have to jam into the back of your brain for 30 years when it would perhaps lose relevance.
Some of my warmest memories of my education come from these lessons, not that are that many.
The idea was to start this kind of instruction from the earliest days in order to better prepare us for critical thinking and to treat this stuff as though they were texts you could read. I can i
In grade two, I did the ‘Where’s The Beef’ campaign, truly a hoot.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
If we are going to start banning more and more of our media content, there are better places to start. Like everything else, this seems to be a case of too much hype in the wrong places.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Dakota may be intelligent but she apparently is not worldy-wise, and whoever is supposed to be guiding her and managing her career needs to take a long hard look at themselves. This is not good for her status as a serious actor, nor will it do her charity work any favours.
Jacobs’ ad has now received more publicity than it ever should have, and I suspect he knew this would happen. The word for this is exploitation.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
are people just totally forgetting the films Dakota Fanning has been in? she was dancing in a corset and garter belts and engaging in lesbian sex scenes at age 15 in The Runaways, and was in a graphic rape scene as well as dancing naked in front of a young masturbator at age 12 in Hound Dog. in comparison i really don’t understand what the big deal about this ad is. why aren’t the people who are banning this ad outraged at the exploitation she faced as an even younger child?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
the ad is okay, but i think the one on the boobs looks sexually proactive.
Report this comment as spam or abuse