Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

THIS was banned??

Posted by on Nov. 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM
  • 17 Replies

Link

British Censors Ban Dakota Fanning’s ‘Provocative’ Ad


Marc Jacobs

Dakota Fanning is one of the few child-turned-teen actresses who has managed to steer clear of tabloid headlines, but the 17-year-old's half-scandalous Marc Jacobs ads were just banned from British shores.


Although they've been running in print since this June, the U.K.'s self-regulatory Advertising Standards Authority just deemed her photo "sexually provocative" as well as "irresponsible," concluding the ads were "likely to cause serious offense" since Fanning is still a minor, reports The Guardian.

American eyes accustomed to a steady stream of underage stars dancing on poles and prancing around in schoolgirl outfits might find the ads--which show Fanning in a flesh-colored polka dot dress holding a flower-topped perfume between her legs--comparatively tame. But the ASA makes an interesting argument that U.S. censors might want to take note of.

"We understood the model was 17 years old, but we considered she looked under the age of 16," the non-governmental organization reasoned. "Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualize a child."

So although Fanning certainly acts much older than her years (both in films and in real life, considering that she's already attending NYU), they point out that she looks much younger than her almost-adult age.

Of course, it probably doesn't help things that the perfume itself is called "Oh, Lola!" which brings to mind the similarly-themed controversial novel "Lolita." And even though each unit is sold with a faux-flower coming out of the bottle neck, that association doesn't do the defense any favors either.

Still, it's worth pointing out that when the celebrity-minor-in-question actually was 15, she shared an onscreen kiss with then-19-year-old Kristen Stewart--and the R-rated "Runaways" movie isn't off-limits for British eyes, only those under the age of 17.


by on Nov. 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
adrianna1043
by Adrianna on Nov. 9, 2011 at 5:07 PM

 I think it looks bad.  I would not want to see that if I were walking around at the store.  I think banning it is a little strong, I think that it should have been the Ad execs that should have made the decision that it is stupid looking and went with something else, because ultimately the consumer makes the final decision and I would not buy that perfume.

Soniam301
by Sonia on Nov. 9, 2011 at 5:09 PM


Quoting adrianna1043:

 I think it looks bad.  I would not want to see that if I were walking around at the store.  I think banning it is a little strong, I think that it should have been the Ad execs that should have made the decision that it is stupid looking and went with something else, because ultimately the consumer makes the final decision and I would not buy that perfume.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
usmclife58
by Nikki on Nov. 9, 2011 at 5:27 PM

And I get that their point about sexualizing children... I just don't see anything really sexual about it. And I am a perv!

However, there is nothing appealing about the ad. The colors are dull, and there is nothing really drawing. 

geekmommy84
by on Nov. 9, 2011 at 5:28 PM

 maybe if the fragrence was set beside her leg instead of between her legs it would be fine but i can see the subliminal or obvious to the photo that can be apauling to the audience...

Hugs,
Carolyn 


yasbobari
by on Nov. 9, 2011 at 5:30 PM
I don't see anything wrong with it, actually I think its a little depressing, not sexy.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LOswald0314
by Ruby Member on Nov. 9, 2011 at 9:13 PM
I don't get it. I don't get why people are offended by it and I don't get what they were trying to accomplish by having her put the bottle between her legs.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Nay1983
by on Nov. 9, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Yeah, there is just no point whatsoever.  They could have come up with something better to sell their product.

Quoting LOswald0314:

I don't get it. I don't get why people are offended by it and I don't get what they were trying to accomplish by having her put the bottle between her legs.


AnAnxiousHeart
by on Nov. 9, 2011 at 9:27 PM

I believe it has to do with virginity or a girls "flower"... I think that is what the deal is...

amberdy
by on Nov. 9, 2011 at 9:57 PM
I have seen much more offensive things than this.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Pugsmuggler
by on Nov. 9, 2011 at 10:12 PM
1 mom liked this
Omgz my eyes!!
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)