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

(minimum 6 characters)

THIS was banned?? (piog)

Posted by on Nov. 9, 2011 at 5:00 PM
  • 20 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 5:00 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
LivinDeadGurl
by on Nov. 9, 2011 at 8:27 PM

I don't see the big deal. 

arthistmom
by on Nov. 9, 2011 at 8:31 PM

The ad is suggestive but she's fully clothed. Huh?

ColorMeCrazy
by on Nov. 9, 2011 at 8:32 PM

When I very first saw the ad, my immediate thoughts were that they were trying to make her look like a sexy child. 

Charizma77
by on Nov. 9, 2011 at 10:31 PM
1 mom liked this

I kind of see their point but it's pretty tame looking to me compared to some teenage ads I've seen!

HTMommy
by on Nov. 10, 2011 at 8:13 AM
I agree, I don't see it, BUT I also think being here we are a little desensitized to things because we are constantly viewing them. Anyone see the new victoria's secret commercials?
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
barnwell84
by on Nov. 10, 2011 at 8:27 AM

I don't get it either.

Number1Chef
by on Nov. 10, 2011 at 8:31 AM


Quoting HTMommy:

I agree, I don't see it, BUT I also think being here we are a little desensitized to things because we are constantly viewing them. Anyone see the new victoria's secret commercials?

yes!!

Number1Chef
by on Nov. 10, 2011 at 8:32 AM

I sortof see thier point but she does have clothes on. It's not that bad

TheJerseyGirl
by on Nov. 10, 2011 at 8:32 AM

 Seriously??*smh*

usmclife58
by on Nov. 10, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Someone in another group said the flower between the legs is supposed to be like the girl's virginity or "flower"?

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)