E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
By Verena von Pfetten, Styleite
Marc Jacobs' ads have a tendency to make us blush, but we never thought they were racy enough to get banned. However, the British Advertising Standards Authority disagrees: They have just shut down an ad for the Jacobs' fragrance Oh, Lola, featuring 17-year-old Dakota Fanning.
In the ad, Fanning is shown holding an oversize bottle of the fragrance, placed right between her legs. Earlier this summer, many criticized Marc Jacobs for what they deemed a provocative and inappropriate ad.
Marc Jacobs
Too grown up? Dakota Fanning is the new face for Marc Jacobs' new perfume, Oh, Lola!
The ASA told the Telegraph:
"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. We understood the model was 17 years old but we considered she looked 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. Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child."
Coty, the makers of the fragrance, defended the ad, calling it "provoking, but not indecent".
Live Poll
Do you think this ad should be banned?
It's certainly provocative — that bottle placement was no accident and Jacobs, at the time of launch, admitted to WWD he was making a conscious Lolita reference, saying, "I knew [Dakota] could be this contemporary Lolita, seductive yet sweet" — but does it cross a line?
More from Styleite: Marc Jacobs Gets Naked To Sell New Cologne
Marc Jacobs Isn’t Mad We Leaked Photos Of His New Fragrance Campaign
Unapologetically Racist Nivea Ad Seeks To ‘Re-Civilize’ Black Men
Leave a Comment:
Even though she may be of age; she looks younger - which implies intent to use an under model in a provacative manner.
If the intent was to use an under model, they would have used an under model. Nothing sexy about that ad.
I agree, I don't see anything sexual about this ad... I was expecting her legs to be spread apart or something, now that would've been sexual
ugh -_-
A flower blooming between the legs of a very young model, dressed in an innocent pink? Disgusting - I don't purchase anything for myself or my kids that uses such disgusting advertising.
i think they are being a bit ridiculous. its not like the bottle is shaped like a penis or anything...it may be meant to be a bit seductive, but there is nothing sexy looking about it to me...just sayin.
I say if you've got it, flaunt it! Ms. Fanning is a sexy young woman, and sexy sells! Marc Jacobs is no fool. He didn't get to where he is by being understated, or worrying about what the English will think.
The English are snobby and hypocritical!
So this is all wrong just because she looks younger? If she was like all these other 17 year old actresses/singers that look like they're 25 would that be better? I think she has much better taste than most girls her age, and it's not like she's half naked on the cover of Vanity Fair..
Who is buying the perfume anyway? I don't look at perfume ads. If someone didn't grip I would never have seen it.
WOW!!! Talk about over reacting! I see absolutely nothing wrong or sexual in any content in this add! From the story line I expected to see her half naked with a sultry pout as a man was nuzzling her navel or cleavage.
Maybe the people who "banned" this add for being "too sexually explicit" are just moronic perverts? You'd think she was holding a penis from all the kerfuffle they've stirred up. Sheesh... Just effin ridiculous!!!
Maybe some folks have overactive dirty minds. I think that's their problem.
Actually, maybe some folks who object to the sexualization of children are actually aware of what "Lolita" refers to...
It is sad that this is were her acting career has taken her. You have become a cheap shadow of your former self dear. Remove the bottle from your private area, get up, remember there is a moral fiber within you, grab hold and pull yourself out of the mire. Be more than what is expected of you, not the failure they are waiting for you to become.
Jerrilinn Folz - it's one ad and Dakota is still a fabulous actress. She is neither cheap nor immoral. Get a life. This may not have been her best decision but it has definitely not tarnished a very talented actress.
It most certainly has. While it may not affect her acting ability, but it will certainly affect my willingness to focus my attention or that of my daughters on any movie of product she endorses on her or what she markets. Big mistake. Yes, I know she is now little Allie from the Taken series, but her mother/father/etc. are making a grave mistake. Sad. Truly sad.... Heading down a self destructive ad. Jody Foster navigated the waters successfully. It can (but rarely) be done.
Come on people........wake up......we all have private parts and also arms, legs, eyes......there's not difference.....morality only comes from dirty minds....Dakota Fanning a very beautiful and talented actress
Oh to be a simple bottle. Nice ad. No problems.
Dakota Fanning no longer plays little girl roles. In fact it would be stupid of you to focus your daughters attention on her, because in her next movie after Twilight she plays a prostitute.
I do not think anyone is trying to get their daughters to focus attention on Dakota. I think Dakota herself is trying to get everyone's daughters to focus attention on Dakota.
Personally, I have never seen the girl in any movie (barely know who she is) nor do I buy perfume; however, it seems that girls are encouraged to become sex objects at a younger and younger age. We're going backwards instead of forwards.
I hope they make Jacobs eat the cursed thing. I'm tired of overt sexuality being made to sound perfectly acceptable by jackasses on Madison Avenue who have nothing better to do than sexualize children. They had it coming. I just hope we wake up on this side of the pond.
She looks to be the right age for me!
I'm sure your mother would be proud of you for that comment.
If he had a mother?
YAWN
Enjoy your 10 seconds of fame Dakota. Lindsey Blohan or a Kardashian might get a little jealous.
Do you mean Kardtrashycan?As in the tv.-trash?
I'd say they accomplished exactly what they were aiming for. I would have never seen this ad or heard of the agency otherwise, but here it is being presented as "news" and asking for people's vote. You can't really buy this kind of exposure in any other way.
Perhaps they astutely believe this is a money-maker,oops...can i say that?Objective accomplished.$$$$!
This is a non-troversy. The images are not sexually provocative. The people who think the images are sexually provocative are the actual perverts. Get your minds out of the gutter. It's a fragrance. She's young. Get over it.
I'd say the positioning of the bottle is obviously meant to convey a message, and it's not a message of probity.
Wrong. Whatever message is going off in your head is your thought and yours alone.
compare this to any Taylor Swift video when she was under 18 and this ad becomes boring. Yet I never hear any complaints about the country music pedophile wagon. Taylor is legal age now, who will replace her as the pubescent sexual desire object of millions of country music fans?
"I knew [Dakota] could be this contemporary Lolita, seductive yet sweet"
It was intentional - Lolita was 12 in the novel and is the object of middle aged man's sexual obsession. I never read the novel, but I believe he is sexual active with "Lolita".
Had it just been provocative, not a big deal, but this was intentional meant to make you think of Lolita. Not right!
Dakota is a fine actress, but any press is good press.
She's not making a sexy face, nor is the perfume bottle phallic in any way, she is also fully dressed and is wearing a bra, so although it's a bit edgy and has everyone talking, I don't think it necessarily is meant to be perverse. Controversial maybe, but not perverse. I have seen worse, like those Toddlers and Tiaras pageant shows where they have toddlers wearing make-up, push-up bras, skimpy outfits, and have them posing in a provocative manner with their lips puckered up? To me, that is more gross and offensive than this.
I agree, Hot. I would absolutely freak out if my wife or daughters -- who seem to be smitten with this "reality" tv crap -- were to have that toddlers and tiaras on in my house. I would cancel cable.
So because it is not as bad as "Toddlers and Tiaras" in your estimation, it is somehow alright? A 17 year old girl, and last I knew 17 was underage, dressed and posed to resemble Lolita. It's not okay. You want your perfume to seem sexy, then use a model 18 or over, and don't try to make her look underage. Considering the recent events at Penn State, do we really need to make children sexy?
I don't think this picture is "provocative and inappropriate". It's just low taste. There are many ways to be sexy but this isn't it. I like Dekota but I prefer a picture to show her sweetness and cuteness. You can even give her adult sexy look. This picture doesn't show any sexy but silly act. It's a waste on Dekota part. And the producer just making the ad cheap.
It's stupid looking, like his other ads (a washed out model in a bikini lying as if she's dehydrated/starving to death in glaring sun with an oversize perfume bottle - not appealing). It might be HIS fantasy - to be a beautiful young girl with a penis. but she looks bored. not provocative sales-wise.
Much ado about nothing. Don't people have more to do that comment on this? Ooops!
If this article hadn't pointed it out, I never would have seen anything provocative or sexual about this ad. It's a young woman holding a bottle of perfume. Would it have looked more natural if she was holding it in the air, or between her toes? In that position, that's where her arm would have her placing anything she was holding. People need to quit trying to sexualizing everything. The only people who found a perverse way to look at everything were the perverts.
but perverts have feelings too.
Uhhh....really? This ad is indecent. And for all you people saying...but she looks younger so its wrong. Are you opposed to people with Kallmans syndrome or angageria being in relationships. Does a 20 year old woman who looks twelve not deserve a lover?
Now if Dakota Fanning was 12 or 13 in this ad...then there would be an issue. As it stands you have a strong, talented and beautiful woman in an ad that has a sexual element to it. Get over it....I think the real outcry is coming from people who find it offensive that a woman will embrace her sexuality instead of doing the good christian thing and hide from it.
I forgot to put a question mark after "This ad is indecent" It was not meant to be a statement. I apologize
Oh yes, I am sure the producers were looking for the angageria look. Moron.
actually if you had even a slight bit of reading comprehension you dolt. You may have been able to understand that I was speaking to the idiots who are angry because she looks younger than her age. They are the people who would still be angry at this ad if she were 20...because she looks young.
My comment about Kallmans Syndrome and Anageria were a response to their inability to get past their misguided disgust.
Thanks for playing though...
AnaWHOIA???
Now there's a stupid comment.
Nobody said a thing about a real relationship between real people. This is a two-dimensional picture. Get over yourself. You aren't that smart and just looking up a few big words in the dictionary doesn't mean you know how to use them in an argument.
If you had any brains whatsoever you'd know what a phallic symbol is, what the novel Lolita was about, and how a girl dressed up to look a lot younger than she is having that flower bottle planted between her legs is a sexual image. That isn't even a question. Marc Jacobs did all that very much on purpose --- and people with eyes and brains can see that. It doesn't make anybody a prude to note the facts. It makes people like you a dolt for not recognizing what is in front of your face.
I would be very proud of my daughter if she did this.
you would be settign your daughter up to be a prostitute if you allowed her to do this.
She's a big girl now :S This is not some huge deal...It really looks like she's holding it in her lap. It may be a bit suggestive, but it's meant to be art.. I'm not saying, I enjoy the photo, I'm just saying, people are making this out to be a much bigger deal than it actually is..
Yeah right! As if the average customer of advertising understands what fine art is!
Setting your daughter up to be prostitute??? What does that have to do with this picture?? Amused, holding a bottle between your legs and getting your picture taken does not set a girl up for anything. What sets up girls for prostitution is low self esteem, rotten parenting, drugs, alcohol, thinking they are in love with a pimp, running away from home and past sexual abuse.
WAY too suggestive and deliberately so!!!
Why does everyone including the media have to make things all about sex---it is a good picture. You people make every thing about sex all the time and that is why we have so much crap started. Good heavens leave all the kids alone for cryin out loud----sex is here to stay and NO one person or group can change all this. Don't make things out all the time to be something they are not meant to be---You all are sick in the head and have a one track mind. Leave it alone ---please.
If you can't see it, Widetrack, you are an idiot.
This was intended to make you think about sex... moreover a prohibited sexual relationship.
"I knew [Dakota] could be this contemporary Lolita, seductive yet sweet"
Look up the novel "Lolita"
Just curious, but why isn't anyone going to jail for some of these ads that do this for child porn? I mean those Calvin Klein ads and there have been others? Isn't it considered Child Porn and illegal? Yet, these companies are not only acquiring it and having it in their offices, but they are putting it in magazines. Ok, if your a law enforcement in the town these photos were taken or the companies headquarters or where they do business...like I mean if these ads are in stores in YOUR small town...why not prosecute the president of the business? That's the only way it will stop them from making children sexualized....and I'm not a prude at all. I just want kids to not be put out there like this.
Maybe because this is clearly not child porn. Fanning is completely dressed and doing nothing sexually explicit which is the definition of pornography. Our collective law enforcement agencies have much more important things to do than concern themselves with a fully dressed 17 y.o. holding a bottle of perfume on her lap. Is it provocative? Maybe. Child porn is a gross exaggeration.
Probably not because many other countries have no standards about children, i.e. those under 18, either.
I wouldn't have said "right between her legs" I would have said "On her lap" it looks like she's holding it on her lap to me.
I was just thinking the same thing! This doesn't look sexy to me at all...she is holding a vase of flowers on her lap!
You guys need your eyes checked first, and then your brains. The vase has been placed between her legs, it's a phallic symbol --and one that clearly and purposely refers to Lolita, a novel about a pedophile. I'm sure that if you had a daughter and we put a sign on her that was more linear that said, "Hey pedophiles, come and deflower me," (which is the clear subtext of the ad) you'd be a bit more cognizant of why the ad got banned in the UK.
I'm think more like she's hanging on to her flower, she's not presenting it, holding it out to anyone, she has it secured between her legs. I don't think it's a dirty picture at all, I think it looks sweet and innocent, but some people are just pervs.
Wow, 43% of the polled are prudes. She's sitting there holding a bottle in her dang lap. Yeah, she's dolled up, but so what? Young women are sexual creatures. Get used to it.
These days, you can see more inappropriate imagery than this on Nickelodeon.
I agree -- she was far more sexualized in The Runaways than she is in this image, and if people can't see that, they need to see their optometrist (or therapist, or whomever they'd like to get that big, splintery stick out of their faces.)
This picture will NOT harm her reputation. If anything, I see this image going up all over major department stores that decide to carry "her" fragrance. Anyone who can't see the art in a picture like this seriously needs to their heads out of the gutter.
How dumb can you guys be?
Yash, did you even look at the ad? The bottle isn't on her lap. It's between her legs. Ever heard of a phallic symbol? That bottle could not make a bigger reference to under aged sexuality if it tried. You clearly don't have a clue what the reference to Lolita (oh lola) was all about.
Mizery, you need to go see a real psychologist who would school you on the use of sexual imagery to sell products. Also.....this isn't a movie. It doesn't show a historical set of events, like the Runaways. (Which got a rating by the way.) It's an add that has no aspiration beyond doing anything but causing a stir and selling product. If you don't believe that, then you didn't bother to read what Marc Jacobs said about the image. They said it was intended to be provocative. Every country has their own standards for banning images that show kids in such provocative situations. In the UK, this fell below their standards. Get a clue.