Racy Dakota Fanning Ad for Marc Jacobs Was Rightfully Pulled


dakota fanning marc jacobs adAt no point in my life have I, or any of my friends, ever considered myself to be prudish. I'll laugh at the dirtiest of jokes. Hell, I'll even tell a few myself. And when most people cringe at an advertisement or commercial for being too risque, I typically shrug it off.

Except for the latest Marc Jacobs ad, which features a tousled-hair, tousled-dress Dakota Fanning sitting coquettishly on a pink floor with a phallic-shaped perfume bottle called "Oh, Lola!" smack dab between her legs.

Yeah, that one kinda sticks with you. For all the wrong reasons.

I first saw the ad a few weeks ago while I was mindlessly flipping through a magazine on my way into work. I paused and raised my brows when I came across it. "Is this really an ad?" I thought. "Seems a little racy. Particularly since it's Dakota Fanning." Then I wondered if I had turned into a prude.

Turns out I haven't. The ad is a little racy. Actually, it's a lot racy, so it's been pulled. The U.K.’s Ad Standards Authority made the decision after determining 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 sexualize a child.” Dakota is only 17.

If the photo was styled exactly the same way -- same placement of bottle and all -- but had a different (read: older) model, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. Ads, particularly fashion ads, are always vaguely sexual looking. But the fact that it's a young girl -- and she's made up and positioned to look really young -- well, that makes it more icky than provocative. And that's never in style.

Do you think the ad is too racy?


Image via Splash



To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

Caela... CaelanOceanamom

She is waaaaay to young to be photographed like this. Still. A. Child. It is clearly sexual in nature, and with all the twisted things we see in the news these days this is the last thing girls need to look up to.

nonmember avatar hannah

age of sexual consent here is 16 so she's not a child from that respect. Its not a sexy advery at all, she looks ill, and untidy, and its actually a bit scary not sexy!

Water... Water_geM

thats not phallic..and the ad has crappy photography..

thats its only crime.

ceciliam ceciliam

Eh, whatever! Also, that bottle is not phallic shaped.

nonmember avatar Stephanie

I fail to see anything rique about this ad...but I am also not an undersexed prude so that may be why.

Storm... Stormy6669

I don't think it is any racier then other celebs with their ads. I think some are putting way too much thought into it.

momka... momkaribg

I don't see why it should be pulled.


THAT picture too racy?  I have seen waaaaay worse.

nonmember avatar Ageless_diva

I think the ad is icky, but I didn't get "phallic" from that bottle...I thought the flower on top referred to her virginity and NOT in a good way. I'm no prude, but I am a mother and there is NO WAY my kid would be 17 and posing in an ad like that (and I'm in show business)!

Michael V Parrillo

I think people are missing the point. The model is 17. Under-aged. And her being made up to look younger adds to the creep factor. We have to draw the line. And 18 is the where the line is currently drawn.

21-30 of 46 comments First 12345 Last