Racy Dakota Fanning Ad for Marc Jacobs Was Rightfully Pulled

46

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

advertisements

46 Comments

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.

nonmember avatar Sarah Kohler

WTF. there is nothing sexual about this. americans are far too PRUDE.

nonmember avatar James

It's sexy, OK. Isn't she going to NYU now? Not exactly a baby anymore, people.

Beth Hopper

Of course this is meant to be sexual. If you don't see it, you're trying too hard not to. But I don't think that Dakota Fanning is being exploited, and I think she may take offense to hyper-sensitive moms calling her a child. Sex sells, that's the way it is. And I wonder when the people condemning this ad and its creators started thinking about sex themselves, because I bet it was around... 17 perhaps?

Wren La Pirata

Phallic shaped? REALLY? The add isn't even that bad. There are countless adds out there that exploit younger girls (11-12) and almost NO ONE makes a fuss about them.

nonmember avatar Jill

I don't see anything racy with this ad. I will admit my mind is always in the gutter and I find it a stretch to say this is raunchy. Especially after Dakota's performance in The Runaways, this is nothing.

nonmember avatar Muppet

coincidently, the name is close to "Lolita" a movie about a young girl who seduces an an older man, Jeremy Irons is the actor

nonmember avatar ddango

In about 33 states 16 (with parental permission some states go even as low as 14) is the legal age of consent, in 8 states, including Illinois and New York, it's 17, the rest are 18, and in the U.K. it's either 16 or 17 depending on if ur in Great Britain or N. Ireland. My point is, if the ad is sexualising a person that is legally allowed to perform the act of sex, there shouldn't be controversy. Also, if you think this ad is bad, go and watch Dakota's performance in The Runaways. The little girl grew up, and I think people feel some sort of guilt in watching her portray more adult roles. I know sometimes I do.

Jerry Bowles

Sure glad you were so offended that you decided not to show us the photo.

nonmember avatar eve braxton

When I think of Dakota...thoughts of an innocent, adorable young girl. This picture tells the opposite - must remember young girls grow up, sometimes to be sex objects. I would have appreciated something more tasteful from her.

Dennis Lorton

They pulled this add? Your kidding - I don't see what the big deal is other than it makes her look pale.

31-40 of 46 comments First 12345 Last