Dakota Fanning Perfume Ad Gets Banned For 'Sexualizing Children' (PHOTO, POLL)

Marc Jacobs perfume ads sometime tiptoe into the "racy" category, but they're usually the ones starring the designer himself. Now, a new ad for Jacobs' fragrance Oh Lola!, starring "Twilight" actress Dakota Fanning, has been pulled from the British markets after consumers complained that it was sexualizing a child, reports Telegraph.

The British Advertising Standards Authority has cracked down on the ad, which features a 17-year-old Fanning with an oversized bottle of the fragrance between her legs, after receiving complaints that the company was turning Fanning, a minor, into a sex object. Their statement:

"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."

The Guardian reports that Coty, who makes the fragrance, doesn't have the same problems with the ads, because most readers of the magazines featuring the ads are 25 or older, and that the picture was "similar to many other edgy images in those magazines." They also stated that the ad doesn't show any "private body parts or sexual activity," and defended the ad as "provoking, but not indecent."

It's not like these ads are brand new; as we reported, they hit the Internet this June and officially debuted in August. But the ASA has been on an ad-banning spree lately: they pulled a now-infamous commercial for Axe deodorant after complaints from Christians about the ad's sexed up "fallen angels." In February of this year, another perfume ad got the can, this time a spot for YSL's Opium fragrance that allegedly promoted drug use.

Dakota's younger sister Elle, 13, has also posed in fashion campaigns for Marc Jacobs, albeit a bit more buttoned up.

See the purportedly offensive ad below, and vote in our poll.

Quick Poll

Does Dakota's Marc Jacobs ad deserve to be banned?

Yes! It's inappropriate, given that she's a minor.

No, come on! It could have been a lot worse.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Comments

[porkexpress2127]

06:47 AM on 12/22/2011

she is not a child,she is a young woman. this country is so overboard on this kind of thing.this picture ad is nothing to ban.

[Tara M]

05:32 PM on 12/20/2011

Okay, first, her dress wouldn't even break my school's dress code. Second, we are banning ads that show objects in people's laps?! I personally don't find the pose particularly provocative, the model is post-pubescent, in other words, not a child, and yes, the magazine is not targeting children. The ASA's points are rediculous and invalid.

[abracadabra111]

10:41 AM on 12/13/2011

(cont.) Also, I live in a state where it's legal to sleep with a 17 year old, so I find it hilarious that people freak out so badly about a picture of one. Some states the age of consent is even lower. A 16 year old can drive a dangerous automobile, have a job and pay taxes. You better believe it 'ought to be legal for them to have sex if they can do those other things.

I'm not saying that I think it's okay for a 50 year old man to want to sleep with teenagers, but Americans need to relax a little bit when it comes to sexuality and stop being so naive about your teenagers sexuality. It's NATURAL for them to be sexual. Psychologically, we do our young people a great disservice by teaching them that their bodies are ILLEGAL and that sexual feelings are wrong. So from age like 13 to 18 years old (5 years!!!) we tell these young people that their COMPLETELY NATURAL feelings are something they should be ashamed of.

If nature had intended for teenagers to be children, puberty would start at a later age. I'm so sick of living in this religious backwater country. I can't stand religion and its attempts to repress all that is natural in the world. Common sense is gone in this country. And that goes for everything from politics to the law to issues about sexuality. America has become a country of extremists.

[abracadabra111]

10:39 AM on 12/13/2011

Why do people continue to refer to teenagers are children? They are NOT children, they are minors. Children have not gone through puberty; teenagers have. Children do not have big breasts and wide hips like some teenagers do. Would you let a real child drive a car? Would you let a real child go to work and pay taxes? No? Then why do you let your 16 and 17 year olds do those things if they are not children?

When I was in school, I had plenty of friends that were already starting to have sexual encounters in junior high school. Also, pedophilia refers to the sexual preference of pre-pubescent children (typically under age 12) and Dakota is 17, so shut up about pedophilia already.

In my personal opinion, I think Dakota looks younger than her age, but she's a 17 year old young lady and teenagers have every right to be sexual. I personally don't find her attractive because she looks a little bit too young still, but I have seen teenage women that had rockin' bodies that would make most older women jealous.

[Kevin Michael OConnor]

01:17 PM on 11/30/2011

Not sure I understand the sexualization of miners thing......Sure if she had a helmet with a light...and maybe some coal dust smudges..that would make sense....But hey...Mining is a hard life....what's wrong with them having sex?...Sure...not while their working...that's just dangerous...but after a long day of grubbing for coal deep beneath the earth...the should be allowed to feel sexy....

[Huffpost371]

09:09 AM on 12/07/2011

Did they misprint or you just funny, either way you made me laugh. thanx

[Kevin Michael OConnor]

01:13 PM on 11/30/2011

It does appear to be saying sniff my flower.....

[icemachine79]

07:38 AM on 11/29/2011

Banned? No. Stupid? Yes.

[babalooo3000]

12:20 AM on 11/29/2011

yall are fools... point the finger at yourself if you think that photo is too provocative, because you are the only one who sees it that way. You people are just bored with your own lives and have to bother other people. I second Allison Wunderland, if this photo was ban then how in god's name was that movie not?? fools...

[Allison Wunderland]

10:48 PM on 11/28/2011

Somebody didn't catch Dakota and her pals in "The Runaways" movie, speaking of sexualizing. First scene is of the girls in a filling station rest room, wadding toilet paper into panties because she's got her first period. Next scene is with boyfriends in a car where they talk about getting her period and becoming sexually active generally.

[Amanda Lockhart]

09:32 PM on 11/28/2011

Geez I see things ten times more provacative than that on the 12-14 year old girls at my daughters middle school! I agree that the photography is not very creative but give any pervert an average photo of a child and they'll find something sexual about it!

[Allison Wunderland]

10:53 PM on 11/28/2011

Dakota's been trying to pass herself off as a precocious tart ever since "Uptown Girls." (2003, when she was 9) -- and doing a mediocre job of it I might add.

[NicoleK09]

06:56 PM on 11/28/2011

Aside from the child sexuality issues? Why is no one pointing out how stupid the picture is in the first place? Have photographers really gotten this lazy? She looks bored, the color correction sucks, and the concept is lame.

[dcainedwr]

06:23 PM on 11/28/2011

How does a headline a la 'SEXUALIZING CHILDREN" end up in the STYLE section of HuffPost???

[GiaMedia3]

01:37 PM on 11/28/2011

This is purely typical Marc Jacobs. He's been doing these racy ads for a long time. Elle is 17. Not a minor. Most people look a lot younger than their age these days. And furthermore, compared to what is happening on reality (broadcast) television these days, is this really the raciest thing your under age kids are seeing? Seriously.

[NicoleK09]

06:53 PM on 11/28/2011

You mean Dakota? =/

[sherpeace]

01:28 PM on 11/28/2011

Ahhh, come on now! First of all, she doesn't look young! Second, what? The bottle is supposed to be a fallic symbol? With that big flower on top? I'm sorry, but these censors have gone waaaayyy tooo faaaarrr!
Makes me want to go against any and ALL censorship!

[SecularJoe]

01:27 PM on 11/28/2011

I'm in strong favor of banning the sexualization of minors in advertisements. You can't be against child sexual abuse but at the same time be in favor of advertisements dancing along the edge of child pornography. What the hell?? Is the fashion and advertising industries run by pervs and pedophiles?

HOWEVER, even I think this one is weak! She doesn't look under 16 to me at all. Plus she is completely clothed, isn't in a provocative position, and doesn't even have a sexy look on her face. She looks tired, like she needs a power nap!

It has to be more clear cut than this or the standards are so subjective as to become meaningless.

[GiaMedia3]

01:40 PM on 11/28/2011

good point Secular Joe. agreed.

[GiaMedia3]

01:47 PM on 11/28/2011

remember when Brooke Shields posed for Calvin Klein with her shirt wide open (and nothing showing)? Or what about the much older Love's Baby Soft ad with a little girl who looks like she stepped out of Toddlers and Tiaras (there's a truly scary case for the sexualization of minors) i guess this is just today's version of racy teens in provocative ads.

[SecularJoe]

03:38 PM on 11/28/2011

Yea, it's not always so clear cut. I guess I would favor a rule along the lines that if it is illegal to have sex with them, then sexualizing them should be banned.

And yes, I do remember Brooke Shields Calvin Klein years. I was in High School. It was effective because teen age boys found her really sexy and teen age girls also want to be sexy. It was an underaged girl selling "sexy" to under aged girls. Teen agers are sexual - even if abstinent.

Anything that could be a "hook" is going to be used by advertizers. But I think we do the randy little teen agers a favor by not turning them into sex symbols and then throwing them into the public square.

[SecularJoe]

03:43 PM on 11/28/2011

About Love's Baby Soft: I remembered the product but not the advertising. I looked it up. Holy Cow! That's got an ick factor of 10! EWWWW