Dakota Fanning’s Marc Jacobs Ad Banned for Being Too Racy

That’s dirty.

I don’t see where this add is a problem at all.

The perfume should have been resting “on” her leg.

Datoka’s picture is to provactive for being a teenager.There are sick perverted people out there that would take the meaning of the ad the wrong way.It is dirty.

Good Lord people!

1.Youre NOT going to tell me you or anyone in your family have never rested anything on your legs like that.

2. Where do you people live, Little House on the Prairie?
Its NOT racy at all!

She looks like she’s about 12

If the UK believes that ad is too suggestive for a minor, good for them pulling it. Glad someone has standards and sticks to them!

It is suggestive, and not a very flattering.It’s like Madonna’s ad with Dolce and Gabbana..her on a couch spread-eagle, and one comment said..”Oh look, Madonna’s trying to sell us her crotch.” Redo the picture..Dakota doesn’t look very pretty in it anyway. And, she’s woman now not a little girl.

The British said it was to racy have u guys seen their newspaper the middle of the page is normally a topless woman, as a centerfold I have seen it really. What in the world. I like the add. I have four daughters of my own its not a bad add.

And the problem with this ad is…? I just don’t see the problem. In fact, it’s a nice picture.

for those of you with your head in the sand–UK censorship had this right. Marc Jacobs completely exploited Fanning, he goes too far sometimes. As most know, a young girls virginity is sometimes referred to as a ‘flower’. Do you REALLY think Marc Jacobs and Marc Jacobs Marketing is that innocent? Where are the Fanning parents that are supposedly so involved? How could they miss this?? I saw this ad in last months Vogue, and I about fell out of my seat. this is unfortunate, but was very intended.

[...] People.com this Dakota Fanning ad is too racy for the UK… I think it’s tongue-and-cheek.. And [...]

I think Dakota is a very classy young lady. This ad is no where as sexual as some of the ads here in USA. This is not a racy ad….

Seriously? This is kind of tame compared to her performance in runaways where she’s wearing a garter belt. I can see it IS definitely thought provoking, but I think it’s somewhat mild. Now if she was about 13, then yeah banned for sure.But she’s almost 18. They should’ve had her dress her age. It wouldn’t be as weird.

Normally, I think people are way too sensitive when it comes to this kind of stuff and everyone complains about ridiculous things. However, I actually agree it is too racy. A lot of women call their area a “flower” and when they lose their virginity they were “de-flowered” To have a giant flower coming out from between your legs is definitely too suggestive. She’s young and I guarantee you there are some guys out there getting off on the thought of what this picture suggests.

have any of you ever been to the UK? Clearly not. The ads over there are much racier than this. She’s nearly 18, which is a lot older than a lot of fashion models out there who show a lot more than this. Just because they aren’t known for being child stars doesn’t mean that they are over 18.

It’s not the way she’s dressed. It’s the position of the bottle. If it were placed in front of her instead of between her legs, they could have gotten away with it. Ultimately, they’re getting what they want anyway, free press for their product. Way to go ad standards authority! Now it’s out there for the world to see as opposed to just the UK! LOL Way to not bring attention to her “sexuality”!

Yes, she is a very beautiful girl, however why couldn’t they put the bottle off to the side or somewhere other than between her legs, that is to me, what makes it too racy.

of course it was too racy! they did the right thing…

atleast they take into mind what might be sexual! if they think it is, then so be it. all they have to do is change the position of the bottle to say, like beside her.

I agree that the ad is too suggestive – it’s because the bottle is placed so high at the top of her legs and the flower at the top – what’s that about? Is it because she needs to be ‘de-flowered’? It is definitely sexually suggestive and I’m sure the perfume company knows that. With an older model, it wouldn’t be an issue, but Dakota is only 17 and is too young for this type of ad.

She normally looks very young. Putting her in a ‘little girl’s dress’ and the position of the bottle is sending the wrong message. She is a MINOR and I think the ad should be pulled. If she were a legal adult, then it’s her decision. This is exploiting a young girl.

I would call it “suggestive”, not racy.

This IS sexualization of a child. Until she’s an adult (18 in US), that’s what we (society) have deemed the age of consent, so it isn’t right to portray someone in this manner at her age. If you think it is OK, change the age of consent. Is it OK for YOUR child to do? Think about the message it sends to young women & girls, is it the message we want them to have about themselves? Fashion is all about money, not art.

Advertisers leave nothing to chance in their photo ads. Every pose is done deliberately, from the positioning of her dress to the position of the perfume bottle to the positioning of her hands, hair and how she’s sitting. Nothing is left to chance. Advertisers know they have only a few seconds when you’re flipping through a magazine or seeing the ad on a billboard as you drive past. So thus you get a picture that you don’t realize is sending your brain a “subliminal message” about the product, but it is. This photo does not have to be “sexually explicit” in order to the message across about the product…

While I understand the age concern, I feel like this would only be seen as sexually suggestive to perverts and pedophiles.

It’s not too explicit at all. Her dress length is appropriate for today’s up and coming youth! It’s not like she has her rear hanging out and the clevege is not too low cut either. So what the perfume is sitting on her lap? She is a beautiful classy young lady and people who are critizing this should really critize more important issues…

Who is this marketing to? Can you imagine walking up to a counter and trying to describe what perfume you’re looking for based on this ad if you couldn’t remember the name? I’d like a bottle of the perfume named after a molested child that was showed as a teenager’s flower please. Trying to figure out how not to be crude, but this immediately makes me think the perfume would smell like a female hygene product.

I think its cute

Yes it is too racy. If the bottle was beside her then it would be different, but the perfume is between her legs (ie fallic undertones).

Yes. It is too racy and too suggestive. Young girl…older gal……either way she’s dressed innocently with a flower between her legs. Give me a break. How does it not say “take my flower (virginity)”. I don’t see why everything has to be about sex is beyond me.

Where are her parents in the decision making?????

After having raised three children of which two are girls this ad is nothing in the way of suggestive. Dakota’s body is covered in an appropriate way. And where else would you put a big bottle like that???!!!!

I’m happy to see that they are protecting Dakota’ honor… she is a very classy young lady, looks like the Uk wants to keep her that way. the ubited states would have her naked with the bottle between her legs. Protect our Children..

I agree that the ad is selling a child as a sex object….perfume, right.

She looks lovely its ridicoulos to ban it from showing.
why dont you do your homework properly and ban the rubbish you allow to be on air, on the magazines, etc.
a young pretty lady come out and you found it suggestive what about the number of boobs bumps you allow. drug addicts you have by the thousands and performing in the UK all the time and which is worse “venerated”

I can see how a pervert could construe this as like child pornography. Frankly, given the name Lola, it – as well as her look, evoke Lolita…. Clearly on purpose. While Dakota is not showing too much skin, and indeed looks pretty, her youth and the position of the bottle are provocative to a pervert’s mind. It’s sad that the rest of us have to worry about people out there who prey on kids, but it is an issue.

Looks like the typical perfume ad to me. Of course one can argue that she just so happens to be “resting” the bottle on her legs but it was obviously strategically placed between her legs with the “come hither” expression. Same old same old.

Don’t see a problem with this at all!

I’m not seeing that at all. The bottle is resting on her legs, not in between. Idiots!!

I think it’s a little suggestive for a 17 year old. It brings to mind “deflowering” her, as a sign of her virginity.

I thought the ruling was nuts when I first read this, but upon reflection, I applaud the decision to be conservative when dealing with a minor. Had it been a woman over 18, fine … it’s not that racy. No harm in being extra cautious with those under 18.

The perfume is called “Oh Lola” and it is held between her legs , she is only 17- a child and that is NOT appropriate.

Not racy at all. They won’t allow that, but Calvin Klien (with half naked models)ads can be run? REALLY??!?!

It is sexualizing children and it’s wrong. Dress her as a woman and put the bottle elsewhere, and we’re all good. Otherwise it borders on kiddy porn.

hmmm well who is the one with a dirty mind…I bet that half the people who have seen it wouldn’t have even thought of that….

i think those looking at the pic in a perv way are just out of line… her facial expression is inocent looking and she happens to have the bottle between her legs now if she were dressd diff and spread eagle i would say racy wth i looked at pic and couldnt figure out what they were talking about racy till i read on.. that goes to show how i was thinking..

I am no fan of Dakota Fanning, but I sill don’t think this ad needs to be pulled. Yes, it is VERY suggestive (a “flower” by her “flower”) and will probably immediately make people think of that, but 1) there are plenty of other ads WAY more racy than this one, and 2) is she even a child? isn’t she in college already? If she were underage, then maybe they’d have an argument.

I don’t think too much is wrong with this.

So have you people who think this is too ‘racy’ ever seen any other Marc Jacobs perfume ads? If you have, you would know that his ad campaigns are known for being like this and that there are much more provocative ads than this one. Sure she’s 17, sure she’s holding the bottle in her lap, but please tell me why an ad is such a problem, but her acting in a movie where she’s doing drugs, having sex, being molested etc isn’t a problem?!?! It’s 2011 people, this is NOT child porn, she is not being sexualized, its an effing perfume ad. Get over it!

I’d say the ad to me is considered “provocative” but that’s what sells. The fact that she is only seventeen does deem her as a child. If the model were over eighteen, then it would make all the difference in the world. That’s my opinion.

I would never have glanced at the ad if not for the news story. I also would not have thought of it as anything more than an advertisement for something. Now that the story has drawn my attention to “the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle”, I’m feeling just a little bit aroused.

Go to college little miss seductive. You need a break and so do we.

Inappropriate due to bottle placement. Her crotch – or any hint of it – should not be the focal point of the ad. Think about it…someone told her precisely where to put that bottle, to hold it next to her pubis. That isn’t right. She’s a minor. Our allowance of, and ambivalence to, the sexualizing of minor girls is part of what’s wrong in this country.

I see nothing wrong with the ad she looks very clasy

Wow. This ad is provocative. Many people today are desensitized to this sort of thing. There are no mistakes in planning a pose in a photo shoot. The position of the FLOWER in the perfume bottle (called LOLA) resting BETWEEN HER LEGS suggests “deflowering.” It is naive to think otherwise. People need to stop and think about what the media does and how it affects us and our children. This may seem like no big deal, but when you combine this with the onslaught of other ads and images out there that are disrespectful to women/children then it becomes another piece of a bad puzzle. Let’s clean it up already!

Has anyone seen the movie “runaways” she does drugs, dress way racier than this and has sex. This is nothing compared to this.. she is a great actress and i think she looks great in this pic.

There is a big red flower in her lap… and they don’t see a problem with that? Why don’t they just say come “pop my cherry”
We have such a big problem with young children being abused and these cosmetic companies are sexifying images of children… there is definitely something wrong with that.

Do you know what “Lola” implies? If not, research the meaning and you will get an idea what the hoopla is all about. Racy – yes… very provocative? YES! Innocence – yes and no….

The dress length is fine… not too thrilled about the positioning of the bottle… thats a little bit toooo suggestive.

Maybe the bottle could be in a different place but its not a bad ad. i like her dress.

I DONT SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE AD..IF ANYONE THINKS THE IS RACY ..YOU NEED TO GET YOUR EYES CHECKED …

no think it okay

Well…considering most people refer to a young woman’s genitals as her flower, and she has this huge pointed perfume bottle with a, you guessed it, flower on it, sitting between her thighs similar to a phalice…um…i can see how some would be offended. just saying.

Yes, I do think it’s too racy. I think we need to be more mindfull of what the media puts out there. It has more of an influence on feelings and behavior than most people realize.

Only if you are a dirty grubby person will you see this as something dirty. Get your minds out of the gutter and see it for what it is. The whole world is just a filthy sex crazed thing. It’s rediculous.

I really don’t see what’s racy about this picture. She’s 17, not 12 and I think it looks age appropriate. Maybe people just aren’t used to the fact that she is growing up.

that ad def isnt too racy! if they think it is, maybe they should check out her roll in The Runaways (awesome movie btw)

It is sad that the standard of what’s considered decent is lowered all the time. The more you are exposed to controversial issues, the easier it is to accept it as the norm. Where does the line get drawn? She looks 12 in this ad, no matter what her real age, so what message are you sending out to our tweenies? Who are they targeting here? Teens and molesters in my view! It does not inspire me to buy it. To be honest received some as a gift, but gave it away as the smell was cloying – more for an older woman, who they are definitely not targetting in this ad!

men go off to war at 18. She’s an adult. It’s not dirty…..unless u have a dirty mind!

Racy? NO. Suggestive? Yes.

Be honest with yourselves people…when you read/flip through a magazine, you don’t look at the perfume/clothes/make-up/shoe/purse/et al ads long enough to even get the IDEA in your head that the ad is racy or even suggestive. I believe most people who find this racy looked at this ad far longer than you would give it a look in a magazine. I pretty much skip right past all ads in a magazine…unless there is something in it that catches my eye, then I’ll look closer to see what the ad is for.

But, as others have said, the only people seeing this as racy live with their minds in the gutters.

Okay, Its true “Sex” sells, the ad definitely caught your attention the way it was intended! It’s amazing how much controversy it has caused! There will be one’s who don’t think there is nothing wrong with the ad, but they haven’t a clue as to what LOLA implies. The model is gorgeous, but too young for this ad (my opinion).

Thats racy

de-flower?

Must not appear again, and yet, here it is lol

No more racy than the young Brook Shields for Calvin Klein was back in the day.

It all depends upon perspective.

To some – yes
To others – no

To me? I just don’t care

don’t stop there…you might as well include 16, 15, 14, 12 years of age etc…. Bottom line is the “model” is too young for the ad period – if she were of legal age then it would be different.

Beautiful dress, girl & background but? bottle shouldve been placed outside of between her thighs?

“There are sick perverted people out there that would take the meaning of the ad the wrong way.It is dirty.”

…hmm…well…sick perverted people turn EVERYTHING into sick perverted things…that doesn’t mean that it’s dirty. it means the people with those thoughts are dirty.

What I’m more concerned about is the fact that they made a 17-year-old pose with perfume called ‘Oh! Lola.’

:-| Humbert Humbert would be all over this if he were real (and maybe if Dakota were younger?)

also….all im gonna say about the question of wether she’s too young to sit down for a photo shoot in which she had a perfume bottle between her legs? watch her movie Runaways.

Funny how the UK has nude people on tv, like the on BBC or in print so-called Newspapers. But this Fannie add is to racy. I guess it’s just England. They don’t want to exploit minors, but if she was 18 or older sexpoliation is FINE! Dakota Fanning will always be remembered for being an anoying twit in lots of sub-par films! As she gets older and tries to changer her image. She’s doing her self a diservice trying to be a sex-pot. Look at poor Anne Hathway? They end up doing t’n'a roles. Nobody cares about them expect 4 their looks! Dakota is better than THAT! She needs to grow up and love herself! Not MONEY $!

Really? I wouldn’t have even thought anything of the placement of the bottle until I read this article. So if that is the first thing that you think of by looking at this ad, then I think the UK’s ASA has a dirty and perverted mind!

[...] Source: http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2011/11/09/dakota-fanning-oh-lola-banned-uk/ Share this:EmailFacebookTwitterDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

Anyone who thinks that’s racy is a pervert themselves. When I saw the photograph, I thought it was adorable. However, when I read the article, I saw what people where saying about it. You have to have a dirty mind to think of things that way in the first place. 17 year old girls are NOT CHILDREN. They are young women who are, yes, probably having sex or at least considering sexual thoughts. I’m 18 and I would not be ashamed to dress like that or to appear in a photograph like that. I’ve seen 16 year old girls look far more provocative on Facebook. People need to realize the artistic vision behind the composition rather than thinking about it in a negative light. GET YOUR MINDS OUT OF THE GUTTER!

Yes it IS racy. She is made to look “younger”, the name Lola is a nickname for Lolita which is the movie about a little girl’s inappropriate relationship with a MUCH older MAN, the facial expression, and the perfume between her legs suggests “deflowering”. How can you NOT see that?! When are we going to stop “sexualizing” young girls, or all women for that matter? It’s not healthy emotionally, mentally, or physically. If you want to rationalize, ignore, or defend things like this then you only have yourself to blame for the consequences you invite in your life and in our world. If there is even a small voice inside that says something is not right, listen to it and demand a change in media, etc.

when i first looked at this i couldnt tell why it was “racy”. i looked again and then it clicked. this picture is suggestive, but its only dirty if you have a dirty mind

I really fail to see the sexuality in this picture.

there is nothing wrong here. she’s showing some thigh with a perfume bottle, what’s the big deal? she has her head on right, unlike some of the other famous girls her age.

Say what you wnt about it, this Ad definitely promots pedophilia. It’s no accident that a “blossoming flower” is resting between her legs.

You can all pretend it’s not, but this add is racy. She has a childs’ polka dot dress on with a suggestive look on her face. And the giant bottle of perfume is strategically placed between her legs…

People are WAY too PC and overly sensitive these days. Plus, if the ppl at banning feel that way, it probably means they themselves are perverts and pedophiles… because as a normal person, I certainly wouldn’t read that much in this ad.

once again people over-react. i see nothing wrong with the ad. I have had drinks between my legs before and trust me I wasn’t trying to be provactive. And frankly I’ve seen teenagers wearing stuff shorter than that. It’s not showing that much of her leg. Bathing suits show more than that. God people need to calm down.

While I have of course seen worse, I still find it absolutely ridiculous that people on here are arguing that the placement of the bottle is an innocent coincidence. Let’s keep it real people –it’s no mistake that Dakota was asked to place the flower bottle BETWEEN her legs. Advertising execs meticulously plan out even the minutest of details contained in ads. The suggestiveness of bottle is obviously meant to contrast her otherwise conservative, “good girl” attire.

Shes looks like shes saying “u wanna deflower me”

Yes, it is too racy. Sorry, that bottle right by her doo-dah, completely innapropriate, no matter the age. So glad it got pulled.

Not impressed. She’s too young and if she’s not being “sexualized,” then why is the perfume placed strategically BETWEEN her legs?!

I don’t think it is to racy.. It’s all in the eyes of the beholder. It’s only racy if that’s the frame of mind you have and you think that way.. They are worried about this pick because of it being racy… She’s been in movies that are a heck of a lot more racy.. exp…The Runaways.. They didn’t pull the movie because she was under age playing a racy roll so why pull a pic? Crazy is my opinion…

The flower symbolizes her virginity people! It’s inappropriate.

I have seen racier and alot less on Toddlers and Tiaras. This photo seems just fine to me.

what a hipocratic society we are in…the pic is so simple and chic; the ones ” so upset” are the one with both way kind of thinking and doing…probably.

The name of the perfume is also “Oh Lola”, which I’m sure would make a lot of people think of Lolita – a story about a middle aged man’s sexual obsession with a young girl.

It’s a suggestive photo for sure but not indecent.

We know Dakota is 17. What we don’t know is how many of the female models are ages 14-18 who are made up to look like 20-something sirens in super provacative poses. There are many teenaged models photographed in much more provocative wear and positions without so much as a peep from the thoughtpolice.

With this precedent, I suppose now we have to look at the age of EVERY model before we publish their photos, right?

Nothing about the ad is done without an incredible amount of forethought and strategy. Of course, it is a phallic symbol between her legs and it is no coincidence that the bottle is topped with a flower that suggests female private parts and virginity. I saw the ad before I heard the news and wondered how they could get away with it.

I’ve seen this ad several times and at no point did I think it was racy or inappropriate (and I’m the mother of a teenager!) Those Brits are worse than the religious right in this country.

i take it no one saw her in “the runaways”?

I think it is a creative, artistic ad, but I do agree with the censors. There are aspects of it that could be seen to sexualize a child and as pretty, talented and so on Dakota is, she is still just 17, and looks much younger. We must always set our standards higher so that elsewhere in the world, children are not exploited.

the ad is WAY too racy. seriously people… what is wrong with you all? it’s bad to the bone and very suggestive, even for an adult. she looks like a prostitute trying to sell sex. the messy hair, blood shot looking eyes, sleazy slouchy posture. they make her look like she just snorted a few lines of coke and is now waiting to have sex. sick!!!! it is totally calculated. i LOVE dakota fanning and think the marc jacob’s people totally took advantage of her. where are her parents telling them to stop? ridiculous!!!!

Good for them. I’m an advocate for letting kids be kids as long as possible. Sick of all the mess in society nowadays!

I don’t know, guys….if you had two daughters, as I do, you might feel differently. I really don’t want to encourage adult men to look at young girls and think about them “that way”. It might be my girls they see next, you know?

This add is not dirty!!

I’m sorry, but this ad is over the top. A “flower” in between her legs? Really? She’s 17! They were trying to be suggestive for sure. Trying to say Dakota hasn’t been deflowered yet. She’s just too young for an ad like this.

Of all the ways this “young” girl could be holding the bottle of perfume, this was intentional. Where are this girl’s parents during these photo shoots? Are they so hard up for money that they allow their young daughter to do whatever some pervert photographer and PR person want her to do? Shame on them. And shame on all of you that think this is OK. It wouldn’t be OK if it was 30 year old model in the picture let alone this young girl!

Her body is appropriately covered, there is no sexual component in the ad and the bottle looks more like a flower vase than a perdfume bottle.
Do some people really see this as a sexual ad?
God makes seventeen-year-olds look this way, not people.
She looks great and only prudes see sex where there is no hint of sex.
Grow up people!

Ha Ha Ha, that is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read!!!

Dakota – you’re a great actress and I’ve enjoyed watching you grow up on the screen… but.. I have to agree that this photo is a bit racy for a 17-year old – no matter how mature you are personally. I think a more ‘flirty’ rather than ‘dirty’ pic would be better.

Jeez, from the title I thought she was posing nude or something. I really don’t see anything wrong with this.

Thank goodness there are some countries that still show some kind of morality towards the exploitation of their youths. Maybe the US could take some pointers. Those of you who think this is not provocative for a teenager are probably ok with all of the sex and violence that is shown on tv as well….

It’s definitely too racy, the innuendo of a flower between a young girl’s legs is obvious enough, but the connection of the name of the perfume also rang a bell. Perhaps I’m reading far too much into this, but the name Lola and the image of a young sexualized girl reminds me of Lolita, the story of a man lusting over a preteenaged girl. Come on now, this is not art. Put the flower somewhere else.

It isn’t so much the pictures, but the name.
It is clearly a reference to Lolita by Nabokov.
Besides Lolita Humbert calls her Lo and Lola; so coupled with the picture, it is pretty clear what he is getting at…

i really don’t see anything wrong with this pic i don’t see a child looking to sexy she hardly has any make up on that would seem over the top,

The reason the ad is “racy” isn’t just because she is wearing a short dress. It’s because she looks like a child and is advertising for a perfume called “Lola” that has a flowered bottle topper. The ad is playing off the story of “Lolita” – the story of a child who was “deflowered” a/k/a sexually molested and abused. That’s why the ad was banned.

I don’t see anything wrong with this ad. I actually saw it a couple of months ago and almost didn’t recognize DF because she looks soo young.. I think people are reading too much into the pose. It’s hardly racy, let alone too sexy.. SMH Get a life. Always complaining about stuff. Fix something for a change..

its not a nice picture anyway, IMO she is such a beauitful young lady. this piture does nothing for her

I think the ad is beautiful. There is nothing racy about this ad. I mean her kissing another girl in the movie “The Runaways” is more racy than this ad is. Come on.

The dress is ok…she has on stockings….but, I would not have positioned the bottle between her legs…maybe under her arm or on her side.

I’m glad to see that there are intelligent people in UK. Good Job.

I think the pose and the position of the bottle is absolutely inappropriate and uncalled for due to the age of Dakota. I am amazed that her parents would allow the use of this picture in any ad campaign. I guess money talks no matter what the actress has to do to get it.

Definitely inappropriate. Good for the UK! It’s so sad that so many of these young Hollywood stars start out so sweet and then almost invariably end up being sexualized at a very young age. They almost invariably do some racy, pornographic thing. I don’t think THIS photo is necessarily pornographic, but it’s definitely inappropriate, definitely highly suggestive, and I do fear that it’s just the beginning of a long sexual path for Miss Dakota. It’s tragic, really, what Hollywood does to our Youth.

it’s not “racy” but it is inappropriately suggestive.

getting a teenager, making her look younger, getting a flower shaped bottle between her legs.. you dont have too read between the lines (or legs) too much to see what this actually insinuates.

dont be fooled, the creative directors knew what they were doing in order to get a little attention.

#1 – She is dressed like a child who’s skirt is way too short. She looks a lot younger than her years as well.

#2 – The bottle is placed in an area near her private part, like she is holding a dildo and masterbating with it. This is what they are taking issue with the most.

#3 – They could have positioned her AND the bottle better, but they chose not to, therefore creating a racy ad which puts her in a sexually provocative position.

#4 – Sex sells, but it looks like the U.K.’s moral values are radically different from the USA’s in this matter. Good!

Whatev… she’s not even beautiful, she looks drugged here… Fanning is in a rush to get old, next thing you know she’s pregnant with a has-been…

Good for the UK!!

I don’t think it’s inappropriate at all, I see where it could be taken that way of course but given the playfulness of the colors of pink and the youngness of her dress I wouldn’t take it like that at all. If she were in a short black dress with a red background then I would think oh my this is sexy. But not for this.

[...] NewsMarc Jacobs' Dakota Fanning ad banned for being 'sexually provocative'The GuardianPeople Magazine -Washington Post -Reutersall 432 news [...]

Not to mention, the perfume name is Lola, which sounds like Lolita – a book about an adult male having sexual fantasies about a girl. They knew what they were doing in this ad, including the placement of that bottle.

you do realize she has had an acting career and already she has dealt with adult concepts such as abuse in The Secret Lives of Bees, Sickness of the mind in Hide and Seek, and Death and Torture in Twilights New Moon. Just a few of the adult concepts.

Fashion is meant to be provocative, but this ad goes too far. Everything from the pose to the name of the perfume references Lolita. I don’t think children should be exploited for fashion. Even though Dakota Fanning is 17, she’s made up to look younger.

[...] The U.K. Says No Way To Dakota: Dakota Fanning is usually not one to be at the center of a controversy, but the 17-year-old’s latest ad for ad for Marc Jacobs’s Oh, Lola! Perfume has been banned across the pond for being too suggestive. See what’s causing the Brits to bristle, HERE! [...]

[...] NewsMarc Jacobs' Dakota Fanning ad banned for being 'sexually provocative'The GuardianPeople Magazine -New York Daily News -Reutersall 460 news [...]

people always have to read into things, shows how their minds work, think this is lovely advert, very decent compared to many out there, likes of prono etc…..please go get a life and look at yourselves first…….

Personally, I find the “concept” behind the fragrance more offensive than the picture.While “Lolita” was in many ways an important story, there is no way that as aspect of the human story should be celbrated. I hate seeing child molestation being used to sell perfume.

I don’t particularly like the position of the perfume bottle. I’ve seen ads that are a whole lot more provocative, so not sure why this one is getting all this attention. Overall, even without the bottle in this position, I don’t like the ad. It seems boring both with the colors and with her facial expression.

Sure it’s a little racy but more importantly, where can I find that pink dress??

well why don’t we let her decide ? I think she took the job
because she was ok with that …. so what’s the issue ???

You know, she’s 17, it’s not really a racy picture, and yet there’s something disconcerting about it. I don’t think there’s any doubt that it was meant to be sexually charged – even the perfume name conjures images of Lolita.

only in a sick person’s mind

She is so hot !

I think there are some people who can find anything they see or read to be sexual. Get your minds out of the gutter folks. She is a very cute young lady!!

GET A LIFE PEOPLE… SHE`S FULLY CLOTHED. SHE DIDN`T EVEN HAVE A BIKINI ON. GET A LIFE

[...] U.K.’s Ad Standards Authority determined that “the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her [...]

Are you kidding? This is not dirty!
But the Oh! Lola has a good advertising connection because of this issue the Oh lola became sensationalized and they Perfectly succeeded on their Marketing Strategy! So dont be fooled all of you guys coz its all about how they would capture the World’s attention and they just did! Give me a break!

And to Dakota, I just love this young lady! Excellent actress!

What I find really offensive is that the bottle does not represent the actual product size. But that probably would have disappeared in the photo. Bad business folks!

She looks creepy.

its a bit suggestive. She should have rested the perfume on her leg.

Wow, reading through these comments, I guess I must be a pervert, because I see exactly what´s wrong with this ad and I´m not just brushing it off as an innocent picture.
Do you people not get the whole flower-virginity-Lolita-child connection? It´s disturbing that something so obviously inspired by sexual attraction to a child (yes, I am talking about Nabokov´s Lolita, where Lola is a pretten girl molested by her stepfather), can be used to sell a product and call it sexy and fun.

[...] –Dakota Fanning‘s Marc Jacobs ad is banned in the U.K. — is it too racy? READ IT [...]

Let’s see. She’s 17 years old. Almost an adult. Is the picture suggestive. Yes, a little bit. I think the only reason why this has turned into such a big deal is because it’s Dakota Fanning. You open up any magazine and you’ll find baby faced models in suggestive positions and or doing something suggestive. This is tame compared to other ads with young female models.

Oh God. She’s 17, not 7. In less than 12 months, this will go from being considered by some maniacs “child porn” to just a “sexy picture”.

When I first saw this ad I took it as a mishap and I made a joke about it. But not really a big deal- I think this is a little extreme.

[...] not your ordinary college student, though: Dakota has been modeling for Marc Jacobs since she was 12 (Elle just started, too). “When I did that first campaign for Marc Jacobs, I [...]

if you think this picture is inappropriate than you need to join the rest of the world and realize there could be other things between her legs. its a beautiful picture of her in a sweet dress..trying to find fault doesnt make it bad. if you have a kid thats 17 than believe me they are doing far worse than sitting flowers between there legs..stop tearing people apart..
peace friends :P

Better safe than sorry–it’s borderline too much. Not one thing in particular but the polka dot dress and then the perfume right in her crotch…it crosses a line.

Teenagers are human beings, and people. They have sex, and are sexual beings, just like anyone else.

It’s the misperception of them as less than full human beings with concepts and taboos like this that create the idea of a division in the first place.

Chronology means nothing. Capability, and values as a person mean everything. Treating children as inherently less than capable and needing something above them to determine and guide dehumanizes them.

It is understandable that young human beings are the future and so protected so fiercly by such a large portion of society. But, censorship and taboo are a clumsy way to do so. It is similar to restricting a group of peoples’ access to controversial books, because they may be unable to see the truth clearly and make an accurate assessment of the truth.

“Sleazy” sexual dynamics are possible at any stage of human life. But, sexuality can also have great value. We are all human beings.

Dehumanization of children through denominalizing is one of the most harmful things in societies today.

The root of the issue is not “whether it is or is not a sexual, image of a younger human being that might evoke attraction (inherently inappropriate)”. It’s the concept of whether it is or is not correct that “a sexual image of a younger human being that might evoke attraction” = “(inherently inappropriate)”

To restrict a group of human beings, to treat them as less than another group, as less capable instruments of what another person believes is a correct place to be in life, then say that they are thus less, is fallacious logic. The idea creates itself.

Peace.

[...] so amazing,” added Jacobs muse Dakota Fanning, who had been seated in the front row wearing a magically sparkly dress herself. [...]

[...] so amazing,” added Jacobs muse Dakota Fanning, who had been seated in the front row wearing a magically sparkly dress herself. [...]

[...] so amazing,” added Jacobs muse Dakota Fanning, who had been seated in the front row wearing a magically sparkly dress herself. [...]

[...] Dakota Fanning Oh Lola – Style News – StyleWatch – People.comNov 9, 2011 … The actress’s recent magazine ad for Marc Jacobs’s Oh, Lola! perfume is too suggestive, Britain’s advertising watchdog has ruled, and must be … [...]

Gee, flower resting on her underage vagina? What’s all the fuss about??
*sarcasm*