Home› Archived Forums› Showbiz

Dakota Fanning's 'Lolita' perfume ad for Marc Jacobs banned for sexualising children

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,486
Forum Member
✭✭✭
in Showbiz #1
I'm not a pedo or anything (I'm 15), but I don't think the ad "sexualises children". Dakota is 17 and looks her age IMO.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2059097/Dakota-Fannings-Lolita-perfume-ad-Marc-Jacobs-banned-sexualising-children.html

Comments

  • Pisces CloudPisces Cloud Posts: 30,239
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #2
    I think she looks her age but I also think that she is meant to be younger or else Jacobs wouldn't be calling the ad Lola and mentioning Lolita, which is wrong, IMO. Also, the other ad is quite obviously showing off a woman who's too thin and the only way this will ever stop is if people stop buying the products that endorse this.
  • mikebukmikebuk Posts: 18,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #3
    ThatWasCool wrote: »
    I'm not a pedo or anything (I'm 15), but I don't think the ad "sexualises children". Dakota is 17 and looks her age IMO.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2059097/Dakota-Fannings-Lolita-perfume-ad-Marc-Jacobs-banned-sexualising-children.html

    She's dressed, it's hardly Lolita stuff. You would see more skin at the beach or pool
  • Unigal07Unigal07 Posts: 22,326
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    I really don't see the problem with it. A lot of professional models start way earlier than age 17, and it's hardly like she's nude or in a compromising position!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 191
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #5
    Dan Fortesque wrote: »
    I think she looks her age but I also think that she is meant to be younger or else Jacobs wouldn't be calling the ad Lola and mentioning Lolita, which is wrong, IMO. Also, the other ad is quite obviously showing off a woman who's too thin and the only way this will ever stop is if people stop buying the products that endorse this.

    The perfume Lola has been out for a few years now, Oh, Lola is just a variation of it aimed at the younger market.

    I don't see a problem with the advert at all, she's fully clothed and isn't in a suggestive position. Some people just like to complain about anything.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,038
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #6
    BrickByBrick wrote: »
    The perfume Lola has been out for a few years now, Oh, Lola is just a variation of it aimed at the younger market.

    I don't see a problem with the advert at all, she's fully clothed and isn't in a suggestive position. Some people just like to complain about anything.

    Yep, and it's usually the Mail, which is odd considering their rather unsettling obsession with Suri Cruise's wardrobe :eek:
  • Tulip19Tulip19 Posts: 3,076
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #7
    In this picture it isn't hard to read the subtext, I understand where the "could be seen to" comes from.
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,267
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #8
    ThatWasCool wrote: »
    I'm not a pedo or anything (I'm 15), but I don't think the ad "sexualises children". Dakota is 17 and looks her age IMO.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2059097/Dakota-Fannings-Lolita-perfume-ad-Marc-Jacobs-banned-sexualising-children.html

    She's 17 and the Daily Mail's labelling her a child? I got the impression that she was either 13 or 14. They're being technical to the limit there mind.
  • seal bseal b Posts: 541
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #9
    She really doesn't 17...I thought she was about 12/13 and so posing with the perfume between her legs was a bit inappropriate.
  • Janette800Janette800 Posts: 13,357
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #10
    Were do we draw the line...maybe using women in these adverts who are over 25...difficult to know whats best
  • AlrightmateAlrightmate Posts: 73,120
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #11
    If you name your perfume 'Lolita' then you're just asking for trouble.
    The name in itself carries connotations.

    A perfume aimed at teenage girls called 'Lolita'.
    Can anybody hand on heart not say that's not being deliberately provocative in a very dubious way?
  • quin_the_eskimoquin_the_eskimo Posts: 517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #12
    Alrightmate wrote: »
    If you name your perfume 'Lolita' then you're just asking for trouble.
    The name in itself carries connotations.

    A perfume aimed at teenage girls called 'Lolita'.
    Can anybody hand on heart not say that's not being deliberately provocative in a very dubious way?

    The perfume is called Oh Lola, a new version of the existing Lola fragrance which I was given for Christmas aged 31.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 17,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #13
    Alrightmate wrote: »
    If you name your perfume 'Lolita' then you're just asking for trouble.
    The name in itself carries connotations.

    A perfume aimed at teenage girls called 'Lolita'.
    Can anybody hand on heart not say that's not being deliberately provocative in a very dubious way?

    It was never meant to. 'Lolita' the book, was not about a sexually provocative child.

    The point of the book was that she was an ordinary little girl, the creepy older man who was obsessed with her projected that image onto her so he could blame her for his actions.

    But I suppose that's not really relevant now. I actually have a neighbour who called her daughter Jezebel as she intended to reclaim the original meaning of the name. Judging by how badly the girl gets teased at school she has not been successful.
  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,373
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #14
    She's 17, so there really should be no issue. The argument that she "looks" a certain age is nonsense.
  • PurpleTurtlePurpleTurtle Posts: 894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #15
    I don't understand what's wrong with the pic, she's fully dressed and not made up to look like a child, but maybe that's just me :confused:
Sign In or Register to comment.