Perfume ads featuring teen star Dakota Fanning banned

[Memphis]

A perfume ad featuring 17-year-old actress Dakota Fanning has been banned in the U.K. for appearing to ?sexualize a child.?

Fanning appears in the ad for Marc Jacobs? new perfume Oh, Lola!, which is the little sister scent to Jacobs? perfume Lola. The scent is described as ?More of a Lolita than a Lola,? and the advertisement crosses the lines of appropriateness, the Advertising Standards of Authority said.

In the ads, a very-young looking Fanning is seen in a short, girly dress with a giant bottle of the perfume between her legs.

Read more: http://entertainment...s#ixzz1dESuYq4P

Kinda surprised this news is from the UK of all places.

Edited November 9, 2011 by SHoTTa35
Shortened topic to fit and tagged.

[Richteralan]

I wouldn't agree that a 17yo is a child, but anyway.

[protocol7]

I wouldn't agree that a 17yo is a child, but anyway.

Neither would the British Army it seems as you can join that at 16.

[LittleNeutrino Veteran]

Although I agree partially they need to standardize their definition of adult before they can start randomly picking ages.

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

Many states a 16yo is considered an adult

[Ryoken]

Not that I am defending this in the least, because I think they are being stupid banning it, BUT, the article does say --

?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 [sexualize] a child.?

So there's some understanding.. that being said, in the second paragraph, sorry, she's a person, that immediately draws attention to her sexuality. And her appearance ? So if she was ugly, then the ad would be okay ?

[Roger H. Veteran]

Umm I guess then lots of shows on TV would be considered sexualizing a minor in that case. There were some shows that the actors were 20-25 or whatever but they look and play 14-16yr old. Granted they didn't have the actor doing illicit stuff but short skirts and scenes in just a bra and jeans or getting caught making out with a "older" boy.

She doesn't look 16 to me, LOL - have you seen what 16yr olds look like these days? They look 25!!!

[Joey S]

Kinda surprised this news is from the UK of all places.

I'm not. The UK likes to ban lots of movie/tv things. It recently banned The Human Centipede 2, even though it was actually very tame and funny. Didn't they also ban The Life of Brian or some nonsense just because it offended some religious fanatic's sensibilities.

[Rudy]

I was expecting the ad to be a lot more revealing.... it's pretty mild ..... and she's 17 so not really a big deal

[Glassed Silver]

Wow... This stance can be slippy!

Court says: your 19 year old girlfriend looks a lot like a minor schoolgirl in that fancy roleplay dress you took pictures when you had sex...

So, young man, how many years shall we put you away for child pornography?

Young man: *speechless*

Haha, oh, screw you guys.

She's 17? Old enough, no need to "protect her" just because she looks young.

Glassed Silver:win

edit: / addition:

In my book she doesn't look like 16 or lower... Hell, have they seen current 16 year olds? They easily look older than that often enough.

Sooo... Next time I need a picture with "arousal" (which IMHO isn't present here, not by a short shot at least), I can also pick a 15 year old who looks like 20?

Great! Not?

OH SNAP!

You can only lose.

The "CHILD ABUSE/PORN/..." bomb got too big.

Concentrate on real abuse, rape, etc...

Stop wasting resources.

[Wolfbane]

I'm not. The UK likes to ban lots of movie/tv things. It recently banned The Human Centipede 2, even though it was actually very tame and funny. Didn't they also ban The Life of Brian or some nonsense just because it offended some religious fanatic's sensibilities.

This is a "tame and funny" movie? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1530509/parentalguide

The Life of Brian wasn't banned by the UK, just some local authorities banned it due to protests by religious morons (and those particular local authorities were probably run by said religious morons).

Also, apparently UK only has 4 currently banned movies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films#United_Kingdom), I wouldn't call that a lot.

[remixedcat]

Courtney Stodden

[oceanmotion]

Their reasoning for banning seems pretty spot on.

[Buttus]

so the ad is naughty now, but in 3 months it'll be ok... she'll be 18 then

[Ryoken]

Wow... This stance can be slippy!

Reminds me of Aussieland.. where they have banned Porn by starts that are of Legal age, without a doubt, because their "small breasts" makes them look underage.

Sorry miss, you're of legal age, but we can't let you perform these legal acts to make money because 3 people can't tell you are of legal age..

[Colin McGregor]

Reminds me of Aussieland.. where they have banned Porn by starts that are of Legal age, without a doubt, because their "small breasts" makes them look underage.

Sorry miss, you're of legal age, but we can't let you perform these legal acts to make money because 3 people can't tell you are of legal age..

lol you don't have a big rack so your not an adult

[DocM]

We have our media hypocracies too.

Evening TV has tons of horn-dog teens doing whatever, and Broole Shields 12 y/o full-frontal nude scenes as a 1917 child prostitute in Louis Malle's Pretty Baby are under consideration for inclusion in the National Film Registry as a national treasure, yet you can go to prison for bathtub shots of your kids.

Dumb.

[Inklin]

I'm pretty sure not too long ago the UK government was talking of banning all "sexualizations" of kids. Including clothes that are deemed to be too sexy for kids. I think Sexualizing commercials/TV were part of it too. I think retailers already pledged to ban "sexy" kids clothes here.

Sometimes it feels real bad to be British but I know we're not the only country that goes crazy with censorship and there are definitely far worse places!

[Richteralan]

Not that I am defending this in the least, because I think they are being stupid banning it, BUT, the article does say --

?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 [sexualize] a child.?

So there's some understanding.. that being said, in the second paragraph, sorry, she's a person, that immediately draws attention to her sexuality. And her appearance ? So if she was ugly, then the ad would be okay ?

LOL @ "Looked under 16"

Guess I am 12 then.

[Daedroth]

I personally think the perfume adverts are frigging pathetic, and I welcome the ban of this advert. In the UK, you are not an adult until you are 18. Anyone under that age is classed as a child or 'young person' in the politically correct times. I'm sick of all these stupid adverts being overly sexualised just to sell their fragrance products. The adverts bear no resemblance to the product, and it implies you'll be able to be in a similar situation, which obviously doesn't happen. They're just as bad as the make up adverts which use post-prodution, fake lashes/extensions and air-brushing.

[BoredBozirini]

I personally think the perfume adverts are frigging pathetic, and I welcome the ban of this advert. In the UK, you are not an adult until you are 18. Anyone under that age is classed as a child or 'young person' in the politically correct times. I'm sick of all these stupid adverts being overly sexualised just to sell their fragrance products. The adverts bear no resemblance to the product, and it implies you'll be able to be in a similar situation, which obviously doesn't happen. They're just as bad as the make up adverts which use post-prodution, fake lashes/extensions and air-brushing.

So why doesn't the UK increase the minimum recruitment age from 16 to 18 then?

[alphaomegainfinity]

It is nice the ad was banned. Most of the ad and media companies are scamming us big time in the name of "art" and "news".

[Daedroth]

So why doesn't the UK increase the minimum recruitment age from 16 to 18 then?

Because you don't have to be an adult to work?

In the UK you can work up to six hours a week from the age of 13 I believe, such as doing paper rounds. Just because you have a job at 16 doesn't mean you're an adult.

[bj55555]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors

Currently, countries that have made it illegal to possess (or create/distribute) sexual images of fictional characters who are described as or appear to be under eighteen years old include Canada, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines.

The UK isn't the only country. This is obviously not pornography, but it brings into question how to enact and enforce laws concerning age or appearance of age.

[BoredBozirini]

Because you don't have to be an adult to work?

In the UK you can work up to six hours a week from the age of 13 I believe, such as doing paper rounds. Just because you have a job at 16 doesn't mean you're an adult.

Some would argue that you need to be an adult to join the armed forces, and if 16 is the minimum age to do so, then 16 means adulthood.