Skip Nav
Real Weddings
The Groom's Tearful Reaction to Seeing His Bride Is the Absolute Sweetest
Relationships
The Telling Sign You're in a Toxic Relationship and Need to Get Out Now
Wedding
20 Classic and Unique "Something Blue" Ideas For Weddings

Dakota Fanning Marc Jacobs Ad

Dakota Fanning's Perfume Ad Banned For Sexualizing Children

Dakota Fanning's Oh, Lola! perfume ad has been banned in the UK for "sexualizing children." The Marc Jacobs perfume ad features 17-year-old Dakota holding an oversize bottle of the fragrance in her lap, and even though she's not dressed provocatively or doing anything sexual, the British Advertising Standards Authority believes the ad is portraying a minor as a sex object, saying:

"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."

While I think there are a ton of much more overtly sexual ads out there, I do think the purpose of this perfume ad is to be provocative. Even Marc Jacobs describes Oh, Lola! as "sensual" and calls Dakota a "contemporary Lolita, seductive yet sweet." Maybe I'm just desensitized by worse examples like Toddlers & Tiaras, but would you really consider this ad featuring a 17-year-old the sexualization of a child?

Join The Conversation
xxstardust xxstardust 5 years
The problem is that she ISN'T a minor. It's a UK ad; the age of consent in the UK is 16 years old. If she's legally old enough to consent to actual SEX, she should be old enough to be in a "sexualized picture" (though I don't believe this picture is sexualized, personally).
Bettye-Wayne Bettye-Wayne 5 years
Yes, it's a sexualized picture if a minor, duh, that's how people sell shit now a days and the perfume is called Oh Lola, so of course it's Lolaesque. Sexualizing a sexy 17 year old isn't really that big of a deal. Agreed that Toddlers & Tiaras is a million, billion times worse than this. If I was a pedo I would jerk off to T&T, not this.
xxinfinitepleasurexy xxinfinitepleasurexy 5 years
I'm a minor and post provocative photos all the time. Yet I don't see the law cracking down on me.
testadura67 testadura67 5 years
Snarky comments don't make up for a lack of argument. It's a sexualized picture of a minor, period. I'm not necessarily saying it should be banned, but not recognizing it for what it is condones and perpetuates the practice.
testadura67 testadura67 5 years
I think the memo you missed was in statutory rape law. Having sexuality and marketing it are two different things. Just because this isn't the worst picture out there, doesn't make it innocent.
bisou002 bisou002 5 years
I'd seen that ad published in magazines before and always had an "Eww" reaction when I saw it. It's definitely Lolita-esque. How can it not be considered sexual in nature when it's sitting not just in her lap, but in her crotch?
bryseana bryseana 5 years
Some think it has Lolita type suggestiveness.
Advah Advah 5 years
I agree. That picture isn't exactly tasteful but I mainly take offense in how ugly the image looks (imo). There are a lot more images and tv shows out there that should be looked at before this one.
What It's Like to Date Your Best Friend
Sexiest Netflix Movies July 2017
Dakota and Elle Fanning Street Style
Sexiest Travel Destinations
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds