0
   

The UK Puritans Carve another Notch in the Bedpost

 
 
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 02:10 pm
Quote:
Dakota Fanning recently became new face of Marc Jacobs' perfume "Oh Lola!" - but those ads won't be seen in England anymore. The Advertising Standards Authorit has banned the Lola ads in Britain, reports the BBC. The ASA says the ads could be seen as sexualizing a child.

The ads, seen above and below here, show Dakota in a flesh-colored dress with a lace overlay holding oversized bottles of the perfume, one resting on her lap region. The ASA says Fanning, 17, appears younger than 16 years of age in the photos.

The ASAs ruling reads, "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."

Perfume maker Coty UK says it has not received any complaints about the advertisement, nor does it think the pictures suggest Dakota is under the age of 16.

Dakota told WWD, back when asked to do the campaign, "Every time one of Marc's fragrances comes out I run to the store to buy it. The moment I was asked to be a part of the Oh, Lola campaign, I was so humbled and said 'yes' immediately.

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/11/dakota-fannings-marc-jacobs-perfume-ads-banned-in-britain.html

http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2011/06/Dakota-Fanning-Marc-Jacobs.jpg

The Brits are becoming as embarrassingly prudish as we Americans and the Ozzies are. Yuck!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,251 • Replies: 164

 
contrex
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 02:51 pm
There is a certain degree of moral panic in the UK at the moment about inappropriate sexualization of children; padded bras for 7 year olds, panties with "slut" on them in sizes suitable for 10 year olds, stuff like that, have been condemned and the stores selling them forced to withdraw them. Most people (including me) would agree with that. Possibly as a result sensitivities are running a little high. Dakota Fanning is best known in the UK as a child actress since she was around 10. It is within that context that this affair is taking place, and to the extent that little girls are protected from premature or precocious sexualization then I think many people will say "Hard luck, Dakota". She is not even 18. Speaking recently, Marc Jacobs said the decision to use her had been inspired by her appearance as a 15-year-old punk rock singer in the coming of age film The Runaways. ‘I knew she could be this contemporary Lolita, seductive yet sweet,’ he said. In Britain, the idea of using sexy 15 year old-looking girls to sell stuff is pretty borderline, and the word "Lolita" carries a big (and bad) emotional charge. So I don't think we are becoming "prudish". We just don't see why kids should be sexualized so big corporations can make money.


hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 02:54 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
There is a certain degree of moral panic in the UK at the moment about inappropriate sexualization of children
Which we have seen in the last few years in Australia as well...connected?

Re Dakota, she has a history as well...some will remember that she got all kinds of grief for doing the movie 'Hound Dog" where she plays a young girl (9?) who is brutally raped by a much older boy after being set up by her friend (as I remember it)...

What MJ should do now is get a cute and white 18 YO, make her look younger and do it all just like the Fanning shots..... IE dare the prudes to outlaw those pics.
contrex
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 02:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
connected?


I don't see any connection beyond the fact that decent people who don't like paedophiles and stuff that legitimizes their attitudes exist all over the world.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 02:59 pm
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
connected?


I don't see any connection beyond the fact that decent people who don't like paedophiles and stuff that legitimizes their attitudes exist all over the world.
Or more likely anything that admits that teens girls are sexual beings, because they dont have that right according to the puritans.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 03:07 pm
You're beginning to "get on my tits" as we say here. I seem to recall that is one of your trademarks.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 03:09 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
We just don't see why kids should be sexualized so big corporations can make money.


Agreed.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 03:14 pm
@Butrflynet,
16 is not exactly a kid, and such prohibitions interfere with her right to make a living at her profession. It also gets in the way of art, as we saw clearly with the Austrailian move towards calling all depictions of minors nude porn and thus making them illegal, for what I assume is the first time ever in human history.
Butrflynet
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 03:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
I wasn't responding to the specifics of this ad and model. I am agreeing with the general sentiment that I quoted.

hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 03:21 pm
Quote:
Does Dakota's Marc Jacobs ad deserve to be banned?
Yes! It's inappropriate, given that she's a minor. 46.68%
No, come on! It could have been a lot worse. 53.32%

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/dakota-fanning-perfume-ad-banned-marc-jacobs_n_1083535.html

Quote:
Do you think Fanning's ad is inappropriate?
Yes. 50%


No. 50%


http://www.ontheredcarpet.com/Dakota-Fannings-perfume-ad-banned-in-the-UK-for-being-sexually-provocative---Poll/8425163&rss=rss-kabc-ent_story-8425163
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 03:22 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:

I wasn't responding to the specifics of this ad and model. I am agreeing with the general sentiment that I quoted.


So am I
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 03:28 pm
@hawkeye10,
So I was wrong, Dakota was 17 at the time of the shoot, the bitch is that someone decided that she looked 16.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 06:59 pm
Rapist boy strikes again . . . 15 year olds are only sexual beings in the eyes of horny middle-aged men who would love to plow them. Any sexuality normal to a 15 year old girl is a private matter between her and a young man near her age, which is why laws in the United States have different penalties for statutory rape for a young man within a few years of the age of the girl involved.

This is just more of Rapist Boy's mania for adolescent girls and his ranting frustration that he is not legally free to screw as many as he can impose on.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 08:38 pm
Quote:
Did Dakota Fanning's Perfume Ad Deserve To Be Banned?
Yes, it's gross.
(34%)
No; it's gross, but not gross enough to outweigh the importance of freedom of speech.
(34%)
No, there's nothing wrong with it.
(32.1%)


http://crushable.com/entertainment/dakota-fanning-perfume-ad-banned-too-sexual-884/

I voted "no, there is nothing wrong with it"

Quote:
An ad for Marc Jacobs‘ Oh, Lola! perfume featuring teen actress Dakota Fanning has just been banned in the UK by the Advertising Standards Authority because it appears to sexualize a child. “We considered that the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality,” the ASA said in its ruling. “Because of that, along with her [young] appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offence.”

For their part, the child admirers at perfume maker Coty UK said they had not received any complaints about the ad, that Fanning was not styled to appear underage (the fact that she is actually under 18 aside), and that the ad was “provoking but not indecent.”

Personally, I’m not sure why you would even want to be “provoking” when it comes to sexualizing a kid. From the little pink dress, the flower sticking out of her crotch, and the name of the perfume, it’s clear that the ad was intended to reference Lolita, which, need I remind you, is a book about the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl by a creepy old man who marries her mother in order to get closer to her. (And yes, Fanning looks like she could be 13.) Jacobs even admitted as much to WWD when he said “I knew [Dakota] could be this contemporary Lolita, seductive yet sweet.” Did he and I read the same Lolita? Because the version I read was pretty disturbing. It certainly didn’t make me want to smell like Lolita so that I could attract a rapey old man of my own.

Then, there’s the role Dakota Fanning herself is playing in all of this. It seems like she’s self-consciously pushing the envelope of how sexy she can get how fast, like a high fashion version of Taylor Momsen, and the fashion world is helping her to do so. The fact that a 17-year-old actress can act out some sort of nymphette fetish and a whole bunch of grown-ups will be into it (provided she’s wearing the right clothes), is a testament to just how fucked up the fashion industry is.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 08:40 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Rapist boy strikes again . . . 15 year olds are only sexual beings in the eyes of horny middle-aged men who would love to plow them
Look at the polls clown....I am not even close to being a lone wolf here. In fact, I seem to be very close to being in the majority camp. I will continue to argue for sexual rights for teens and well as freedom of speech, and I expect to be on the winning side before too long. Americans are getting fed up with oppression and blatant bullying coming from government and puritanical do-gooders who think that they have the right to run our lives...

**** that crowd, they can go straight to hell...you can either get on the right side here Set or else join them.
Setanta
 
  5  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2011 06:49 am
@hawkeye10,
You crack me up. It apparently didn't occur to you that the polls (which you allege--you haven't provided a shred of evidence, which is par for the course) reflect the lust of middle aged creeps who would love to plow the 15 year olds.

You aren't arguing for "sexual rights" for teens, you're arguing for open season on teen-aged girls, you're arguing for hebephilia to be legalized. You are starting your "freedom of speech" whine again, i see. Nobody is infringing your freedom of speech, you're just playing your own particular victim card again. You have not been hindered at all in expressing your disgusting and self-serving point of view, you're just being justifiably ridiculed.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2011 08:41 am
@Setanta,
I was going to say something like that, but you beat me to it.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2011 12:12 pm
The Brits have the fever even worse than I suspected...they at the same time banned an other ad because they decided that the models were too thin

Quote:
The second controversial advertisement for the successful Drop Dead Clothing, which targets the young, appeared on its website in June.
The ASA said: ‘We considered that using a noticeably skinny model with visible hip, rib, collar and thigh bones, who wore heavy makeup and was posed in ways that made her body appear thinner, was likely to impress upon that audience that the images were representative of the people who might wear Drop Dead's clothing, and as being something to aspire to.
‘Therefore, while we considered the bikini and denim short images might not cause widespread or serious offence, we concluded they were socially irresponsible.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2059097/Dakota-Fannings-sexually-provocative-perfume-ad-banned.html#ixzz1dKMPzUQm
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2011 12:19 pm
So you think being brainwashed into anorexia is something that teenagers have a "right" to, along with having guys like you jerk off over pictures of them?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2011 12:24 pm
I believe i am correct in saying that the "anti-anorexia" movement with regard to fashion models started with the French and the Italians.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Legal age Now - Question by Jj0912
Proud pedo runs for office - Question by Lash
Podesta Brothers and Madeline McCann - Discussion by gungasnake
childhood signs of a future pedrphile? - Question by manfrom atlantis
You wont believe this! - Question by KrisC68
Was Moses a NUTCASE? - Discussion by jesusBastard
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The UK Puritans Carve another Notch in the Bedpost
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/29/2020 at 12:47:57