The UK Puritans Carve another Notch in the Bedpost

There is a certain degree of moral panic in the UK at the moment about inappropriate sexualization of children

connected?

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.

We just don't see why kids should be sexualized so big corporations can make money.

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%

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


No. 50%

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

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%)

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.

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

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