Dakota Fanning Marc Jacobs ad banned in the UK

By Alexandra Heilbron on November 17, 2011 | 21 Comments

A suggestive ad featuring Dakota Fanning holding a phallic-shaped bottle of Oh Lola! perfume by Marc Jacobs between her legs has been banned in the United Kingdom by the Advertising Standards Authority because they say that although Dakota is 17, “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.” Marc Jacobs admitted he used Dakota in the ads because “I knew she could be this contemporary Lolita, seductive yet sweet.” Dakota and her 13-year-old sister Elle Fanning are managed by their mother, Joy. People are questioning whether Joy is a responsible mother, as both girls just posed for Terry Richardson, whose work has been called pornography and/or soft porn by critics. He has admitted that his sexually explicit photo shoots featuring young models often end up with the girls performing sex acts on him. He said in one interview, “I don’t think I’m a sex addict, but I do have issues.” Joy was first criticized for her parenting skills in 2007, when an online petition demanding the arrest of Joy and the girls’ agent, Cindy Osbrink, circulated, because Dakota, then 12, was allowed to enact a sexually explicit rape scene in the movie Hounddog.

Comments & Discussion

  1. Katie • November 17, 2011 @ 12:20 AM

    Sorry, but that ad’s pretty disgusting. Marc Jacobs should be held accountable, as well as her mother.

  2. Pat • November 17, 2011 @ 8:50 AM

    I’m an old fashioned gal but I don’t see anything wrong with this ad.

  3. David • November 17, 2011 @ 10:42 AM

    There seems to be nothing sacred anymore. Somehow this ad crosses the line for me. Maybe it’s how she is holding the bottle since it is pressing between her legs. The ‘flower’ just adds to that seeing as she looks so young. Not cool. Perhaps the knowledge of this photographer tips the scale.

  4. Jocelyne • November 17, 2011 @ 12:18 PM

    I don’t see anything wrong with the ad. I think that by removing the ad it draws more attention than if nothing was said and done.

  5. jjjones • November 17, 2011 @ 1:01 PM

    If I had seen the ad prior to the controversy, I probably wouldn’t have though anything about it. I tend to agree with Jocelyne in that removing the ad draws more attention to it.

    Now as far as Dakota, I have seen her being interviewed and she is an extremely intelligent person with great insight, so although these situations may be questionable, her mom had some influence in how she has turned out, so maybe it is not as dire as some suspect.

    And with regards to the rape scene in a movie, does anyone remember Jodi Foster playing a hooker at age 12 in a movie. She turned out just fine. The sad thing about that subject matter is it can happen in the real world, so knowledge is sometimes a good thing for our young girls. I say this being a mother of a teenage girl.

  6. Tayderhead • November 17, 2011 @ 2:11 PM

    I’m with Pat & Jocelyne – can’t see a thing wrong with this ad at all. I think ppl are always looking too hard to find something to criticize. When it comes to high profile people and celebs it seems they can do nothing right that someone doesn’t find some kind of fault with it. Pathetic.

  7. Tracy • November 17, 2011 @ 2:57 PM

    phallic-shaped bottle????? where the heck are people looking to find penii shaped like THAT!

  8. Jonathan • November 17, 2011 @ 3:02 PM

    I agree Dakota looks way too young, but how can they say the bottle is “phallic”? It’s too oval.

  9. Dennise • November 17, 2011 @ 3:42 PM

    I was reading this article just now and a male co-worker walked in said “Porn”. (meaning I was looking at porn) A very interesting response to what he saw on my computer screen without having read the article. I think that says it all.

  10. BMaz • November 17, 2011 @ 4:28 PM

    I am a guy and that picture looks sexually suggestive.
    Those of you that don’t see that are probably women.

  11. Dawn • November 17, 2011 @ 4:55 PM

    first I do not see this ad as some are seeing. All see what they want to see I guess. yes I would like to know as well where someone is looking at that bottle and seeing penii shaped. and lastly BMaz it is usually the woman that have a habit of seeing something sexual when it’s not,

  12. Oliva • November 17, 2011 @ 7:46 PM

    When I first saw this, in a magazine for gods sake, I thought it was ok. Then I saw the small details. Like the bottle in between her legs. Im close to her age and I find it horrid. Also, this “pornographic” photographer seems like a PEDOFILE!

  13. So what • November 17, 2011 @ 10:17 PM

    Sexual or not, I don’t see why anyone would buy this perfume based on this ad.

  14. J. • November 18, 2011 @ 12:35 AM

    I don’t see the perfume bottle as being phallic–it’s got a flower on it!

    What is suggestive is Dakota’s gaze and girlie dress. She looks much younger than 17.

    I saw Hounddog and Dakota was fantastic in it. She is an accomplished actress. The film was intense; it depicted a neglected girl who gets raped but rises above it. Quite a role for such a young actress, but she pulled it off. I don’t know if it had any lasting effect on her. I would think it would make her stronger. I’m sure the director took care with her and discussed the storyline with her before filming.

  15. Richele • November 18, 2011 @ 12:16 PM

    I don’t think it is that bad of an ad. I have seen worse do we remember Miley Cirus doing a photo shoot and her back was all bare,that was only a couple years ago.And as for her being 12 years old and acting a rape scene out do people not remember a very young Jodie Foster who played a hooker at a very very young age back in the day.I just think there are people out there that are going to complain about anything now a days that actor’s and actress’s are doing.

  16. Jack • November 18, 2011 @ 12:25 PM

    a pretty girl – a product – people with nothing better 2 do – it’s an ad – there will always be pro & con but u know what – who really gives a buck – ITS AN AD

  17. mayrataylor • November 18, 2011 @ 4:03 PM

    she’s 17? then her make up ages her face way too much. the dress is old fashioned. banned why? the ad doesn’t make her look pretty and the bottle looks funny and like a sex toy in that position.

  18. Nick • November 18, 2011 @ 4:15 PM

    I’m sorry but there is nothing wrong with is photo the only problem with people is if it’s a girl oh they making porn but if it’s a guy in this situation they think nothing of it, she is holding a perfume some people just need to grow up and quite thinking sex or porn first

  19. Deb • November 18, 2011 @ 4:53 PM

    I think it’s all how you look at it. Most women will see it and see a teenager in a pretty dress holding a perfume bottle. Most men see a seductress in a skin coloured dress with a phallic symbol between her legs. This ad isn’t meant for women – it’s meant for men who are attracted to young girls – Lolitas. That’s what Marc Jacobs is saying, although, it’s a strange way to sell perfume to women. I won’t be buying it.

  20. C-Dub • November 19, 2011 @ 10:48 AM

    Ok I did NOT see anything wrong with the ad at all. So, then I started to think is there some sort of deep seeded perversion in my brain that I see it but don’t notice?? So I showed a few people here and hid the title. Not a single person (male or female) said it looked sexual in the slightest.
    Then I started thinking is it because we see tooo many topless jeans ads and someone in the shower naked while their watch is sitting on the counter and it’s a watch ad? Maybe we are all decensitized to it? Either way, this is certainly to all of us I showed this to, a minor add showing a fragrance.
    As for the guy who takes the pics, he’s a pervert and admitting the girls so sexual acts!?! Go after him legally girls.

  21. Bella • November 21, 2011 @ 5:12 PM

    The ad’s not that bad, I’ve seen wayyy worse. But I guess u gotta take into consideration her age and it does kind of look like a pedophile ad the way she’s holding the bottle between her legs! They obviously told her to put the bottle there for a reason.

    It’s not an obviously nasty ad, but just a subtle suggestive message. I don’t think any of you would want your daughters in an ad like that!

Join The Conversation:

Similar Articles

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil worth a watch – Blu-ray review

January 16, 2020 | Leave a Comment

Angelina Jolie livens up the film and brings warmth to her character in Disney’s Maleficent: Mistress of Evil. Click here to read our spoiler-free review.

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil defeats Joker at weekend box office

October 20, 2019 | 3 Comments

This week’s new films Maleficent: Mistress of Evil and Zombieland: Double Tap won over audiences, making their way into the top five at the weekend box office.

Holiday 2018 Gift Guide: Fashion, Style and Beauty

November 30, 2018 | 5 Comments

Our Holiday Gift Guide for Beauty and Style Lovers will help you to help shop for beauty and style mavens. These items will earn you brownie points this season.

 Change Location