Who's the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banning from British publications these days? How's darling little Dakota Fanning sound?
Not so little anymore, but just as darling, Dakota Fanning has posed for another shoot with Marc Jacobs. This time, she's the face for Jacobs' new perfume “Oh, Lola!” And the U.K. is not at all impressed with the pose that made the cut. Well, okay. Four people in the U.K. are not at all impressed with the pose that made the cut.
Yeah, that's all it took to get this ad banned. That's how many people complained. Four people.
In the photo, Dakota's sitting comfortably in an adorably girly nude colored dress. She looks as if she just plopped, with no concern for where the back of her skirt ended up. And she's leaning on one arm while staring into your soul through the camera. There's just something about that girl's eyes ... Like she's wise beyond her years.
The point of contention, however, seems to be the giant flower-topped bottle of perfume resting between her thighs. Despite Dakota being over the age of consent in the U.K., the ASA decided this ad is entirely too provocative for a child.
“We understood the model was 17 years old, but we considered she looked under the age of 16 ... Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualize a child. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offense.”
You mean the way censorship is irresponsible and causes serious offense? Oh, wait. We're supposed to be thinking of the children, here, huh?
Not so little anymore, but just as darling, Dakota Fanning has posed for another shoot with Marc Jacobs. This time, she's the face for Jacobs' new perfume “Oh, Lola!” And the U.K. is not at all impressed with the pose that made the cut. Well, okay. Four people in the U.K. are not at all impressed with the pose that made the cut.
Yeah, that's all it took to get this ad banned. That's how many people complained. Four people.
In the photo, Dakota's sitting comfortably in an adorably girly nude colored dress. She looks as if she just plopped, with no concern for where the back of her skirt ended up. And she's leaning on one arm while staring into your soul through the camera. There's just something about that girl's eyes ... Like she's wise beyond her years.
The point of contention, however, seems to be the giant flower-topped bottle of perfume resting between her thighs. Despite Dakota being over the age of consent in the U.K., the ASA decided this ad is entirely too provocative for a child.
“We understood the model was 17 years old, but we considered she looked under the age of 16 ... Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualize a child. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offense.”
You mean the way censorship is irresponsible and causes serious offense? Oh, wait. We're supposed to be thinking of the children, here, huh?