Search Style Sheets: Your Photos, Your Looks

• Follow on Google Plus
• Follow on Pinterest
• Follow @sportsgrid
• Like us on Facebook

• http://www.wordydoodles.com WordyDoodles

  Well. It does kind of hit you over the head– it’s obviously a Lolita reference, it’s obviously meant to make you think of her blooming sexuality, the little girl dress is meant to invoke youth. All she needs are pigtails. But on the other hand, she’s well-known to be of age (or wait- still only 17- maybe still a problem). And she’s more covered up than most in ads. Maybe someone who actually practices 1st amendment law or child porn law can say whether it’d pass the test in the U.S.

  I think it’s cute, but not particularly interesting visually.

• Jani

  I don’t see a problem with it. 

  -Jani
  http://www.funfashionfit.com
  http://www.foottraffic.com

• Kendra

  Um, hello.  Underage girl with a perfume bottle up her crotch.  Totally inappropriate.  What were they thinking?

• http://www.facebook.com/jespurp jessica elizalde

  you know.. i never thought this photo was provocative. thought NEVER crossed my mind. the only thing i thought about was buying this perfume. 

• http://www.facebook.com/jespurp jessica elizalde

  she is just holding in on her lap. could be a puppy.. they would it be inappropriate. no. 

• bozekmm

  17 constitutes a legal adult in many states

• Johnni

  I don’t even think she “looks like under the age of 16″ !?

• Mike b

  this is  funny where was the outcry the way she portrayed cherie currie in the runaways it showed her in a black bra and panties a corset doing drugs wrapping her legs around a guy smoking and cussing this is tame please tell me who is protecting our children from the people who are protecting them

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7Y7PIXLWROGGSDEILDUY5OA7OY Lisa

  She looks like a nasty little girl.

• Diane

  She’s not holding in her lap, she’s holding it between her legs.  It’s got a giant flower on top, obviously a reference to “deflowering” her.  And she may be 17, but she certainly looks like she could be much younger. 

  Look, this was no accident.  Whoever designed this ad knew exactly what they were doing. 

• Damiga522

  You know, if the perverts of the world got off on just this, it would be a great thing. Get off your high horse and stop puting your thoughts into a picture. IT IS JUST A PICTURE. Nothing provocative.

• BenedictXVI

  You perverts should be ashamed of yourself for having dirty thoughts about a picture of a little girl.

• CranstonLamont

  These people gave this two bit add an inordinate amount of free publicity just by flapping their yaps about it . . .

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_67BJLAF4MRAO2AAYV6JBBBTUNY debbie

  OMG GET OVER IT LOOKS LIKE A DAMN PERFUME ADD EVERYBODY WANTS TO TELL EVERYBODY WHAT DO DO I AM SICK OF IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• http://www.facebook.com/rebeccalynncrockett Becca Lynn Crockett

  Is it a tasteful ad? No. Is it a good ad? No? Should it be banned? No.
  If only they had a law against bad advertising…

• Mary

  Oh come on, of course it provocative, and thats exactly what they wanted it to be…its got everybody talking doesn’t it…thats just what they wanted  Do I like it, no,  but the perverts probably will..and its bound to sell alot of perfume, and thats what its all about isn’t it.

• http://www.facebook.com/jespurp jessica elizalde

  really. because its a flower is a “Deflowering”. you must be an idiot. 

• Alanmadlane

  This is how crazy it’s gotten with youth and sex — even though she’s 17, and been in the movie The Runaways, she’s “holding something in her crotch,” and “she looks younger” (she does?!) and jesus christ, the thought police should all just move to Afghanistan.  My god, how far we’ve fallen since the 70s and 80s.  Was it AIDS that started all this sexual backlash, or just what the hell?

• Alanmadlane

  Okay, Pope!

• Diane

  No, not an idiot at all.  Do you really not see that this is an obvious marketing ploy. People get paid a lot of money to create ad campaigns like this.  There is not a single element of this ad that wasn’t thoughtfully planned out.  If you can’t see that….well, lets just say I’M not the idiot here.

• Diane

  You should say that to the people who created the ad.

• Anonymous

  Being a mother, grandmother and about to become great-grandmother, I’m always looking out for sexual exploitation of children.  I missed the boat on this one.  I never saw the movie “Lolita”, so I guess I don’t catch the drift.  I thought it was a cute ad and just assumed the bottle was where it was because it was too heavy to hold in the air.  I see things on TV every day far worse than this that are aimed at children.  For example the current episode of “Glee” that showed both a gay and heteorsexual couple losing their virginity.  I heard about it and am thankful I didn’t see it.  This ad is tame in comparison.

• Tanya

  It’s seriously sleazy, but the gril looks at least 19

• katy

  Good Ad…..No.  Would it interest my girls to buy…….No.  Banned…..No  When I saw this I actually thought of the song “whatever Lola wants Lola gets”.  Was this ad shown anywhere in the states and what was the reaction?

• bonkers in yonkers

  she looks bored and this ad looks boring. there was a perfume ad a few year back that  had two people naked on a swing… facing each other and heads tilted back. NOT A PEEP OUT OF ANY ONE! Iam sure those unknown models were not able to legally drink.  

• jes

  That was too funny. I looked at the ad again and I agree.  It doesn’t look sexy, just like she needs a good meal, a decent nights sleep and a bath.  icky

• IridescentDoll

  Whether its sexualizing a child or not the photo it horrid. It looks like something a kid would have taken not professional in the least.. Urg just a bad photo 

• Jenny73cole

  Actually i dont like the flower on the top of the bottle its just tacky. Stopping at the band would be elegant.

• Caer Raven

  Personally the first things that jumped out at me was the pallid skin, the pathetic expression on the girls face and the fact the dress looks terrible. I see nothing wrong with the pose or the way the bottle is held. Personally I think it looks fine. But of course the creepers are automatically going to sexualize it.

• Tbaskco

  So how would the sweat pants so popular in the states with writing across the butt do with the ads panel?

• Katiemae

  This was obviously designed to be provocative, to raise eyebrows.  It is one of those situations where the media can throw their hands in the air and say, “What?! It’s just a girl with a bottle and a flower!”  The ad devils then sit back and giggle at those who cry ‘perversion’ and continue to push the envelope.  We are the herd, yes a herd of frogs in a bath of water on the stove.  The water is heating slow enough we don’t realize we are being cooked – til it’s too late.  Glub glub glub … croak.

• Jelewe

  that is the biggest bottle of perfume i’ve ever seen.

• Madamjanesu

  You just do NOT read much, that’s why you do NOT get references. Read some damned books, take some sociology classes and gender studies classes. Oh, take lots of science classes too, be a smart woman. Question EVERYTHING, use your brain, think, be analytical. By the way, you do Not need more perfumes than guys just because you happen to be a woman.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7D7FOMW5FN6ESNAH7UJEOGHQI Harry Baung

  Unfortunately, in this capitalist system, businesses use whatever works to sell products. Stimulation of conscious or subconscious sexual ideation and juxtaposing it with the product to be promoted is always one of the most effective ways to sell products. Dakota Fanning could have been nude for all I care with a much more strikingly phallic perfume bottle sticking into her crotch. This society is relatively permissive when it promotes business profits, because materialism (i.e. money and consumerism) is the true religion in this society, even if it isn’t called a religion. Paradoxically, the same people crack down on non-business related sexual phenomena. It’s not about morality or ethics. It’s ultimately about money. Whatever makes great profit will be aggressively encouraged some way some how, no matter how unethical the product or practice. As for Dakota Fanning’s sexualization? Not an issue here.

• Guest

  The pic is ugly. She looks like a cocain addicted on that pic. Just take another model and try again.

• Rhys Gethin

  She looks about 22 and not at all like a child

• Mehere

  I’d ban it because its a cr@ppy photo… not because of anything suggestive or the like.  Looks like uncle Bob took it with an old Kodak Instamatic.

• Dee Wan

  Stinking perfume companies always try to crate a mystique surrounding a buck’s worth of liquid.  Sexualizing an underage-looking model and tying in the Lola/Lolita back story is low standard advertising.  Send these thoughtless provocateurs to an honorable university for retraining.

  PS. Perfume stinks.  It’s not a fragrance – it’s smelly water.

• Mistressofrain

  I see nothing wrong with it. Me and alot of girls I know…and my mom hold cups and stuff like that in between our legs when our hands are busy. I just tough maybe the bottle was to heavy to pick up properly. 

• Bikerk

  Gee, I guess I’m a big dope ’cause I had to keep looking at it to find out what all the flap was about.  Sorry folks, I don’t get it.  Maybe I’m just a light-weight on-the-surface-person, but everything doesn’t have to mean something else.

• guest

  she looks like a 22 yr old crack whore. nothing sexy in this ad thats for sure!

• Maria35

  I am glad there is some editing going on.  I see the twelve year old girls in my son’s class are completely over the top – the principal has been in to talk to them, the teacher, constantly trying to reinforce the pretty lax dress code at their public school but the girls are just imitating what they see in the teen magazines.  This is exactly the kind of advertizing they are responding to.  This ad is for nothing but to make money – there is no other motivation behind it.  Who they mislead or influence whether male or female is irrelevant to Marc Jacobs and his company.  Money is the bottom line.  At some point there has to be a check on it.

• Betrutou

  Jessica insulting you because you did what she did (shared your opinion) confirms a lot about her. I mean this is still America, we do not have to agree with one another but we should respect ones opinion and the right to share that opinion.

• Erin

  Well, to put it in perspective – she IS not an adult, she is only 17, thus making her a child & all you have to ask yourself is would this be innappropriate & sexually exploiting if she were a 15 year old ? How about a 12 year old ? Yes. & Yes. 

  I would never allow my daughters to have a picture this suggestive posted on facebook or online anywhere.  

  They could have made an ad to look sophisticated & sweet or classy, this however is nothing but sleaze – it’s also offensive & degrading to women —we are not objects & this ad suggests just that.

• Aunt B

  I agree. Someone needs to feed that girl. I wouldn’t have even known it was Dakota if they hadn’t have said it was.

• http://www.facebook.com/jespurp jessica elizalde

  IT IS NOT SEXUAL! its a perfume bottle! ITS ON HER LAP. SHE IS NOT EXPOSING HERSELF IN ANY WAY!. 

• Guest

  This is a line of ads that Marc Jacobs is promoting, and yes, they are meant to be sexual.  Take a look at this one if you are not convinced.  
  http://www.styleite.com/retail/marc-jacobs-bang/  It’s Marc Jacobs in the flesh.  When you are finished with that you can read, Sexting:  What every parent should know.  
  http://bry-taylor.blogspot.com/  It gives you a look into the sexuality and consequences of photos such as this one.

• elvergoo

  she’s dressed. so it’s not dirty. but the buttplug shaped perfume bottle is a gray area, that’s for sure

• gossamerwillowfly

  The bottom of the bottle is buried in her crotch, how could it be just sitting in her lap? It is provocative and it disgusted me, not because of her age, everyone knows she’s old enough, but what got me was that if they didnt ban it, it would hang up in chemists and train stations for little girls and boys to oggle while mummy isnt looking, most likely adding to the deluge of sexual images that children accidentally are exposed to and leading to their early exploration of their sexuality. Early exploration=ignorance=teen mums. If you dont think it happens, you must be a hermit with no access to the outside world.

• http://www.facebook.com/people/Elizabeth-Clark/100002015034817 Elizabeth Clark

  The sad thing is that the perfume itself is rather nice. I work at a large department store and my department is right next to cosmetics, so I’m constantly exploring new perfumes when my shift ends. I’ve seen Lola for quite some time there, tested it a few times, but never once seen this add in my store. I’m glad for that now; the sad state of the model would be a huge turn-off for me as a shopper.

• Mazajazarifa

  tasteless

• Mazajazarifa

  lol, i think so 2, a little

• Mazajazarifa

  to misstressofrain-etiquette n charm school classes. How old r u? it is inappropriate 4 a young woman 2 hold anything in between her legs n public, men would certainly b drawn 2 this area. ur mom can do what she wants, shes grown. The rule is knees or ankles 2gether, unless u r an athlete, u may be able 2 get away w that.

• Mazajazarifa

  etiquette n charm school classes. How old r u? it is inappropriate 4 a young woman 2 hold anything in between her legs n public, men would certainly b drawn 2 this area. ur mom can do what she wants, shes grown. The rule is knees or ankles 2gether, unless u r an athlete, u may be able 2 get away w that.

• Penthesilea_ca

  Yeah it does cross a line. No it is obviously not pornography. But the concern was advertising standards not R-rating for movies.
  In regards to advertising standards the message is: DO NOT SELL UNDERAGE GIRLS SEXUALLY. It isn’t right and it isn’t classy. And a fashion house should show class … but sadly given they 14 year old models walking the runways – class is not a current standard in fashion.

• Pentesilea_ca

  If it wasn’t called “Oh, Lola!” – I would still it was a bit creepy, spaced out and starved looking, but it wouldn’t be quite as loaded a message.
  Now Dakota Fanning is a bright girl – why would she market herself as “Lolita.” So superfluous, she actually has talent. Why market pedophilia with the Lolita reference? Beats me.

• guest

  Who cares, obviously it wasn’t banned cause I still see this ad everywhere. It’s only inappropriate if you have a sick mind, she not naked or posing provocatively. Just a girl with perfume get over it and get your head out of the gutter.

• guest

  It’s all about subliminal.  The bad photo (shadow in back of her) looks just as they want it to look – like a young girl who has had someone taking a picture of her as only she or her friends would do with a “Hey….look at me……this is for you”…..look.
  Immature and in bad taste but as the advertisers and marketers know…..they are targeting that age range.

• IceBeam

  Well underage depends on which country you are in

• IceBeam

  Looks like she could be younger? Hah, to me she looks like an old alcoholic in that picture, totally glaced over look.

  Yeah the probably knew something, but what is it you think they knew? That a bunch of people would get totally hysterical and try to have it taken down?

• IceBeam

  Presumably its the religious indoctrination which seems to teach Americans that sex is generally bad. And anything which can even vaguely presumably possibly lead you to think about this. Even though a lot of people would look at that an not think even the slightest thought about sex or anything like that.

• IceBeam

  Well, you contributed nothing worthwhile in your post here. Of course its a marketing campaign – we knew that from reading the article. And?

• IceBeam

  Unless you want to smell nice ;)

• IceBeam

  Whilst its generally know that Americans are a lot more immature for their age (and any age) to say a 17 year old is a child is stupid. And “sexually exploiting” would only be the case if people were being turned on by that – perhaps you are turned on by that, I’m not – its a totally boring picture selling some kind of perfume or whatever -  the only reason it “works” is people like you freak out over something which is mostly indifferent. There are real problems in the world, perhaps people should focus on them instead

• You_gotta_be_kidding _me

  I agree.  She looks fifty in this ad, not 15. 

• You_gotta_be_kidding

  Exactly! I fail to see where she looks YOUNG!  She looks like the 40++ year old trailer trash that used to hang out in my hometown’s bars.

• You_gotta_be_kidding_me

  If any of my three tween daughters showed me a picture of themselves like this, I’d laugh at them, and ask who the heck were they trying to impress?  Why dress like 50 year old “beat” trailer trash, when you can do a very similar shot with cherry red cheeks, flower petals all around, and holding a freshly baked cherry pie in the shape of the fragrance?  Men are horny, hungry, or both.  They’re not attracted to what looks like a used, stale napkin.  If I were her, I’d demand a reshoot — it does _not_ flatter her.  I know it’s supposed to be a Goth or Vampire Lolita, but it fails even at that.  I’d coach my girls on how to do a Goth Lolita pose that would crush this amateur pile of crap excuse for a photo.  Glow in the dark makep and holding/wearing a live gorgeous little brown bat would really take the cake (they are sweet and easy to handle in low light).  If you’re going to be controversial, at least hit it out of the park and flatter your human subject! 

  Bravo to the Brits for banning it … due to simple atrocious poor quality!  Try again!

• You_gotta_be_kidding

  If any of my three tween daughters showed me a picture of themselves like this, I’d laugh at them, and ask who the heck were they trying to impress?  Why dress like 50 year old “beat” trailer trash, when you can do a very similar shot with cherry red cheeks, flower petals all around, and holding a freshly baked cherry pie in the shape of the fragrance?  Men are horny, hungry, or both.  They’re not attracted to what looks like a used, stale napkin.  If I were her, I’d demand a reshoot — it does _not_ flatter her.  I know it’s supposed to be a Goth or Vampire Lolita, but it fails even at that.  I’d coach my girls on how to do a Goth Lolita pose that would crush this amateur pile of crap excuse for a photo.  Glow in the dark makep and holding/wearing a live gorgeous little brown bat would really take the cake (they are sweet and easy to handle in low light).  If you’re going to be controversial, at least hit it out of the park and flatter your human subject! 

  Bravo to the Brits for banning it … due to simple atrocious poor quality!  Try again!

• You_gotta_be_kidding_me

  I simply couldn’t have stated it better.

• You_gotta_be_kidding_me

  Thank you.  I thought this Dusty Rose crap went out with “Sixteen Candles.”

• You_gotta_be_kidding_me

  High Five, Brother!  It makes me think that using this fragrance will make me smell like a used >insert here< ….

• You_gotta_be_kidding_me

  Thank you, I agree!  It doesn’t make me want to buy it.

• Goingundergone

  This photo is hideous :/ couldn’t they have hired a better photogropher and make up artist? I voted it as offensive just because of that. Not that I think it’s sexual: It’s not. My first thought when seeing it was, “what and eyesore.”

• Tkalagayan

  maybe youre an idiot. I have a 17yr old daughter and I would never let her do this ad even though she is just as pretty, just not famous

• guest

  For you to say that a 17yr old is not a child, is completely ignorant and maybe thats why you think its ok to exploit someone under the age of 18 or 21 whatever the case may be at the time. Obviously you’re not a parent because you have no common sense or any decency.

• Minion2012

  I don’t think they banned this ad because it was provocative. I think they banned it (if, in fact, they banned it at all) because it is boring and drab. They spent a lot of money hiring Dakota Fanning, the photographer, the stylists, etc. and the ad turned out to be a total bust. They HAD to create a ruckus about the ad to recoup the loss. I think this whole British banning thing is just a ruse to create more stir. They know that we Americans are nosey and self-righteous and will jump on the bandwagon and our soapbox about any and everything. This “child” was cast in movie roles that were far more sexual and/or provocative than this ad could ever dream to be, yet no one (including the British) cried foul to that. Beauty, along with sexuality, provocativeness, and good taste, is in eyes of the beholder…

  Now let’s get down to the ad itself… The ad is drab and lacks feeling. So I am led to believe that the product, no matter

• Minion2012

  Cont’d – what it is, would be the same. As a woman looking at this ad, there is no selling point. My teen daughter was only interested long enough to see that it was in fact Dakota Fanning. My teen son was like “Mom, really?!! It’s pink! Obviously this has absolutely nothing to do with me or anything I’d be interested in”. My manfriend looked at the ad and surmised “No grown woman would buy that because the bottle is too tacky”. He gave it a little more thought and then came back and said “Besides, it’d be pretty hard to fit in a travel kit.”

  Side note: I LOVE THE DRESS!

• Sensibility

  Alright, Dakota Fanning USUALLY looks younger than seventeen.  But in this photo especially, she looks far OLDER than seventeen.  The point is nonetheless that she IS seventeen, not fifteen, not thirteen, not five.  She IS seventeen.  I just don’t understand how it matters what age she looks if she’s so evidently of an appropriate age.

• Sensibility

  P.S. I agree, that dress is adorable.

• Vikki

  Umm, it’s unnecessarily clutched between her thighs. Duh, it’s inappropriate.

• Vikki

  Exactly.

• Opalexian

  While reading Lolita gave me hives simply because I could not STAND Humbert Humbert (and the ‘hero/protagonist’) I always enjoyed the play with the character Lo’. I mean, look at the movie poster http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1012611-lolita/ The ratings this got…Lo being played by a 16 year old. Kubrick pushing boundaries. Even in the bathing suit scene (released in 1962 mind you) she’s a million times more provocative than this ad. If you dont want to read the book, I don’t blame you. Movies, however…your excuse time is UP with resources like Netflix, Starz, and Amazon/iTunes. Get some culture instead of whining about an ad with an actress that has been acting almost since she was born. Im sure Dakota knows the meaning of ‘exploitation’ a million times more than the average american.

• Chiller

  Yes!!! And We Love It!!!

• Sparrow85

  It is just an ugly add, she looks unwashed, the lighting is awful, her pose makes her body look unflattering and she looks old and washed up, not young and beautiful.