The U.K.'s self-regulatory Advertising Standards Authority just deemed Dakota Fanning's Marc Jacobs Oh, Lola! perfume ad too "sexually provocative" as well as "irresponsible," concluding that the ads were 'likely to cause serious offense' since Fanning is still a minor. She's 17.
I'm looking at the ad and I don't see anything sexually provocative about it...do you?
23 comments:
what a way to advertise! Maybe it scents just like hhhm.
Depends on the perspective these issues are viewed from.. Fine! In my opinion... It is in fact sexually provocative and most people I'm sure would second that.. Some societies however are tolerant towards sexually provocative ads E.G Greece.. One major identifiable factor that should be frowned upon is the fact that she's 17... #smart
Yes. If any man touches you there,wudnt you feel violated? Evev if na play una dey play.
Perfume bottle in her crotch. What? I just wanna wet my whistle.....
These people are sexualising everything and covertly promoting all such of ills like child molestation, paedophilia etc.
to perverted minds,it is.The perfume is right on her...
You only see what you are looking for. I dont see any sexually provocative stuff here (cos maybe i aint looking!)
for being a minor is one issue and putting d perfume n her cunt is another...to me t represents that she's looking for a d**k to push n there, so n d absence of that she's using d perf butt.....wild imaginations....lol
Coca cola and Pepsi had those 'provacateur' rushes with the media who tell us in words what we wouldn't bother to see in pictures. That was in 73 - 74. think d use of a minor and the advert itself could stir controversy that would further advertise the product. Its all a ruse.
pls it is sexually provocative..she is 17 n is still a minor..secondly why must d perfume bottle be placed on dat particular spot???what happened to her hand or other reasonable places...ds people are making it more difficult for parents on d issue of sexuality with their teens. every ad, music, film etc now screams, stimulates provoke,"sexxxxxxxxx"uality. God help us
Hia! This oyinbo people sef! Any small thing na sue don't think there's anything provocative about this,all I see is a lady posing with a bottle of perfume on her crotch.
The motive behind the perfume is adronogy; fusing the male and female organ together. She looks as if she has an erection.
The advert agency loves to pervert every single ad they send out. This technique is called ELUSIVE OBVIOUS (Its there but you can't see it).
Well Linda, have you seen or heard about the movie Lolita? If I remember, I think it's about an underage girl who used to have sex with her step-dad etc.That's what they were trying to recreat here. That's why there's the outcry against this advert.
yes linda, it is indeed very sexually provocative.
one way to know...paste it on Sokoto billboards or show boko haram.
I thought it was Elle Fanning, Dakota's younger sister modelling for Marc Jacobs
Yup, the positioning of the perfume bottle. The fact that there is a hug "flower" as the lid. She's too young.
wat is provocative dere nau, hmmnnn
I do not see any thing sexually provocative about it. If the question was - What is wrong with this picture? Would any one mention sexual provocation? This is one of the many double standards that piss me off about the western world. Girls of 16 years dress provocatively, wear bum shorts that almost expose their crotch around town, smoke, drink openly, do dirty things in all-night clubs and it`s ok. Next thing they start reading meanings into a picture that doesn`t portray any thing sex about it.
A drop of that perfume in that place has to be 100 times better than the usual fish odour ;)
Her posture, length of d dress, position of d perfume.. etc. Jacobs himself also said he used her because he knew she'd be "seductive yet sweet". besides, d advertisers were using lolita as the 'model', and lolita was a story of a child being abused by paedophiles so much so that she as a child, approached paedophiles because she thought sexual abuse by older men was normal. that's what the advertisers were playing on; the normalisation of sexual abuse.
all those factors are taken into consideration. So yes, IMO, it was right to have it axed!
yes it is.
oun ti o da o da.
Well, it is now, apparently. Times have changed it seems
Seriosly??? There ain"t nothing wrong with this photo... It ain't what they say it is......U know people just wanna castigate others for no reason....... Mtcheew!!!
Post a Comment