Lovelyish

i dont think its that bad… people are just dirty minded. it was obviously not meant to be scandalous

It doesn’t look THAT bad to me. I don’t think it should be banned. But the perfume bottle boner is kind of odd. I wonder what creative genius is behind that one…

Oh, they couldn’t just have found an 18-year-old?  

She is sitting on a bed holding a perfume bottle.  Maybe it would be bawdy if she were licking the bottle.

Even with their description of why the ad is bawdy, I fail to see it.

Honestly I didn’t notice anything wrong. Sure, I guess they could have put the bottle somewhere else but why do people sexualize everything? The bottle isn’t even phallic looking, or anything. I set shit in my lap all the time and do you think anyone ever goes, “OMGAWDSEX?” No. The dress is on the short side but it still looks pretty modest. Her bust isn’t hanging out and the hem is very feminine and sweet. As far as staring “intently” into the camera, that’s sort of what actresses and models do. Should they look sleepy? Confused? Disinterested?

People are full of shit.  

Now, the “inspiration” for the campaign; well, that’s pretty creepy but unless someone had mentioned all that I wouldn’t have it seen it that way at all.

I’m so glad I’m not the only one who really didn’t get it. I was looking and looking and just could not understand why this was “bawdy”. 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the picture; she’s just a girl holding perfume. Nothing is exposed, the bottle isn’t phallic, and there’s nothing really suggestive about it’s placement.

I’m pretty sure the only reason this is a question is because it’s called Oh,Lola! which, admittedly, made me raise my eyebrows… over the fact someone would choose that as a name for a perfume in the first place. I’m assuming the name has more to do with Gothic Lolita fashion than Nabokov’s novel.

Wait. Does no one else see the relevancy of the top of the bottle being a flower? A flower between her legs, as in, a meat flower? Why has no one mentioned this aspect of it?

Even despite this, I don’t think it’s hyper-sexual. Awkward, but nothing to shake heads at.

I don’t think it’s overtly sexual, but it’s obvious that the advertising people for Marc Jacobs knew what they were doing. I don’t think it was an “accident” that the bottle was a giant flower and that it was placed in that spot. Controversy = publicity.

Odd placement but the picture isn’t too ‘scandalous’. 

In the book, the main character often calls Lolita “Lola.” The ad itself isn’t too bad, but the actual name of the perfume is creepy. Especially since, near the end, the main character often cries Lola’s name. The name of the bottle is a cry. Through the reference use on a perfume (which is meant to attract), it is sexualizing girls by making the whole Lola bit attractive. 

The perfume bottle reminds me a lot of the one for Justin Bieber’s pefume Someday. Like, a lot. 

and the picture is kinda creepy. Just sayin’.

Ridiculous.

I think if she looked a bit older, it wouldnt be so “bawdy”? I dont know, she looks like shes 13 here! Kind of strange :T

NON-ISSUE.

Next!

Oh for Christ’s sake.  People need to pull the sticks out of their asses and find more important things to worry about.

Love Dakota and loveeee MJ, she is a bit young but things could be worse. BTW, this is old news. 

Doesn’t banning the ad bring more attention to it? Counterproductive perhaps

But it is an obviously calculated advertisement. I think the reference to Lola/Lolita is what makes it more ‘bawdy’. Also the weird bottle shape and the fact that it’s between her legs. Just get an older girl andthis would be a non-issue

Obviously they have never seen a Marc Jacobs advertisement before this one.

@pianokeysKTbug@xanga - I had the same thoughts too when I saw the perfume’s name. 

That book is quite an interesting read.

really? calvin klein models can roll around naked on top of one another and this is racy?

people need to get their minds out of the gutter.

Honestly, I had to read the article to find out why anyone thought it was racy.

Was her parents signing her up to act in a violent rape scene as a young child too racy? Just saying…

I didn’t even notice that it could be sexually suggestive until it was pointed out. I guess it could be, but it’s not bad.

Whatever. She’s not pretty to me and Marc Jacobs uses weird filters for his ads so she looks worse… so it doesn’t make me want to buy the perfume no matter what she’s doing.

Reading over the comments, though, I can’t believe no one else saw this LOL. The first thing I thought when I saw this ad months ago was, AWK POSE. So yeah lol.

uhhh this even that sexual..

Considering where shes holding it and the fact that it is a flower with ‘oh lalo’ on it is kind of weird. Its not that big a deal though, most advertising is like that

I’m embarrassed to be British.

Well, shit.

This sure throws a wrench in the whole “The US is the only prudish, sexually repressed country in the world” idea, doesn’t it? LOL.

Suggestive or not she isn’t showing anything and she isn’t technically doing anything remotely sexual in the ad. And regardless of whether she is still barely a minor still, she is not a child. I think people are just deliberately trying to find reasons to not like it as usual.

yeah… I personally don’t find it that bad at all. I didn’t until I started reading about what they had to say about it.

doesn’t look THAT bad, but now that they drew attention to it I guess I can see how its very sexual.

also, she’s 17 and is famous for being a child actress, so I guess when people see this they’ll associate with her being a child actress which could lead to the sexualization of children argument.

why do faces need to be on perfume ads anyway? haha just show the bottle and show pictures of the things and the atmosphere they want to create with it and then there’s no problem!

The only thing I see wrong with this is the lighting.

I get why the would be bothered… I mean…the name of the perfume is a derivative of the word Lolita…which is an overly sexualized adolescent. So yeah…the whole ad looks like a giant ad for pedophiles, especially if you know the meaning behind all the symbolism.

Ugh it saddens me to see that so many people have get their panties in a bunch over things like this… no big deal. I know many kids under 17 who give that look… and more…. and more… so this shouldn’t even be a big deal. It’s just the media overreacting, yet again.

>>The book Lolita

>>Oh Lola!>>molesting young girls
All of this can be seen in this ad. In my English classes, we had to think outside the box for a project, and this is what mine was over (the depiction of literature in society). When I saw this, I first thought “DAAAANG, she’s hot. Wait. She’s young. WAIT OH LOLA.”
THEN AGAIN, censorship sucks. What’s wrong with talking about a fictional book of literature, which is highly reveled? 

first impression: she looks like a psycho with her hair like that and the way that she’s staring at the audience while holding the bottle. it seems like she is about to break the perfume bottle over someone’s head and knock them out or a venus fly trap vibe to it

the oh, lola! name is creepy. if someone asks you what perfume you’re using, and you say, “oh, lola!”

@hotteayummy@xanga - Yeah, I got that. The illusion to the female sexuality with the flower topper. But it’s more artistic than bawdy to me. Should they be giving imagery and illusions to the vagina of a minor. Maybe not. But it’s not ban-worthy.

all i see is a girl with a pink dress on with a bottle of perfume. wheres the sex? i think ppl put way too much into these things. but because of all this that bottle will sell like its 10cents and a billion girls around the world will wear that dress to prom.

i think the intent was to sexualize a child because sex sells. other than the bottle between her legs, its okay.
but i feel like it would be more appropriate to place the ad somewhere else. somewhere fun and alive like a 17 year old should be – out of doors, with friends etc.

I think it’s great that the UK is speaking out against ads that send the wrong image. America could stand to follow in the case of Miley Cirus’s strip tease, but then again, America loves jailbait.

I do not, however, think that Dakota’s perfume ad was that racy. Suggestive, yes, but they obviously had her consent and she’s got all of her clothes on. Dakota, even kissing Kristen Stewart (most acknowledgment of orientation happens in the teens) she and Kristen Stewart are WAY better examples for American teens than Miley Cyrus.

Lola, Lolita….?……. At least she wasn’t 14.  

Excuse you, but the sexual relationship starts AFTER he becomes her step father.  

I figured that’s why they thought it was too racy, but Marc Jacobs’ ads are always awkward, and that’s why I like them. I don’t think it was intended to be sexual. 

@Mischief_Skittles@xanga - Yeah, she was 12.

Look at the name – Oh Lola. It’s supposed to have a Lolita vibe.

That’s not racy.. just really awkward o. o

haha…if it was based off of lolita, i dont think appropriate is what they were going for. she will always look 12 to me, irregardless. 

i dont don’t think it looks trashy “Modeling is Modeling”.