• Wed, Jan 30 2013

Dakota Fanning Addresses Banned Perfume Ad, Continues To Dress Like A Sexy Child In Glamour

dakota1Remember when that Marc Jacobs perfume ad featuring Dakota Fanning was banned in the UK for appearing to sexualize a child? I was a little disappointed she didn’t weigh in at the time, as she seems like a smart young lady who thinks at least a little bit about why she does the things she does. Well, in the February issue of Glamour, she finally addresses the controversy…by playing dumb about it.

“Yeah I was!” she said when asked if she was surprised by the controversy. “If you want to read something into a perfume bottle, then I guess you can. But it’s also like, ‘Why are you making it about that, you creep?’ I love Marc and trust him, and we just laughed about it.”

I’m pretty sure Marc Jacobs was the one who made it “about that” when he said she could be “this contemporary Lolita, seductive yet sweet” and placed the universal symbol for female sexuality in between her legs. But no matter, Dakota is 19 now, which means she can take all the sexy pictures she likes!

Only…maybe I am reading too much into this now, but does it seem like she’s still trying to capitalize on the whole “sexy child” thing just a bit? I mean, I get it that a Mickey Mouse shirt can be retro, but I know that if I were a (still very young looking) former child star trying to grow up my image, I might go the Emma Stone route and avoid anything that made me look even younger, no?

Is Dakota Fanning playing up her underage appearance for attention, or am I a creep for making it about that? Look at the pictures and decide for yourself.

Photos: Ellen Von Unwerth for Glamour

Share This Post:
  • Eileen

    My guess is that she didn’t style herself for the shoot and probably didn’t have much choice in what she wore. And she’s probably still under contract with Marc Jacobs and thus doesn’t want to harm her image. AND she’s been a child actor for so long she’s used to listening to and deferring to adults.

    I think it’s kind of nice that she’s willing to admit, in a hypersexualized society, to being not interested in dating right now (or even not seeing the point of dating in general). Not everyone is looking for love or sex at age 19 (or ever, really), and that’s okay.

    • jamiepeck

      I think it’s fine that she doesn’t want to date now. I just feel weird when a magazine thrusts the ass of someone who has probably not made it to second base with anyone yet in my face.

  • Lauren

    I love Dakota Fanning’s blank stare. I have her blank stare. People criticize me all the fucking time about my blank stare. Well guess what! Not everyone needs to show facial emotion to be what society considers “real.” No, I’m not saying I take offense to this article at all, in fact I love the articles of The Gloss. I just feel like defending the whole blank stare issue. In school I was constantly told “Oh my god you’re like SO emo. You like NEV-VAR smi-ullll!” And well, frankly, the girls who told me this were intrigued by their own reflection more than anything else. So keep doing your thing, Dakota Fanning! (Well actually, it’s MY thing, and how dare she take it away from me!)

    • jamiepeck

      You are not an actress, though!

  • Fi

    Wow. She is SO photoshopped in that pic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/amanda.o.almeda Amanda Odom Almeda

    I find none of these sexualized. You can’t even see the curve of a butt… Am i not looking hard enough?

  • Jana

    She looks beautiful, and plenty of grown ups wear Mickey Mouse tshirts. It is so non-sexual, this article is trying to hard to make a stink.

  • Lemona

    You have hit the nail on the head.

    I think your point about the weirdness of sexualizing someone who, by her own admission, has not yet achieved her own sexual agency, is a great point, and one that ought to be made more often about media images that sexualize the young. The Marc Jacobs ad seems more predatory in light of that, doesn’t it?

    And I agree with you that she seems to use the sexy child angle. How could she possibly be unaware of it? She would have to be shuttered from advertising at large.