It is time, again, to discuss the presence of evil in the hearts of parents. Dakota Fanning is a sad victim of adults whose averice and greed knows no bounds. No new story in Hollywierd - but that doesn't mean you don't take notice. Review Part 1 and Part 2 - then come back to the nightmare today.
Who are these people? The intentional warping of young minds, robbing them of their youth - and for what? Money? Fame? To be invited to the "right" parties - or is it something worse? Something deeper? Something darker? Things we know are true, but cannot make the accusation?
You figure it out. Until then - behold.
A perfume advertisement featuring teen actress Dakota Fanning has been banned on the basis it appeared to ‘sexualise a child’.
The actress is 17, but she looked younger in the magazine ad for ‘Oh Lola!’, where she was sitting on the floor with the perfume bottle between her thighs.
The scent is the creation of U.S fashion designer Marc Jacobs, who said he chose the young actress because she could be a ‘contemporary Lolita’.
...
It is clear that Marc Jacobs intended to exploit the fact that Dakota Fanning looks extremely young for her age.
Speaking recently, the designer said the decision had been inspired by her appearance as a 15-year-old punk rock singer in the coming of age film The Runaways.
‘Dakota was in it, and I knew she could be this contemporary Lolita, seductive yet sweet,’ he said.
LolitaIn Sal's humble opinion - anyone who buys anything by Marc Jacobs is giving money to a ... well .... like I said; you figure it out.featured in the controversial novel by Vladimir Nabokov about a middle-aged man’s sexual obsession for a 12-year-old girl.
13 comments:
Well, my take would be not to buy magazine that publishes such ads - like in , never more.
If "moral majority" is with us, the hurt sales would be enough to beat sense into cash-obsessed admakers. If there is no longer such majority, the world is doomed anyway.
[disclaimer]As a realatively new reader to CDR Sal's blog, I hadn't read the previous stories until now[/disclaimer]
So...
A movie with a child rape scene (explicit or not is irrelevant to the discussion) is acceptable because "it's a story that needs to be told" but an ad with a fully clothed child with a bottle of perfume between her legs isn't because it's sexualizing a child?
That makes total sense.
As a father of a three year old girl, neither situation is appropriate and neither situation has a place in our society. Frankly, it scares the everloving crap out of me to think of the horrible things someone might do to her.
Remember when that story came out about the movie. Everyone was ike WTF.
Truth be told alot of this women cause themselves. Most men dont realise it but women are competative at everything. Especialy at looks. And every damn girl seems to want to look like a 21yr old whore.
Rather have a good women than a sluty girl myself. Most men wake up to this around age 22-24. Seems some dont. Now college girls............
This guy (as far as we know) is just a step away from being in same league as Roman Polanski.
Separately, and slightly off topic, Nabokov was one of the answers on Jeopardy tonight.
This is just the flip side of Sandusky and those like him. It's all about people and their lack of any respect for the innocence of children, a screwed up notion of "celebrity" and what kind of celebrity should be admired, and a society that looks the other way when children are defiled.
Well, we Badgers do eventually catch up with people like him. Evil lies within his heart.
This "Marc David" asshole is in the same book as Michael Jackson and Roman Polananski...won't watch anything they did, nor have anything to do with them except to spit on them...and almost forgot...Jane Fonda.
You gots to know evil when you sees it.
Happy hunting make it slow.
And make it painful. (We all know that pound for pound, badgers can do the most damage of any animal around...)
Mark Jacobs is clearly the only person to ever exploit a girl/woman's looks because she looks younger than her age...
Oh wait... There are multiple industries that are basically centered on doing just this. Cosmetics, Plastic Surgery, Women's Fashion, etc. Have you seen a high school campus in the last 3 decades? For that matter, have you seen a middle school campus of late? Mark Jacobs is hardly on the cutting edge of sexual innuendo. (And somehow, I don't think your threat of boycott is going to materially affect his income, unless your puritanical streak is very recently acquired...)
Certainly some kids (or adults, for that matter) can't handle sexually mature topics. However, there are plenty of 17 (and 16-, and 15-year olds) who can, and do. In my humble opinion, parents should be the gatekeepers of this, along with many other issues that their children face (finances, alcohol, violence, etc., etc.). If dear Ms. Fanning's mother gave her consent in a way that was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and Ms. Fanning herself didn't oppose, I don't see why "society" needs to come to the rescue.
Also, note that the US military, with parental consent, will take a 17 year-old girl or boy and promptly teach them to be warriors. Should we boycott them as well for their "exploitation" and exposure of minors to extraordinarily violent material that some people of that age aren't capable of dealing with?
I enlisted at age 17, and was in a combat zone within a year. I wasn't completely ready for what I walked into, but it was that very shocking exposure to the real world that made me grow up. I don't view it as bad, or evil, or rushed, but rather a sort of formative crucible. Of course, that experience also made me aware of two other things... First, that I was in part fighting for the right of people like Mark Jacob and Vladimir Nabokov to express themselves in ways that make many uncomfortable. Second, that by age 17, most people are capable of making adult decisions such as whether to join the military or whether to participate in a risque photo shoot.
/end rant
Why am I not shocked you "liked" your own comment?
Just a few notes; Mark Jacob isn't expressing himself - he is using a child as a sex object. A real child.
Nabokov was expressing himself in writing a book of fiction.
One uses a real child - the other uses ink and paper.
Well, at least he used the right nick....
One of the themes Nabokov employs in Lolita is the sexualization of American youth, quite a surprising endeavor, considering he first started writing the novel in 1950 (he finally published it, after nearly destroying the manuscript out of fear of misinterpretation, in 1955). Even in the sacchrine 50's, he recognized that our children are too-often exposed to sexual images whgich they, in turn, internalize and mimick without fully understanding the implications of their behavior.
Dolores, the infamous child-prey of the novel, is a victim, not as Jacobs suggests in his interview "seductive yet sweet". In fact, the title character is difficult and frightened, as many children are in similar situations. She knows she is trapped, but what other option is she afforded? Escape is no option; all that remains is compliance, the terrifying realization that her captor exercises control over her both physically and mentally.
What disturbs audiences about the novel is that it is told from the perspective of the pedophile. His prose is seductive and quite often, readers get lost in his web of words and begins to feel sorry for him. That is, until they realize they sympathize with a criminal. Reader instinctively feels disguist with themselves- as well they should. This is what Nabokov intended.
In short, we are, quite frequently, all implicit in the exploitation of children, even if (especially if) we sit back and simply accept the images to which we're exposed on a daily basis.
Marc Jacobs clearly never read Lolita. If he did (provided he could navigate Nabokov's complex prose), he would undoubtedly feel a kinship with the narrator. After all, they both conduct heinous crimes in the prettiest possible way.
Post a Comment