Does This Ad Sexualise Children?

This ad is the print campaign for Marc Jacobs perfume Oh Lola!, starring 17-year-old actress Dakota Fanning and it has just been banned in the UK for being in breach of the UK's code of ethics.

The Herald Sun reported on Saturday that the ad which has been running for months in magazines, may also be banned here in Australia.

Australian watchdog has received complaints about the content of the ad and Australian Advertising Standards Bureau spokeswoman Sari Mattila told the Herald Sun "Complaints about the ad focused on the age of the girl in the ad and the sexual overtones of the image."

Child advocate Melinda Tankard Reist told the Herald Sun the ad should be banned. "Lola is the nickname given by the paedophile Humbert Humbert for Lolita in the novel Lolita. The perfume bottle acts as a phallic symbol, suggesting possible penetration."

I'll be honest, when I first saw the ad I questioned where the bottle was placed but nothing more. Fanning is in a pretty, granted, short dress with hardly any make-up on. She's not made up to look years older then she is, but shone in her natural, beautiful state.

I hope the name has nothing to do with Vladimir Nabokov title character because then the choice of representative and ad takes on a very dark undertone. Is Fanning been taken advantage of here? Does this ad sexualise children? Do you find this ad offensive?

Which is more offensive: Fannings ad, or this UK Vogue shoot: the "model" is 10. Do you even take offense to it?

How about this little beauty for your baby (and yes, this is a baby sized t-shirt)

Should Fanning's ad be cancelled in Australia? Do you find the t-shirt above amusing? Is it all just Australia becoming so PC that we've all lost perspective? Or should t-shirts and photoshoots like the ones above be left on the scrap of paper they were created on?

Stepping off the box and handing the megaphone to you.