Is Dakota Fanning Too Young for Cosmo?

by SodaHead Celebs Posted 2012/01/05 20:00:00

Related Topics: Dakota Fanning, Dakota Fanning Cosmo Cover, Cosmo, Cosmopolitan, Cosmo Magazine, Cosmopolitan Magazine

581 votes
Read all 229 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	207 votes	36%
	No	374 votes	64%

It's official: Dakota Fanning is growing up way too fast. First, it was the risque Marc Jacobs perfume ad, which was actually banned in the U.K. for "sexualizing a child." And now, it's the fact that the 17-year-old actress (yes, she's technically still a kid) is on the cover of Cosmopolitan, a very grown-up women's magazine filled with articles on sex, sex -- oh, and more sex.

In fact, the magazine cover she's featured on includes captions such as "His Best Sex Ever" (right by her face, mind you), "Too Naughty to Stay Here: But You Have to Try This Sex Trick" and "Um, Vagina, Are You Okay Down There?" Not exactly appropriate for someone who's not yet legal.

But despite the criticism, Cosmopolitan magazine sticks by their decision of featuring Dakota Fanning on the cover, saying "We’re thrilled to feature Dakota Fanning on the February cover of Cosmopolitan magazine and she looks stunning. Dakota, who turns 18 this month, is a mature, fearless young woman and we are proud to honor her as our Fun Fearless Female of the year..." Sure, Dakota will be 18 during the same month as the mag's release, but it was still shot in her "childhood" days. Do you think Dakota Fanning is still too young for Cosmo magazine?

+14

Add a comment above

I NEED A HORSE 2012/01/06 01:33:56

No

+13
moderated...
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead Celebs

niviongo R ☮ P ☮ 12-20 2012/04/10 12:50:50

No

As soon as you can support yourself with your work, age vanishes.
Is those traditions and laws that prevent humans from advancing further and faster.
They are the "Berlin Wall" of human progress; lets bring that wall down! and get on with being humans.

reply
shadow76 2012/02/19 14:05:29

Yes

she is too young for a lot of things they have her doing. talk about exploited kids.

reply
Moh Al-a 2012/01/17 07:49:20

Yes

I love her so much and I always see her that's cute little girl.
But what to do, people grow up.

reply
Moh Al-a to Moh Al-a 2012/01/17 07:57:28

reply
zombie 2012/01/16 00:32:00

No

nope!

reply
Popanator 2012/01/13 03:43:32
sol 2012/01/11 05:26:57

No

Having her on the cover appeals to young readers and in this day and age the need to learn a few things about sex, rather than just going off and getting pregnant or getting an STD. Cosmo may talk about sex but it also informs a lot on the topic as well.

reply
Requiem 2012/01/10 21:13:07

Yes

I remember her as an adorable little girl. It kinda creeps me out that she's in that Marc Jacobs ad and now on the cover of Cosmo. I think she is being overly sexualized, not just as a child but as a person.

reply
This is W³ 2012/01/10 15:12:16

No

She's all grown up.

reply
viola 2012/01/10 02:38:55 (edited)

Yes

Yes, though, I used to read Cosmo every month at my aunts house when I was age about 13yrs - 20 yrs. I learned a lot of things NOT to do with my life and those were mostly the things they were hyping as things to do.

Sad part is the way they make her up she looks 27 not 17. A lot of growing up and self discovery to do on her part. Hopefully she's smarter then the average child actress and turns out to have more self respect then the other spectacles whose bad behavior headlines.

reply
syl 2012/01/09 22:11:37

No

+1
only because she turned 18 when it was released. The media industry obviously is using younger & younger females to promote. Of course it can lead to perversion. There's so many pedophiles out there, it's insane. It's in very bad taste to put her picture with all of the sex articles this magazine sells. Her parents should have refused.She can make a ton of money doing movies, or other mag. covers, that don't promote the sex issue.

reply
CodeBlonde 2012/01/09 16:12:05

No

If I was 17, beautiful, great personality, respected, famous, & my name was Dakota Fanning, I'd be damned if anyone tried to tell me I couldn't be on a magazine cover.
Just b/c everyone loves her as a little girl doesn't mean she'll stop growing. She's a young woman now & she's owning it tastefully.

reply
neitu.tepano 2012/01/09 04:56:32

Yes

absolutely yes,,, becourse she is too young...........................

reply
stevie.luplow 2012/01/09 04:30:07

No

She is a college student and has had a very grown up life since she was a very young child. She is not a kid.

reply
arya.ecklund 2012/01/08 22:35:06

Yes

That's going to make younger girls who are a fan of Dakota Fanning read that magazine and that is not ok.

reply
sjalan 2012/01/08 20:19:53

No

Beauty is only skin deep and lasts only so long. Maybe there's a reason she was asked to do a cover now. Genes maybe?

reply
KateLenn 2012/01/08 17:17:28

No

No, she is at a turning point, and in Feb she will be 18. We are all use to seeing her as a kid, and things change. Hopefully she stays on a safe and healthy path, so far no major scandles. Good for her!!!

I don't buy Cosmo, nor will this make me.

reply
Blueskys 2012/01/08 09:23:52

No

Girls are mature sexually long before guys. She should be dating men in college, four or five years older than her.
Now is the right time for Cosmo. In a few years shw will likely be married and starting a family.

reply
ruthannhausman 2012/01/08 08:26:54

Yes

+2
But don't put too much blame on Dakota and/or her family, they've succumbed to a lot of temptation. The outrageous thing? That nobody seems to care a whit about this girl's age and the subject matter around her. I am still steaming over this little item, which is pertinent to the subject: Remember Brooke Shields? She was photographed and made into a sex symbol at the age of 16! Remember all that? And to think there are folks who are actually shocked at the number of perverts here in the United States. Duh.

reply
Blueskys to ruthann... 2012/01/08 09:33:32

Whats is wrong with being a sex symbol at 16!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess yiou don't you KNOW women peak around 16-21 in beauty and attractiveness?
And after 30...for most....the glory days are past.

reply
ruthann... to Blueskys 2012/01/08 13:40:31

+1
I didn't say there was anything wrong with a 16-year-old being attractive, blooming out and whatnot. I said being a SEX SYMBOL. Isn't 16, in some states, still under the provisions of statutory rape? Holding up 16-year-old females in the limelight, photographing them as sex bombshells, with their still-baby-smooth skin, sometimes still-developing bodies -- yes, lots of girls don't finish all their "growing up" until they're 17 or 18, didn't you know -- in my mind, at least, is pretty much a dangerous, slippery slope downward to 15, 14, 13, 5.... You got any 16-year-old daughters? How do you like all the adult male attention your little girl's getting, Pops? Better start buying her birth control pills or else it's going to be Grandpops.

reply
viola to ruthann... 2012/01/10 02:43:31 (edited)

I remember there used to be a magazine called Seventeen. That one used to be more interesting, as well as more age appropriate, then the Cosmos I read at my aunt's house.

reply
ruthann... to viola 2012/01/12 02:13:43

Right! You are absolutely right! Thanks for reminding me of that. And I'm glad you understood my meanings.

reply
Josef 2012/01/08 06:55:28

No

She's too young for Grandma Magazine

reply
oros 2012/01/08 05:57:38

No

+2
But it scares me how early innocence seems to be lost these days.

reply
Blueskys to oros 2012/01/08 10:35:54

Compared to where, and when, and what social class?

Family values is primarily a "Socialist" concern, you know.

For just one brief period in American history did the general well being and prosperity of the population, inckuding family values, ethics and morality, really matter to American society and its leaders. That was the New Deal period.

People had value, they were important and scarce human resources to Liberals, and kept fully employed, fed anjd sheltered, and encouraged to form healthy families. Quality Public education provided, and quality Public health and other programs started. Our road and highway system, including all the "Freeways", the Interstates, were built then also.

That was circa 1935-1975.

However, Libertarians identified this concern as "socialist" and threw it out with Nixon and the rest of the bath water.
The New Deal. was overthrown by the Libertarian revolution of Milton Friedman and Rockefeller in 1974.

In other words, No One Gives a Hoot, there is NO Society to protect, we are all on our own,

reply
oros to Blueskys 2012/01/08 12:50:22 (edited)

Family values, personal morality, responsibility decency manners deposed by socialist liberals maybe. Anarchy give up the answer? That is sad is it not what do you think can be done about it?

reply
TheTobyKennedy 2012/01/07 23:30:59

No

+1
B

reply
jessemccartneylover 2012/01/07 20:23:32

No

+1
R u serious she is almost 18 years old she could be a good person to look up to there is no problem with tht she was in grown movies before. people just need to stop tripin she can do whateve she wants.

reply
dSavanna 2012/01/07 19:30:56

No

She turns 18 soon. But I do think she isn't pretty enough... I went to cheer camp with her, and she literally looks like a walking corpse.

reply
KateLenn to dSavanna 2012/01/08 17:21:29

Yes, the lil grey dress doesn't do a thing for her...

reply
Illjwamh 2012/01/07 14:00:00

No

She's been more mature than most "adults" I know for years now already.

reply
Kat Elliott 2012/01/07 12:56:47

Yes

+1
At age 17 I couldn't leave the front door wearing such clothing. It is highly inappropriate.

reply
Arianne 2012/01/07 07:20:06

No

She's nearly legal, not to mention she's not wearing anything too revealing.

reply
Gianni ... to Arianne 2012/01/07 08:09:52

+1
That's pretty revealing. It's not abnormal for America, but you can CLEARLY see the definition of her breasts.

reply
Illjwamh to Gianni ... 2012/01/07 14:00:57

+2
Oh GOD, the horror.

reply
Arianne to Gianni ... 2012/01/07 22:55:50

Then prom dresses some of my year mates wore to our ball was more revealing than this. And most of us were either 16 or 17.

reply
Gianni ... to Arianne 2012/01/12 13:17:07

Sin does not justify sin, and it's sexually immoral to be so self-revealing for profit, just as it's sexually immoral to be so self-revealing to attract under-aged mates.

I don't know what the law is in your country, where do you live?

reply
Arianne to Gianni ... 2012/01/12 20:03:48

I'm in New Zealand, as for revealing: geez the most we see is the outline of her boobs. Her cleavage isn't even well defined in that photo.

Dakota aged gracefully and is approaching 18 without the scandals of people like miley cyrus and other child stars. She seems very well adjusted to me.

The prom dresses some people wore showed a bit of cleavage and a lot of back. Nothing more, and even that was more revealing than this picture.

reply
Tennessee3501 2012/01/07 07:04:00

Yes

+1
The next step will be for Cosmo to start shooting photos in the delivery room after the baby has been powdered with make up and dressed in sexy diapers!

reply