Rule # 9!!!

One other thing, I personally don't find Dakota attractive. She's way too skinny and I find girls scary with too much blue in her eyes.

You thereby broke Rule # 9 which is also known as Fanning's Infallibility.

Seriously, skinny??? euh?? well ok, to each their own but me, I wrote to the producers when they wanted to have Mischa Barton put on weight, and she is way past my interest now

I will half-agree on the eyes, though. I personally don't like blue eyes much and prefer other eye colours (though, scary?? well again, to each their own). However I have learned to accept that Hollywood bias in child actresses that they be blue-eyed; and some blue-eyed girls are indeed very cute despite and even partly because of it. But I do agree that Dakota probably loses a bit more than gains

Now

So in conclusion, if the director wanted to show the negative effects of sexual abuse, why show Dakota in panties or lifting her dress in almost all the movie? I don't get that.

I once read an interview with the director of "Irreversible", a very perverse movie, in case you haven't watched it. When asked about its (in)famous 15-minute rape scene which is central to the plot, he replied something like "I always wanted to shoot a rape scene with Monica Bellucci", in context implying that the whole movie was only a pretext to shoot a 15-minute rape scene with Monica Bellucci. I suppose the same thing is at play here: the whole movie is only a pretext to shoot a rape scene with Dakota Fanning.

(Of course, that was, in context, interpreted as a joke on the fact that few people ever were interested in "Irreversible" or knew anything about it beyond the rape scene with Monica Bellucci - which is also the case with "Hounddog" So, there is a chance it was a joke and a chance it was the truth, but either way, "Hounddog" seems to fit the very same pattern)