John Lewis and it’s ‘gender relaxed’ ad

That final shot where he drapes himself upside down over the sofa and stares suggestively at the camera is creepy. The more I watch this advert the worse it is. I turned the sound off, just to concentrate on the visuals and it really is sexualised. I wonder how that child felt about doing it. Or how his parents felt about it.
My sons auditioned for theatre back in the day and the rules about parents being around and comfortable with what was going on were pretty strict.

The one from a few years ago with the girl dancer was much more "she's dancing but might accidentally damage something" this one is just disrespectful deliberate damage!

If you wouldn’t mind Weatheronwax and kings.

What do you see when you see the strutting and pouting? And what do you see when this boy is posing against the wall in weak kneed fashion?

Do you have children who do this? What is it exactly that you think they are copying?

Boys will be boys even when they're identifying as girls

Sorry if it's already been mentioned but anyone else find the choice of track "interesting"?

I've always thought the song was about an older woman seducing a teenager and I think that's a pretty common interpretation.

(I've only just now googled to find that Stevie claims it was inspired by the death of John Lennon and her uncle days apart, which makes the song an even odder choice if anything).

Yes. Glitter is actually a problem pollutant and I remember the schools in my area of Sydney starting to discuss not using it or finding alternatives that quickly broke down.

Having huge bowls of it sitting around doesn’t sound responsible .

Glitter. Never to be trusted anywhere

It’s turns up long after it has been banished

The glitter alone would have me putting him up for adoption, let alone the wanton destruction of his sister's property, destroying things around the house and decimating my bedroom.

This wouldn't be gender identity thing for me, this behaviour would send me through the roof.

The colours in the paintbox were red, blue, yellow, orange, pink and teal. Those six colours were chosen as were their places in a palette grabbed by the child. I'll let someone better at maths than me work out the random probability of a teal and pink combination.

I really hope Sappho is right.

But why were there large crockery bowls of glitter on the counter. I mean that's fucking weird

Agreed- I was puzzled by that.

Just seen this. It's a dreadful advert. I'd sum it up as boys will be boys the drag edition.

I think pp are spot on when they say imagine this advert set in anything other than a white, middle class home. Luxury nonsense.

it's so so wrong in absolutely everyway. The sexualisation of a child and the wanton destruction of property while the female sit and watch. How could John Lewis get it so wrong.

At the end he is literally using the colours from the trans flag as war paint on his face.

Definitely no accident.

Nothing in that advert is there by chance.

The use and prominence of these two brand colours on the child's face and in the closing shot is no more accidental than the damage caused by the child in the advert. Decisions were made, approved and signed off. Why not use red and blue? Or green and yellow? Or one of the brand colours but not the other? Adverts are expensive. Choices are made carefully. Nothing in that advert is there by chance.

Totally agree. But I think a mischievous radical feminist had some input. Why make the boy so horrific, selfish and thoughtless unless it was sending a subliminal message about the behaviour of adult equivalents?

I refuse to see how anyone could watch that advert and not see the parallels with trans activists bullying women.

Adverts are expensive. Choices are made carefully. Nothing in that advert is there by chance.
Adverts are expensive but the usual decision behind colour choices is usually something along the lines of “the ceo’s wife’s cousin loves xyz” or “because we had leftovers” or “because it was cheap”. the bigger the company, the more random (its my line of work, there is hardly ever any thought involved)

John Lewis nails gender ideology. Males can behave as badly as they like, as long as they dress up and parody femininity. Actual women and girls are the ones being bullied and left to deal with the mess.

Brilliant!

Also, I know this is a small thing compared to everything else. But why were there large crockery bowls of glitter on the counter. I mean that's fucking weird. I've actually ran children's art classes and I know for a fact that would be a terrible way to use glitter for an art project. At absolute best, the glitter would get ruined by other things falling in it. But realistically, the glitter will get blown and spilled about and can't be used in any practical way. It was also a phenomenal amount of glitter. I wouldn't use that much glitter in months and months of classes with 20+ kids.

"Reggie" could just as easily have picked up two tubes of glitter and flung it everywhere. In fact more easily as in the advert, most of that glitter would just have stayed on his pain covered hands.

Some posters have posted some interesting views about the colours and the damage being done (symbolism for destabilisation) but been deleted.

I'm really not one for over thinking stuff, think cock-ups far outweigh conspiracies and am about as far from a tin foil hatter as you can get. But I'm actually beginning to find the subliminal pushing of this ideology a little scary.

The use and prominence of these two brand colours on the child's face and in the closing shot is no more accidental than the damage caused by the child in the advert. Decisions were made, approved and signed off. Why not use red and blue? Or green and yellow? Or one of the brand colours but not the other?
Adverts are expensive. Choices are made carefully. Nothing in that advert is there by chance.

I've just complained to JL and the ASA.

Well .... let's just see what their Christmas ad is this year...