To feel vindicated that John Lewis has pulled its awful ad with the boy in the dress trashing the house?

[Clymene]

I wrote to the ASA and complained. I said the ad was misleading (as into insurance will cover wilful damage), sexist (with a boy rampaging through the house and destroying his mother and sister's things, and sexualised.

I also called John Lewis and told them I hated it and why.

They've withdrawn it.

GOOD

Wait, so now the young actor was playing a young actor that got carried away with their performance?

@FangsForTheMemory

I think you're taking a lot on yourself if YOU feel vindicated, OP!

Well obviously I wasn't the only person who complained

@00100001

Wait, so now the young actor was playing a young actor that got carried away with their performance?

Yep the young actor was playing a young actor shall was acting in a sexualized performance* that got carried away with their performance

*would it be acceptable to have a girl of the same age carry out the moves?

Senior management should have read the complaints.
(Most of them grew up with the milk chocolate flake ad)

would it be acceptable to have a girl of the same age carry out the moves?

What is it with the world that it appears suddenly ok if it is a boy that is carrying out a sexualised dance?

I saw some hideous pictures yesterday on twitter of young male school leavers in a US school performing lap dances for the staff. The world seems to be very wrong at the moment.

would it be acceptable to have a girl of the same age carry out the moves?

No.

I took this to be his performance doing the dance through thing, whatever he was doing

The wording is a bit confusing though, I agree. They could be referring to the actor (i.e. child actor) or the character the child is playing (which supposedly is an actor as well, as it's not clear)

What is it with the world that it appears suddenly ok if it is a boy that is carrying out a sexualised dance?

Good question, Melroses.

or a girl.

And yet, I have seen threads about this ad where posters just cannot see the sexualised moves this boy is making. And I am concerned that those who approved this ad simply cannot understand that those moves were sexualised.

It is like there are some who have become so desensitised to this that they cannot see it or damped down their discomfort because they were told they were 'not getting it' or whatever.

@Melroses

would it be acceptable to have a girl of the same age carry out the moves?

What is it with the world that it appears suddenly ok if it is a boy that is carrying out a sexualised dance?

I saw some hideous pictures yesterday on twitter of young male school leavers in a US school performing lap dances for the staff. The world seems to be very wrong at the moment.

Its old fashioned misogyny and misandry rolled up with the idea that anything goes.

Take the idea that Jo is always on the look open to sexual activity.

Is Jo is a girl she is a slut. Jill is not a slut and must be protected
But if Jo is a boy he is a stud. Jack is not a stud but like all boys he want to be a stud too.

I had heard about the ad but not seen it yet (not in the UK so had to seek it out). It made me feel really uncomfortable but I couldn't explain why . and no, not because of the "boy in dress" thing - or at least, that wouldn't bother me at all normally.
Thank you to all the PPs who have so eloquently explained exactly why this is inappropriate and just the worst kind of pandering wokeness there is.
Good on you OP and everyone else who complained.

I have had a reply from the ASA. They have acknowledged that the FCA considered the ad was misleading. They considered all the other complaints (these are not all things I said, this is the sum of criticisms) and rejected them all.

The ASA Council’s decision

1. Council considered that the purpose of the ad was to deliver a message of joy and, whilst it may appear to some that the child was being destructive, to illustrate that children sometimes get carried away with their play and that accidents can happen as a result of this. Whilst Council acknowledged complainants' concerns about children emulating the behaviour, they noted that Clearcast – the body responsible for pre-clearing TV ads – had applied restrictions on the ad to prevent it being broadcast around programmes commissioned for, principally directed at, or likely to appeal to children under 16. Whilst this did not necessarily mean the ads could not be shown around programming which might attract a wider, family audience, it ensured they were less likely to be seen by children watching alone without supervision. Therefore, given the scheduling restrictions and the overall message of the ad, Council concluded that the ad was unlikely to be seen as irresponsible.
2. Council noted that the ad featured a young boy who had been playing dress up and was seen wearing an oversized dress over his clothing along with a pair of heeled shoes. They also noted that the makeup on his face appeared to be messy and likely to have been applied by a child. Council therefore considered that the way the child was dressed and the use of makeup was unlikely to be seen as being sexualised, but considered that viewers were likely to have perceived the male character as confident and empowered, and to be having fun. Council considered that the ad made no specific reference to his sexual orientation or identified gender. They also considered that the movements and poses made by the child were part of his playful dancing, and it had not been presented in a way that was inappropriate or would be seen as sexualised. Council concluded, therefore, that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence, or be seen as inappropriate or to cause harm.
3. Council acknowledged that both the female characters in the ad did not intervene when various items around the house were either damaged or knocked over, however they considered that their reactions would likely be seen as light hearted bemusement at the boy's dancing and attire rather than being seen as passive or scared of the boy's behaviour. Whilst the boy was shown to knock over what appears to be his sister's paints, he was not depicted as angry or violent, nor did the girl appear to be frightened, and Council considered that the ad was unlikely to suggest that he was bullying the girl. Council therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence on the basis that the ad was sexist, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, or suggestive of bullying or domestic abuse, or that it would be seen as condoning such behaviour.
4. Council noted that the child was seen knocking paints onto the floor and also throwing glitter in the air. They considered that the ad was intended to highlight the joyous feeling children often experience through play and that the very brief scenes in which any wasteful damage was caused were incidental to the overall message of the ad, and were largely accidental. Council considered that there was nothing in the ad that was likely to have been interpreted as a suggestion that unnecessary waste was acceptable behaviour, or that viewers should engage in behaviour prejudicial to the environment. Council therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to have broken the rules for the reasons suggested.

However, we have made the advertiser aware of the further issues that were brought to our attention in case they wish to take on-board the information provided when creating their ads in the future.

I think that 'council' requires some safeguarding training.

Whilst the boy was shown to knock over what appears to be his sister's paints, he was not depicted as angry or violent

He was being aggressive. He looked right at her before he tipped the paints onto the floor. He wasn't laughing or smiling, he wasnt arsing around and accidentally knocked them over, the sister didn't start shouting 'muuuuuuum' and him start running back upstairs to try and avoid his inevitable bollocking from his Mum. Everyone just watched passively as this 'confident and empowered' (oh do fuck off) aggressively trashed everything around him.

. Council acknowledged that both the female characters in the ad did not intervene when various items around the house were either damaged or knocked over, however they considered that their reactions would likely be seen as light hearted bemusement at the boy's dancing and attire rather than being seen as passive or scared of the boy's behaviour.

Who in the name of almighty fuck would view their child trashing the house with 'light hearted bemusement'?

And no, the girl didn't look scared - the character was directed not to.

This is several hundred words where 'we don't give a shit' would do.

@Helleofabore

I think that 'council' requires some safeguarding training.

Agreed.

I also find it very weird that they acknowledged that the ad is unsuitable to be shown during children's programmes when it features children.

Just looked at the ASA council membership. More diverse than I had thought it would be. More women than I thought there might be. I also know one of them ! Would be interesting to know if they act in majority capacity. I also agree re sexualised/stereotyped training - may do some digging as to who trains them. Like maya f asking the judicial college for this info under freedom of info.
Advertising is all pervasive in effect it’s interesting.

I also find it very weird that they acknowledged that the ad is unsuitable to be shown during children's programmes when it features children.

yes.... strange that

The one sentence that particularly sticks out for me in that ASA ruling is:

Council considered that the purpose of the ad was to deliver a message of joy and, whilst it may appear to some that the child was being destructive, to illustrate that children sometimes get carried away with their play and that accidents can happen as a result of this.

Appears to be destructive? He is actually destructive (if there was no damage, or risk of damage, what has this got to do with insurance that is meant to cover damage to your home?). And if a child of mine at that age, threw an umbrella past a sibling's head and hit a vase (among the other acts) I wouldn't be justifying that as getting carried away!

however they considered that their reactions would likely be seen as light hearted bemusement at the boy's dancing and attire rather than being seen as passive or scared of the boy's behaviour.

I cannot think of any situation in real life where a sibling would be ‘bemused’ by this kind of behaviour.

I work in insurance, and accept that the add was misleading on what might be covered by accidental damage. However, IMV the rest of the advert is fine. In 2021, can we not encourage small boys to dress up and be creative? There was nothing sexualised about it, unless you have a very small mind.

@Brainwave89

I work in insurance, and accept that the add was misleading on what might be covered by accidental damage. However, IMV the rest of the advert is fine. In 2021, can we not encourage small boys to dress up and be creative? There was nothing sexualised about it, unless you have a very small mind.

Add?

dress up and be creative? In what ways was he being creative?!

Just looked at the ASA council membership

Bear in mind that the ASA is a self-regulating body. This council are unlikely to rule against one of the largest global advertising agencies which probably contributes hugely to their upkeep

There was nothing sexualised about it, unless you have a very small mind.

All boys pout, strut and slide to the wall do they? That is normal child behaviour in your place? Because if my teen had done this as a eight to ten year old, I’d be worried. Small mind and all?

I work in insurance. I had my suspicions that it would fall foul of the FCA for misrepresenting the cover, but it was the wilful destructiveness and lack of parenting (not the wearing of a dress) that I found unpleasant - although I didn't feel that latter issue was reason to ban the ad, just meant I thought it was misjudged by JL.

The ASA Council seem to need educating.

Anyone can access (mostly) anything on social media. So that ad would be available at least on YouTube if not on Tiktok - so the fact it was shown around 16+ broadcast programming means bugger all - and there are a lot of minors who watch 16+ programming anyway.

Council might consider what message it gave to women even if not physically threatened or frightened that they don't intervene when a male does so many destructive things.

Council also might consider why the ad might suggest "joyous play" was equivalent to doing what the hell you like and what message that gives.

Council might consider whether they can reevaluate their interpretation of "not causing widespread offence" is valid or not.

A little boy dancing down the stairs in his mum's dress and makeup - fine with that. Causing wanton destruction not fine. Mother and sister standing by - not fine - even if they "were not threatened or frightened" (ASA).

@Helleofabore

There was nothing sexualised about it, unless you have a very small mind.

All boys pout, strut and slide to the wall do they? That is normal child behaviour in your place? Because if my teen had done this as a eight to ten year old, I’d be worried. Small mind and all?

I agree with @Helleofabore. And frankly that behaviour would be equally disturbing in a child of either sex.

Inappropriate sexualised behaviour is a red flag for a child being abused - or at least it used to be. Now, apparently, it is a marketing tool and it is entirely normal for a child to pout etc if it is a boy emulating a drag Queen.