Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

503 replies

Clymene · 27/10/2021 18:42

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They've withdrawn it.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

To feel vindicated that John Lewis has pulled its awful ad with the boy in the dress trashing the house?
OP posts:
Piapiano · 31/10/2021 12:34

If I acted like that in front of one of DH's single friends do you think that would be appropriate? Even if I was just having a bit of fun? No. It would be received as a sexual advance.

Piapiano · 31/10/2021 12:38

@Benjispruce5

I’m referring to your previous comment. I think you may have some issues around sexualisation but don’t project them into others.
Its really telling when someone's argument breaks down and they turn to a personal attack. Someone pointing out sexual behaviour in a child does not mean they have "issues around sexualisation". 😆

If you're a teacher I am genuinely concerned from a safeguarding point of view that you can't see that this is sexualised behaviour. And worse, that when people point it out you dig in your heels and refuse to accept the possibility that you might be wrong. It doesn't bode well for the safety of our children.

Helleofabore · 31/10/2021 12:43

I think you may have some issues around sexualisation but don’t project them into others.

I am quite comfortable with my own interpretation of this ad. The entire point of this thread is the interpretation of this ad.

And if this came across my desk for approval, I would have not approved it for the reasons I stately clearly pages back. I also would never put my brand into a position that even a hint of sexual inappropriateness with children was being read into my brand.

Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it is not there or relevant.

Benjispruce5 · 31/10/2021 12:47

It’s not a personal attack. Some posters won’t accept that others don’t see sexualisation in this ad. I find it odd that they do.

Benjispruce5 · 31/10/2021 12:51

If a boy dressed up in a dress during play and dances about, what exactly do you suggest is wrong with that? “Jack, you must not dress up like a girl and dance around expressing yourself too much, it’s not right. You must dress up like a nurse and act in a quiet, caring way which is more suited to women.” Better?

Helleofabore · 31/10/2021 12:53

If a boy dressed up in a dress during play and dances about, what exactly do you suggest is wrong with that? “Jack, you must not dress up like a girl and dance around expressing yourself too much, it’s not right. You must dress up like a nurse and act in a quiet, caring way which is more suited to women.” Better?

You really don’t get it, do you?

SolasAnla · 31/10/2021 12:54

Benjispruce5 are you saying that the character is copying the actions of his mother?

The dress, heels, makeup are what Mum always wears.
It's not sexy just what Glam Mum wears.

He copying by wrecked room and pulling feathers out of something in an otherwise tidy house.

Copying by throwing shoes at light fittings, but this is playing Glam Mum.

By draging dirt down banister while pouting, checking himself out in a mirror because this how Glam Mum walks through her tidy hall.

Glam Mum also knocks pictures to announce her arrival in on the tidy ground.

He is copying by taking an umbrella out of basket turning with 'look at me now' movements to sister, by looking at her before throwing it at the objects on the shelf beside her in an otherwise tidy house.

Glam Mum always starts by making a winner posture before pointing at her daughter, and pulling her paint onto the floor in an otherwise tidy house.

He is copying by painting the captured liquid on his face because that what all the Glam Mums do.

By going to the kitchen and taging the cupboard in an otherwise tidy house.

By pointedly ignoring Mum's physical location (who is taking a break from her baking), by bashing the pot, knocking the cup, and throwing the glitter in an tidy but in-use kitchen.

Yet none of his movements had a sexual element but if they did it's ok because he is copying the normal behaviours of Glam Mums

Benjispruce5 · 31/10/2021 12:55

I have said repeatedly I disagree with the trashing just that I don’t find it sexual. Repeat,

Benjispruce5 · 31/10/2021 12:56

@Helleofabore you really are!

SolasAnla · 31/10/2021 13:05

@Clymene

People poison their puppies??!
Yes because if a vet is not involved they need a vet bill / vet visit to activate the insurance.

On the phone call. It you informed the FCA that an employee mis-sold by saying the damage is covered JL would have to investigate.
The sale script training or computer generated answer should have resulted in a not covered answer or hold while I check with my manager.

SolasAnla · 31/10/2021 13:09

@Benjispruce5

I have said repeatedly I disagree with the trashing just that I don’t find it sexual. Repeat,
Did you see any indications that the character was copying an aggressive / abusive / violent parent?
MurielSpriggs · 31/10/2021 13:13

I've only just watched the advert, but I must say I liked it!

Helleofabore · 31/10/2021 13:24

[quote Benjispruce5]@Helleofabore you really are![/quote]
I really am what?

Piapiano · 31/10/2021 15:20

How is it not a personal attack to tell someone they have "issues with sexualisation" that they are projecting onto others?

Also, he's not just "dancing about". He's pulling sexualised poses, facial expressions and strutting in a sexualised way. That's without going into the trashing of his sister's stuff and deliberately damaging the house.

As I said, I find it worrying that a teacher would dismiss this behaviour as dancing about. Don't teachers get training in red flag behaviours for possible safeguarding concerns?

Helleofabore · 31/10/2021 15:22

I assume this was directed at me so I will answer it.

If a boy dressed up in a dress during play and dances about, what exactly do you suggest is wrong with that?

Nothing at all. Unless he is doing moves that are suggestive of sexually provocative moves he has copied from somewhere, or has been shown how to do by someone. I believe safeguarding procedures do consider if a child acts out or says something sexually suggestive what may be going on in that child's life to assess if there is potentially an issue.

“Jack, you must not dress up like a girl and dance around expressing yourself too much, it’s not right. You must dress up like a nurse and act in a quiet, caring way which is more suited to women.” Better?

This is completely irrelevant to any point that I have been making. It seems like you have been not been reading what I have been posting.

If you wrote "Jack, you must not dress up and dance around like you are copying a 'glam mum's apparently stereotypical moves' or any sexualised style of dance because that is inappropriate for your age and is NOT something that should be on national TV in an ad", that would probably sum up my posts.

VanGoghsDog · 31/10/2021 15:44

The point, surely, is that "Jack" would not have seen such sexual behaviour in order to copy it unless he was exposed to inappropriate adult activity.

If you see a child behaving like this it probably means they've been exposed in a way that should set off safeguarding concerns.

Piapiano · 31/10/2021 16:23

Exactly. And worrying that a teacher is totally blind to this.

Cronezone · 31/10/2021 16:29

Which bit is sexual? That vague pout to camera?

ColinTheKoala · 31/10/2021 16:45

And if this came across my desk for approval, I would have not approved it for the reasons I stately clearly pages back. I also would never put my brand into a position that even a hint of sexual inappropriateness with children was being read into my brand

I find it really odd that this got off the drawing board. If it had come across my desk for approval I would have given five or six reasons why I wouldn't. All I can think is that their advisers were so woke they were so caught up with how lovely it is to have a boy in a dress they ignored all the other issues. Wood and trees comes to mind.

And yes a pout is sexually provocative (and deeply unpleasant) so that would have been one of my reasons. I thought we'd moved on from all the duck pouts from a few years ago.

Cronezone · 31/10/2021 17:01

What duck pouts a few years ago?

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 31/10/2021 17:12

I'm another one who thinks the boy's dance style mimicked sexualized moves. It was utterly inappropriate for a child. There are plenty of ways he could have danced exuberantly in a dress and make up that didn't involve pouting etc. If a 9 year old is familiar with the more sexualised moves that would be worrying. If an adult thought it was appropriate to film a child making those moves then it is a lot worse. Unless they had a lot of cameras all over the house and a lot of luck this was not a spontaneous explosion of activity. The shots were chosen by an adult to convey a message - the child actor was probably totally unaware of the implications of what he was being asked to do but the adults weren't.

I think some very big questions need to be asked about the whole decision making process.

Helleofabore · 31/10/2021 17:15

Wood and trees comes to mind.

I did think this Colin.

Helleofabore · 31/10/2021 17:17

@Cronezone

What duck pouts a few years ago?
Are you saying that duck pouts are still a thing? Or you don’t know what duck pouts are?
Quarks69 · 31/10/2021 22:29

What if a girl played the main part, and pouted like the boy did, in front of her dad and brother, at such a young age?

That would clearly be sexualised behaviour.

Why are the rules on trans children any different?

Rhannion · 31/10/2021 22:35

When it comes to that advert someone had been watched too much Ru Paul.