Actress Gwyneth Paltrow is back to her wellness goddess ways in the newest Goop ad in which she gives herself a vibrator for Christmas.
Throughout the minute-plus ad, the “Iron Man” actress struts around a lavish mansion in various sexy outfits (all Goop products) while smiling mischievously as tongue-in-cheek narration plays.
“The holidays are here. Because they never turn out how you imagine, you must cherish the joy of getting ready,” a narrator says as Paltrow lights a candle and powers up a record player. “First, put on a record to set the mood. Oh yeah. Do everything in slow motion. Make this feeling last.”
After Gwyneth shakes herself up a couple of Martinis, the narrator says “someone’s double-fisting” as she struts through the kitchen with her libations.
“The holidays are work, so don’t be afraid to ask for help with lighting, and food, and style, and hair, and hair, and hair,” the narrator cheekily continues. “Find your favorite look, or eleven of them. Look fabulous in each one, and get super high… In your heels, of course.”
The ad then takes a salacious turn by reminding people to treat themselves to a little self-service, but only after doing “something for others.”
“Do something for others but don’t forget about No. 1,” the narrator says as Paltrow pulls a vibrator from a Christmas stocking and keeps it for herself. “Yes, that is a vibrator.”
The ad finishes with the narrator wishing everyone a “happy holidays from G. Label.” Take a look:
According to People, the commercial stems from the December collection of Goop’s limited-edition fashion line, G. Label. It comes just one month after the wellness empire released its 2019 Holiday Gift Guide, which featured “an array of unconventional and exclusive gift ideas, including a rather risqué option for the bedroom: a $1,350 ‘Restraining Arts Kit’ which the brand assures is ‘bound to please.'”
The gift description billed this “Restraining Arts Kit” as “a beginner’s guide to BDSM,” complete with “DIY restraining straps, to help you, him, or her assume the position.”
Paltrow’s Goop has previously been severely scrutinized by the medical and scientific community for giving people faulty advice.
“When it comes to health tips, the site is full of dodgy information, with unfounded warnings about things that are safe — like bras and sunscreen— and zealous promotion of things with little-to-no proven benefits — like cleanses and vaginal steaming, not to mention various trendy diets. Some of the alternative medicine practices on the site could even be dangerous,” reports Business Insider.
This past July, the actress got slapped with accusations of being an “extortionist” for having people pay $5,700 to attend her wellness summit in London that turned out to be little more than a sales pitch for her company while she allegedly remained absent throughout most of the event.
“One attendee told us that a prominent British guest was so appalled by the aggressive Goop hype that she sent a WhatsApp message to fellow attendees saying, ‘GP [what the Goop community calls Paltrow] is a f ***ing extortionist,’” reported Page Six. “Those at the event this weekend were urged to book rooms through Goop at $1,300 for two nights at the Kimpton Fitzroy London Hotel, but some later discovered that rates that weekend started at $250 a night.”
Goop, however, strongly refuted the claims made in the Page Six article as false, saying they received mostly positive feedback from attendees.
“The overwhelming response to our London Summit was incredibly positive. It should be noted that the actual value of the weekend package was over $8000,” said the full Goop statement. “The cost included a hotel suite (valued at $1600) and a gift bag valued at $3000, among other items. During the event, Gwyneth opened the day, conducted three fireside chats (almost half the day’s panels) and hosted a workout and Q & A the next day.”
“These statements to Page Six are from three attendees (out of 250), and are not representative of the actual response to the event,” the rep added. “The $200/ night hotel room mentioned in the original story was an urban double, and not inclusive of VAT or breakfast, while our guests had the highest category room inclusive of both, hence the discrepancy in price.”