Have you seen Reebok's disgusting commercial?

I am never buying any Reebok products ever again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egZZ0rJAPs0

I better watch it again just to make sure WHY I'm outraged...;-)

That link won't let me view the ad without jumping through upteen hoops.

and if they think it is unseemly to show on Utube, how come it is being shown on TV...I don't get it.

http://www.tressugar.com/6294050

I imagine the reason Youtube took it down is because Google is more politically correct than broadcast television.

Can't have enough of those. Well done Reebok.

Welcome to 1955 ... except you couldn't put that on TV in 1955.

"You've come a long way, baby", but I fear we're traveling in a wide loop.

"If you're still calling me baby, we've got a long way to go."

I don't appreciate it but I know younger women tend to be more honest about their sexuality. My daughter will think it's a hoot.

Reebok is almost as bad as Nike when it comes to slave labor. I won't buy either.

Just who do they think they're going to sell to with that sexist POS commercial? They're certainly going to lose nearly every woman customer.

The Stepford types will consider it pornographic and the non Stepford types will be outraged at the sexism.

I don't know who approved this piece of crap, but he can expect to be single handedly responsible for dumping company sales if it ever airs.

saying the same thing about the guys hot ass.....show me some penis on the TeeVee! :P

about the tight buns getting all the attention.

I think a jealous talking camel toe would be a good addition to this campaign.

Get the computer graphics department on it...STAT!

-90% Jimmy

so...? It is a commercial. You see as much or more during the Emmy Awards or even a bra commercial.

Save your outrage for our bribe taking congress critters that have forgotten who they are supposed to be working for.

Besides, commercials are significant reflectors of our society, and outrage is a renewable resource.

What's wrong with protesting a sexist commercial?

And yeah, it's sexist to imply women run so they'll have a hawt body, when it's never implied that men run for any reasons other than ones related to athleticism and fitness.

The day there's an ad with a man running whose goal is that a woman will ogle him, this ad will no longer be sexist.

The problem is not with women being sexy...no one is being "sex-negative" here...the problem is when everything women do is related to how it affects their physical appearance and their sexiness, and the same is not true of men.

Indeed, it does seem as if women have been walking in a circle when it comes to being regarded as anything other than sex objects. These days, if a woman protests women being relegated to being sex-objects, she's accused of being prudish and against sex. *sigh*

The girl in the commercial looks great, but the message is horrible if you consider the crazy things that teenage girls are doing already to try to look hot and get attention.

To those taking issue saying it's not that sexist, yes and no.
It's part of a much bigger problem. So the people seeing the other people here react strongly might not get exactly what's going on.

Listen to this right here before you get alienated by a commercial with a woman's body being showed off, and a completely natural feeling of wanting to be attractive.

All of these things are not uncommon, unlike what the detractors saying "this is not sexist" may have seen from some of the posts here, which indeed make this article sound more exceptional than it is. It's not problematic because it's exceptional, it's problematic because it's typical.

Aesthetic problems:
The woman is shown caring about her looks rather than her health.
And fits into a very certain, alienating aesthetic type that's overrated, and gives many women self esteem issues.
She is fairly hourglass in figure. She has large boobs, a small waist, and aside from the tone behind, a large lower portion.
Basically fitting into the typical "desirable figure".

So it basically puts forth the idea that women's exercise is for aesthetics while men's exercise is for athleticism and health.
It puts forth the idea that women need to care more about looks than men. Which is objectifying. And that losing body fat should be something around the stomach, thighs, and buttocks. Not the breasts, which considering you can't spot fat removal, is likely to happen.

So what we have here is a double standard and an overly promoted aesthetic. That women need to be skinnier to be attractive more than men. That women need to focus on looks, while men do not need to worry as much about being say, skinny. Because men simply need to be a Patriarchal money maker who makes more than a woman, and has a dominant personality. It's semi transphobic, in that it basically over-promotes the extreme female figure. The average woman has a b cup or smaller. This commercial is sort of shoving "bigger is better" in women's faces. There's no implication anywhere that it's okay to have small breast or even that some men like them. And it promotes against women's athleticism with the breast size thing, and the general importance of looks commercial.

Breast attraction is a fetish. And while there's nothing wrong with a fetish, it's pushing women's athleticism and health below the desire to appease what is nothing more than a fetish. Fat removal will also tend to come from the breasts. And focusing on these certain areas, which don't affect standards of womanliness, is unhealthy.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to look good. But it's overrated and over promoted for women. There's nothing wrong with having large boobs, nor being attracted to or preferring them, but aesthetic variation is suppressed from an overarching "bigger is better" mentality.

So what we have is a symptom of a much bigger problem. Not a single, isolated case of people being outraged by a bit of skin.