Oh, Goddamnit, I like Pantene. Such bullshit.

It promises gigantic, perky boobs and stringy hair?

Well obviously, this is a shampoo that you rub on your breasts!

This goes beyond the conundrum of gendered toiletries. Not only does the color, texture, and scent of a bottle of goop somehow directly relate to your extra X chromosome, but...I mean, this looks like something marketed towards men! You must buy it, because sexy sexy sexy! Male and female marketing must now rely on tits? Why?? Oh yeah, I forgot: because all a woman should want in this world is big breasts.

Can someone say photoshop?

Pantene! It's cheaper than a boob job!

I thought that hair ads were supposed to show bright, shiny, impossibly manageable and soft-looking hair you wish was yours? Maybe I'm looking at it in the wrong lighting, but her hair doesn't even look groomed, nevermind shiny or healthy. It looks like she got caught in a heavy wind on her way to work. But I suppose we're not meant to notice that since her breasts are on display...

This has got to be advertising for Latin America. It says Pantene con Pro Vitamins. Also it reminds me of Telemundo.

Ok, maybe it was just me, but when the picture came up the first thing I saw was a prominent set of impossible breasts. I actually WTF-ed out loud to my empty apartment.

Seriously, I'm a fan of boobies, but those remind me more of Barbie than something sexy.

The f-word says, "It may have run with the caption 'Ensure that your hair will be the second thing he will look at.'" They should have said third.

Also, according to comments in the linked page there is a red dot by her left ear with text (visible in a larger version, but still illegible even if you know Spanish) that roughly says "Make sure your hair is the second thing he notices."

Nice. Because that totally justifies the SEX SEX SEX.

brought to you by a male production team:
Creative Directors: Silvio Matos, Leandro Castilho
Art Director: Guy Costa
Copywriter: Silvio Matos
Photographer: Marlos Bakker
Published: April 2008

we need more feminists working in the commercial industry , film industry, new media, etc.

join me, help shift the paradigm.

Use Pantene for full, lustrous breasts!

Wow, clearly I've been using it wrong. If only I'd been told years ago to put pantene on your chest not your hair, I would soooo be a 32FF right now...

"It promises gigantic, perky boobs and stringy hair?"

That was my first thought, too. Geez, I almost wish I bought Pantene so that I could boycott them now, but I don't since their products are crap.

Wow, clearly I've been using it wrong. If only I'd been told years ago to put pantene on your chest not your hair, I would soooo be a 32FF right now...

Her hair doesn't even look nice... this is a bad advertisement from both a marketing and a feminist point of view. Why would anyone buy a hair product that makes your hair look gross and stringy?

Those breasts... weren't there before the photoshopping.

Seriously. If you wanted boobs and hair, you could have done a "Lady Godiva." Use some creativity, people! At least had that hair could have been draping and framing that bosom.

Why... why, why, WHY is the male gaze used to advertise products for the general audience of women? Not all of them are lesbians, you know. Some of them--GASP! Can it be possible?!-- are turned on by men. Men's magazines are covered with women. Women's magazines are covered with women. You'd think that the only humans in this world interested in men were gay men.

Very misleading. I've been using pantene for the past couple of weeks and my boobs DO NOT look like that! But in all seriousness, I thought it was another one of PETA's nasty milk ads until I saw the (very small) product hidden in the right hand corner of the ad. Both PETA and Pantene are ridiculous.

Pantene, hell: this is an ad for Photoshop.

Pantene: Now with extra silicone!

what I love most about these ads is that the two models featured may have different hair colors but they share the exact same pair of breasts. amazing!

I'm with Cactus Wren. They're not advertising the shampoo, they're advertising their digital wares.

I'm...honestly confused, though. How exactly is this supposed to appeal to women? Because that's Pantene's market. Are we just supposed to stare in stunned disbelief at the freakishly gargantuan (and absolutely perfectly round; they have their own unique centers of gravity!) BOOOOOOBS with which we are confronted when we turn the page of the magazine, while some carefully hidden bit of subliminal advertising does its work on our shell-shocked brains?

That's the only POSSIBLE use I can see for this ad.

That's the least realistic pair of knockers I've ever seen, and I've seen plenty. The uncomfortable expression is a nice touch, too.

My brother uses Pantene... I wonder if I should tell him that it'll make him grow giant, plasticine boobage.

On the texture of the hair:

No, it doesn't look good to me either.

BUT, if this ad was made for somewhere that thicker, kinkier hair is the norm, it's possible that thin/stringy hair is desirable, as it aligns more closely with a caucasian stereotype.

So, I'd be curious where this ad is located.

Just looking at that makes my boobs hurt. Yowza.

And damn it, I love Pantene conditioner. Their ads (at least those that I've seen in the US) are usually better than most hair product ads. (Garnier Fructis TV ads come to mind for being both annoying and sexist.)

According to the comments on the page with the ad the small circle goes something like this:
""garanta que el cabello sea la segunda cosa que el va a reparar en usted" (make sure your hair is the second thing he looks at). I can read spanish okay but I can only vaguely make that out. But I'm sure it's there.

Either way...this is the reason I stopped watching TV, reading anything mainstream, etc. etc...Because everywhere I look I see sexist advertising and sexist images. I'm so sick of the dismembered body parts, giant tits, ass shots, and everything else that equates women's bodies with SEX SEX SEX, and USE ME!, I'M A WORTHLESS OBJECT! Ugh, Of course the reason for all this is the fact that the majority of executives in advertising are men...and if in fact a women does dare enter that profession the first thing they do is make sure that she regrets it - a la sexual harassment, less pay for equal work, no hope at any promotions because she didn't go to that business meeting at the strip club, etc. etc.

Can anybody answer me this, though? Why do men hate women so much? Throughout all my years being a feminist it's the one big question I have yet to find an answer to.

I am so disappointed - I've been using Pantene for years now and still have the same cup size as I did when I was fourteen. What have I been doing wrong?
ahhh, as earlier people said maybe but by using it on my hair. And all this time I thought it was a shampoo. Damn am I confused.

meeneecat, I don't think that, in general, men hate women. I think we're all victims of societal beliefs and expectations that have built up over history and are exceedingly difficult to change. Rather than recognizing our beliefs as a product of society, many people truly believe that women (and men) are inherently all the things that patriarchy says they are. It's hard work convincing people that's not true.

This ad is so over the top I really can't get offended;it just strikes me as funny.

Alixana, I wasn't trying to say that ALL men hate women. Obviously I don't think that. And part of this is just me ranting, but all I'm simply asking is why (many, but not all) men seem to hate women so much. Treating women like sex objects, raping, violence, harassing, not treating women like equals or human beings....all of that to me seems to come from a place of hatred. And each time I see a sexist ad like this I'm reminded of that hatred. Inevitably I end up asking myself, why? Why all the hate? Because chance made us different?

The makers of Pantene know sex sells.

Did anyone look at the male pantene ads on that link?

The men are anything but sexually attractive and they have the same nasty, greasy, stringy hair.

I don't see hatred in this ad. I think, as Roland Buckles above me says, that people say "Sex sells" and don't go any further than that. So they draw up a "sexy" ad and throw it out there as a great marketing strategy.

However, I don't think it's acceptable to just say "Sex sells" as if that's just the truth. WHY does sex sell? Why are we using a "sexy" (those boobs are more funny than sexy, imo) woman to sell things to women here? What feelings are we preying on? And is it acceptable to do so? I don't think marketing people ASK those questions, they just say, "Hey, sex sells, let's get some sexy images out there to sell our shampoo."

I rubbed it on my chest, but my boobs still are the same. Damn, I feel cheated. LOL

This ad is so over the top that it borders more on funny than offensive; it's only offensive because it's part of the sexing of everything.

Although, both on this site and another one criticizing it, I noticed people making comments about fake or ugly breasts. Even though the breasts are obviously presented in an over the top fashion and clearly photoshopped with shading, some people are really bordering on irrelevant body criticism.
Don't we dislike this because breasts are being used to sell something, not because of the way those breasts look? There's no need to speculate on whether or not they're real or fake, although some women are proportioned so that they look like that "naturally" in a push up so the speculation is stupid and offensive regardless.

I don't know if many of you see it offensive but I'm a sucker for dark haired brunettes with dark eyes.

I wonder why my wife has these features too. :P

BTW; why are most commenting on her breasts? hehe

Oh goodness...come on already. This is a bad ad- on top of all the stomach churning sexism, her breasts distract from her hair, which is the point of the ad.

The Spanish text actually says "Make certain that your hair is the second things he fixes on you". In other words he's gotten her plastic surgery to fix her breasts and now he should pay to fix her hair. Also known as alter to make her conform.

"I don't see hatred in this ad."

Alixana, I didn't say I saw hatred in this ad per say, but what I think is that hatred is at the root of sexism (racism, ablism, all the ism's and phobias). And so whenever I see anything that portray women as sex objects, yes, I am reminded of the hatred that is at the root of all these -ism's.

And yes, it can be as simple as "sex sells", likely that's what the ad execs were thinking, but the fact is that women are the ones who are always plugged into this equation as a stand in for sex, and there is inherently something wrong with this. Whether or not someone is aware of how their "sexism (or any other ism)" affects someone else, is still not an excuse for said "-ism". Whether or not marketing folk ask themselves the questions you mentioned, it's still not an excuse, they still need to be responsible for the content of their ads, which means we the public should not let them off with a shrug of the shoulders and an "oh, well, sex sells." (again, I'm not saying that you or anyone here are letting them get away with this or are making excuses for them, I'm just saying this stuff in general...since I find I must add contingencies here, because lately people have been extrapolating from my comments with remarks that I didn't actually intend) /Sorry for the rant/

If anyone who wants to check out a cool group that speaks out about advertising; check out anti-capitalist/anti-consumerism group www.adbusters.org I've been reading them for about 10 years now, good stuff concerning marketing, consumerism, and the freedom from all this BS. They have done extensive criticism of the "beauty industry".

Shampoo... for boobies?

Oh. That explains my cup size. I just thought my period was coming on.

In all seriousness, Pantene is a really crappy shampoo anyway. Any woman who buys this pathetic excuse for a beauty product based on this ad deserves a spa treatment complete with a new world and self view.

Those are scary, scary breasts. I'm all for breasts. I have a very pro-breast track record. Those, not so much. But it fits with something it took me a while to figure out.

Advertising thoughts seem to work like this: men see a product associated with a sexy woman. They think, "If I use this product, this sexy woman will want to have sex with me." It's greatly oversimplified and the real reason men end up buying these things is, "I need this product anyway, why not buy the brand that makes me think of boobs/butts/muscle cars/Bruce Campbell?" but for the sake of argument, let's say that men really think, "This beer will get me mucha tail." Meanwhile, a woman sees the same ad for the same product. Does she think, "If I buy this product, some girl will have sex with me?" Well, possibly, I'll grant you. It would explain some things about my ex's shopping habits. But no. The thought that the advertising wizards are trying to implant in her head is this: "If I buy this product, it will make me resemble this girl, and then men will want to have sex with me." Since I do not have a vagina, I can't say whether or not that thought is ever successfully lodged in a lady's brain, but I can say with some confidence that that's why they make ads like this (or rather, why they make ads like this with breasts and hair that look attractive). This will appeal to men and women. A woman sees it and goes, "Damn, I could look like that chick!" and a dude sees it and goes, "Damn, I could score with that chick!"

Obviously this advertisement has nothing really to do with great hair but it does do one thing right. The point of advertisements are to get the reader to remember what they saw and buy the product. And in this advertisement it catches the reader by having the girls boobs pop right out at you. This makes the readers head turn and ask the question "what the hell is this advertising". Then taking a second look at it you realize it is for a shampoo but because of this stupid ad I bet people will not forget it because of how irrelevant it was to the item being advertised. Adn in that way the marketers got what they wanted. For you to remember their product and to focus on it whether you think it is stupid or not.

Ugh.....

How fucking stupid! Gawd, those guys are idiots! Maybe if an all-woman creative team wanted to sell guys briefs we'd show a large ginormouse erect cock sticking out from it? Tha'd sell!

Perfect beings with bowling-ball breasts ... is that what men really want? Does it take a 2D photoshopped thin-necked nothing to sell anything to anyone? As if she didn't eat a whole clove of garlic, almost puke, and then kiss her husband for a few precious minutes at the expense of being late for her classes that day, and her husband didn't mind because he likes garlic and breasts, and might be home from work sort of early tonight if he can swing it--even thought it's like his first real day. That's how little he cares. He may even steal more books.

Perfect beings with bowling-ball breasts ... is that what men really want? Does it take a 2D photoshopped thin-necked nothing to sell anything to anyone? As if she didn't eat a whole clove of garlic, almost puke, and then kiss her husband for a few precious minutes at the expense of being late for her classes that day, and her husband didn't mind because he likes garlic and breasts, and might be home from work sort of early tonight if he can swing it--even thought it's like his first real day. That's how little he cares. He may even steal more books.

Please leave this poor deformed woman alone. How would you like to go through life with a butt on your chest?

@jacktheclerk: Not trying to be rude here, but you went from Photoshopped breasts (this is on topic) to something about a woman eating garlic and her boyfriend stealing books (this, not so much). Huh?

I saw an ad on the bus for a local gym whose slogan was "build a better body" or some such. Their model was lifting a barbell... and leaning forward to show mucho cleavage. Like you can get big boobs in a gym.

I imagine you can get big boobs in a gym. They have those treadmills with internet now. You can get anything on the internet.

Are Pantene finally admitting their shampoo is rubbish?

Jack, since you were wondering what the ladies think, well, I happen to be a girl who is attracted to the same sex, and when I saw this ad I definitely did NOT think "gee if I buy that, this girl will have sex with me". All I saw was beauty standards and objectification. Besides, digitally enhanced women aren't exactly my type.

What I take from this ad is that they assume men will always notice your boobs first, and that you're fine with that, even happy about it, in which case the best your hair can ever do is be the second thing he notices. The Spanish phrase "Make certain that your hair is the second things he fixes on you" probably means "fixes" in terms of "locks eyes on" rather than in the sense of repairing.

It's revolting, though. Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking to be noticed, much less noticed in the way the ad implies, and I feel absolutely violated when a man "notices" my boobs outside the context of an intimate relationship.

so ummm...at first i only saw her from the neck up...and thought "ok, shampoo ad?" and then BAM pantene pro-v boobs.

it's just so unnecessary. i don't even know what to say.

The makers of Pantene know sex sells.

This is intriguing, because I hear that as a response all the time when I ask why a scantily clad woman was used to sell an object or service.

"Sex sells."

Pardon me, but don't you mean naked women sell?

Or did "naked woman" at some point become the definition of "sex"?

If SEX sells, we'd see a lot more two-person images (they'd be kissing, moving toward one another, looking at one another, etc.), suggestive sexiness (that is, not breasts, but - say - a man or a woman DOING something sexy), and so forth.

A woman is not sex. SEX is sex.

Excellent, excellent point, kjt.

What I find...interesting is that the blonde has bigger breasts than the brunette. That's a lot of work for the photoshoppers to go to, when they could have just put the same tits on both of them.

As someone mentioned, there are also two ads with men.

http://adsoftheworld.com/files/images/panteneguy.jpg
http://adsoftheworld.com/files/images/panteneguy2.jpg

A few weird things about these ads:
1) They are English-language ads, while the female ads are Spanish-language.
2) The tagline ("Behind a great man, there is always a woman who uses a great shampoo") is both confusing and sexist. Should women be valued only for their shampoo? Is this guy's hair so pretty because he used his girlfriend's shampoo? Get your own!
3) I do not think these men are compliant with overarching masculine beauty standards (and as I'm not expecting much from that marketing team), so there must be some other motivation for these images.

I just don't get it.

A woman is not sex. SEX is sex.

Repeated for emphasis! Women ARE NOT “sex,” we are human beings.
.
.
.
Oddly, when I buy shampoo, I worry about whether it will clean my hair with out leaving it oily and/or dry. What I don’t worry about when purchasing shampoo is what strange men will think of my hair. I'm at a loss as to why Pantene thinks sexually objectifying women in their ads is a way to get women to buy their products.

Jake N:

The men’s ads also seems to imply that men aren’t capable of buying the right shampoo for their hair. They are just too dumb for that…that’s what women are for! Gah! I am sooo tired of the media presenting men as too stupid to butter toast.

Ok, I know this comment is from a long ways up, but I still have to bring it back up again.

@Kat: You said "There's no need to speculate on whether or not they're real or fake, although some women are proportioned so that they look like that "naturally" in a push up so the speculation is stupid and offensive regardless." You also said "ome people are really bordering on irrelevant body criticism."

I am growing frustrated with feminists who say things like this. Yeah, feminism is all for the subjuctivity of beauty, and we shouldn't knock anyone's knockers. But you know what? I don't think fake boobs are ever pretty. Ever. That is not anti-feminist. That is a recognition that the real thing is always preferable to a fabricated attempt at duplicating an ideal. And sorry, the boobs in this ad are definitely fake. Most certainly. I don't know a single person with real boobs that look like that.

And as for "sex sells," I'm with Shelby and kjt. Boobs are boobs, not sex.

Also, about that "make sure your hair is the second thing he looks at" note.

Ok, so it's pretty clear that your boobs are the first thing. So where does your face fit in? I'm guessing somewhere around seventh, after boobs, hair, ass, legs, belly and outfit. I want my face to stand out more than my greasy Pantene-coated hair, thank you very much.

"Gah! I am sooo tired of the media presenting men as too stupid to butter toast. "

.....and women as their mummys!

Sent Procter & Gamble an email expressing my dismay with regard to this ad. Ditto Pantene. This kind of advertising pisses me off to the Nth degree. I like the Pantene products, too, but no more shall I purchase them.

"I am growing frustrated with feminists who say things like this."

I'm sorry. What exactly frustrated you about my statement? What kind of statements frustrate you? You're being a little general. You can criticize implants, but people who criticize implants "cause they're ugly" make a biased non argument. As has been pointed out on this site before in posts about weight, complaining that the media has ridiculous standards for female bodies is one thing, complaining that those standards are wrong because they're "ugly" or "real" women don't look like that is another, stupid, irrelevant and useless thing.
My point was that instead of focusing on the larger problems with this ad, many people were focusing on the irrelevant point of what type of breasts are they personally consider attractive. If your problem with this ad is that breasts are the focus, then it is irrelevant to add that you don't even think they're attractive breasts. Honestly, that almost negates the point. People weren't even criticizing that having those breasts held up as a standard is unrealistic and unfair, they were merely criticizing them based on their own personal preference.

Like, ya know, you just did.

Wait...that women has hair?

Kat,

I apologize. I misread your comment. I re-read it and realized that your point was that we should be criticizing the visibility and not the quality of the breasts, and I agree with you on that. So I guess I did misinterpret you.

However, I still defend the other comments that criticized the breasts for their fakeness. Whether or not they're pretty is completely subjective, and you're right on that. When people call her boobs "ugly," they are making a judgment and not an informed opinion.

But to me, it's a little different than the discussion in another post on "real" women and beauty, which is I think what you're referring to. That post was referring to women who are naturally thin that get criticized for not being "real" women. And those women have every right to be considered as "real" as those of us who aren't skinny. But this woman's breasts are artificially augmented (both surgically and, I imagine, digitally). Hence, it can't be even remotely be called "real" beauty. You're right that it might be beauty, and that's up to the onlooker to decide for him/herself, but this woman and/or the advertisers decided her realness wasn't pretty enough, for whatever reason, so they used fakeness to make herself prettier. That is not "real" beauty. It is the exact opposite.

I know I can't speak for all feminists, but included in most contemporary feminist theory is a call to arms for women to reclaim natural beauty. So in criticizing an ad that negates the concept of natural beauty, I think it's perfectly acceptable for feminists to re-define beauty as something real and silicone-free. I think it's still perfectly acceptable as feminists to say that fake boobs are unattractive. Fake boobs represent everything patriarchal in the beauty and entertainment industry today. Even though that wasn't the point of the OP, I see no harm in different elements of feminist theory overlapping in the same thread.

Again, though, I wholeheartedly apologize for initially misinterpreting you, and for maybe stating my opposition to your point a little offensively.

Welp, I guess I'm not buying Pantene anymore, not like that's a big loss. The no-name shampooo I was using before did a better job than Pantene shampoo and conditioner...

Pantene gives you boobs...