[eridius]

My first thought was the author didn't understand the point of the video, but reading the next paragraph showed that he absolutely did. He's saying he was extremely uncomfortable watching the video, but this is what women have to deal with all the time. As uncomfortable as that video makes him, the original Robin Thicke video is just as bad for women (editorializing here: it's probably worse for women, because of the rape implications).

[russelluresti]

Can you explain why men should feel uncomfortable with that video?

I'm a man, and I watched it, and felt zero feelings of discomfort about toned men in revealing underwear and junk. If anything, the absurdity of it all was pretty entertaining.

So what, exactly, should men feel uncomfortable about here?

[alukima]

If it could be explained the world would be a far better place.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. So we have to rely on empathy when we hear people different than ourselves say something makes them uncomfortable.

[mcphage]

I think at some point, his reaction is more about him than the video or culture at large.

[moocowduckquack]

He's saying he was extremely uncomfortable watching the video, but this is what women have to deal with all the time.

I understand that, but am just remarking that the video just seems like a camp pastiche of a pop song with some men in glittery pants rather than an example of something particularly outlandish. The original seems pretty sleazy and fairly rubbish, but as far as sleazy music videos go it is definitely on the tame end of the scale.

It does make me wonder if the author is actually just expressing a form of puritanism here.

[eridius]

I hope that the author was exaggerating when he talked about being so uncomfortable with the parody video that he couldn't keep watching.

However, you're looking at the wrong thing with the original video. Yes, the video itself is pretty tame. The problem with Blurred Lines is the lyrics.