The fact that there’s a woman in an ad doesn’t in and of itself constitute sexism.

I found this spot through a link about the Vonn Watch/SI gripe, and being a recent paintball enthusiast who happens to like JT equipment followed through to this article and decided to comment.
I am guessing that your grad student is not obtaining a degree in any subject related to advertising as she might have known that attractive people of either sex are almost exclusively used to represent companies in their efforts to sell products. This is because of one-reason-only. “Attractive people attract your attention to the advertising copy because they are ‘attractive-to-look-at’”. That is why the JT sporting equipment company advertisers hired the young woman pictured to represent their client. To them it made better fiscal sense to hire her over the typical customer, i. e., a 200 lb bearded hunter who also likes to play “weekend warrior” in the woods with a paintball marker.
In the broader sense the previous comment includes ALL advertising media in general for the same reason, and to be fair the same thing goes for men as it does for women. GQ does not publish pictures of fat slobs in flannel and dirty jeans advertising F150 pick-ups even though one could find many driving them. The simple answer is this: SEX SELLS. Subliminal advertising is illegal in this country because it works too. Strategically placing the letters S-E-X in the three ice cubes of a cold drink are enough to boost sales by a significant margin. Its a simple fact of advertising. The really sad thing is that some people just don’t get it and assume that ALL such media are meant to be nothing more than a means to satisfy the sexual interests of the (EXCLUSIVELY) male viewers, as if they themselves were immune from such influence or desire, which is far from the truth. Why else would you be able to find magazines with conflicting articles similar in many ways to this: “Men Are Nothing But PIGS!” and “Here’s How To Attract Yours”. The defense rests.