Dodgers' Alex Call blasts controversial Sydney Sweeney ad

[u/_HGCenty]

https://www.thebiglead.com/dodgers-alex-call-sydney-sweeney-novig-commercial-soft-porn/

Since the last post about this got deleted because it contained a X screenshot, hopefully this one actually stays for comment.

[u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

It seems like Call doesn’t care so much that the ad is advertising gambling and just doesn’t like that it features a woman without enough clothing on.

[u/JellyBearJam → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

Because he is talking about watching tv with a young kid. For gambling, I hate that too but young men are the ones most vulnerable to gambling. My kids are young adults now but yes, when they were younger (elementary age or younger) I really hated the seeing the suggestive ads if they were watching.

[u/Three_Froggy_Problem → u/JellyBearJam]

Gambling is inevitably going to become a larger problem as these ads become increasingly prevalent. All of this serves to introduce children to the concept early and to normalize it. One single ad is not going to make a 9-year-old child decide to start taking up gambling, but a few years of having gambling promoted at every opportunity will turn a lot of young people into addicts.

[u/JellyBearJam → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

I assure you I am not pro-gambling ads but in this instance, as a parent I would be worried at the more immediate problem. He has a 3-year-old (around there).

[u/Three_Froggy_Problem → u/JellyBearJam]

How is a three year old going to be harmed by seeing a woman’s body? That kid was just recently staring down the barrel of a titty every single day.

[u/wokenupbybacon → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

over half his lifetime ago before his memory developed he was, yeah. By that age you are much more cognitively functional but have no memory or concept of breastfeeding; seeing a woman without clothes on would likely stick out as strange and possibly prompt questions. And also possibly not. So would a naked man. The overt sexuality of the ad would go over their heads, though.

Things aren't so black and white that everything you'd prefer not to have on a screen in front of your kid is because it's actively harmful. There definitely is an age range where it's plenty easy enough to handwave what she's talking about - you kind of need enough context to even understand the subject is gambling to begin with, since it's one of those "prediction markets" that's doing the whole simile and wink thing - but the way she and her body are being presented front and center stick out as something you're not used to.

[u/JellyBearJam → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

You are comparing breastfeeding to seeing naked bodies on tv as a young kid? If you want that for your young kids, have at it. He and I disagree with you. (BTW, just like gambling, seeing sexualized content on tv too often, too early can lead to problems too but somehow me spending my morning posting studies is not going to make a difference to you so I’m not going to waste my time.). I agree with Alex on this one.

[u/AerieElectrical3546 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

that IS a problem though, there’s no reason for advertisements that run on “family friendly” sporting events to be so sexualized.

[u/EmuMan10 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

The funny part is that it’s censored on the mlb broadcasts. The actual ad is even worse lol

[u/AerieElectrical3546 → u/EmuMan10]

yikes. even this censored version is uncomfortable with kids in the room 😬

[u/chrisghrobot → u/AerieElectrical3546]

The billboard version in New York is actually insane lol

[u/pickleparty16 → u/EmuMan10]

Gross. Where is this uncensored version? I want to make sure I dont watch it

[u/dhcp138 → u/pickleparty16]

just watch the movie the voyeur

[u/alien_believer_42 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

Gambling isn’t family friendly, so the mlb already decided they don’t care

[u/IowaGolfGuy322 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

Yeah, it was a bit awkward watching the afternoon White Sox playoffs games with my kids or on a second screen at work and that shit pops up.

[u/ElephantCares → u/AerieElectrical3546]

And it's not just about 'family friendly' or being just 'scantily clad'. This isn't that. You used the right word. "Sexualized". It's so overly sexualized that it's certainly not appropriate for people watching with their kids, (not that I have any but I do have a conscience about how others might feel about it), but MLB seems to have forgotten that a lot of fans are women.

That ad is so unbelievably offensive to women it's not even funny. Too bad MLB doesn't have the same conscience about how women might feel about it, just as I can understand how parents might feel about it, even though I'm not one.

[u/PvtSherlockObvious → u/ElephantCares]

Exactly. If a kid happens to see tits incidentally in a movie, then fine, whatever, a kid sees tits. I understand how people might take issue, but I'm not going to make a big thing of it on its own. The way it's presented here, though, it just makes me ashamed that we haven't gotten better and less exploitative than this as a society.

[u/Hour_Health_4593 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

Got it, my “family friendly” gambling addict ads will put Sydney Sweeney in a Turtleneck

[u/bv310 → u/Hour_Health_4593]

It is the most tactical garment

[u/krollAY → u/bv310]

You mean the black ones? Or the slightly darker black?

[u/TrapperJean → u/krollAY]

Tactleneck

[u/JDiggle69 → u/TrapperJean]

https://giphy.com/gifs/10w8u98RYSMFvW

[u/PostIronicPosadist → u/JDiggle69]

Ah Archer, one of the more unfortunate things that ISIS killed.

[u/Hollow_Rant → u/bv310]

But do we make her wear a black turtleneck or a...slightly blacker turtleneck?

[u/Microwave1213 → u/Hour_Health_4593]

So what, nobody is allowed to point out one problem becuse another problem also exists? 

Let’s put it this way: one of these ads is a lot more attention grabbing and harder to explain to an 8 year old. I’ll let you guess which one that is. 

[u/Reevoo12 → u/Microwave1213]

Yeah I agree. it's easy enough to say to my kid "don't listen to those idiots, gambling is dumb". Wtf am I supposed to say to him about the naked woman? The best I've come up with is "that was weird. Why was she naked?" Neither of us had an answer.

[u/cman1098 → u/Microwave1213]

Gambling way worse than nudity. Wtf are you on, I want some.

[u/Microwave1213 → u/cman1098]

I think what you should actually want is better reading comprehension skills. 

I’m not saying that gambling is worse than nudity. I’m saying that an ad that features nudity is more likely to catch the attention of young children. 

[u/cman1098 → u/Microwave1213]

And nudity is a human experience. Gambling is not. Nudity is much easier to explain than gambling. I disagree with your premise completely. 8 year olds move on easily. Normalizing nudity much less of a big deal than normalizing gambling. And that 8 year old is getting indoctrinated whether he or she realizes it or not.

You are saying nudity is worse to have in ads than gambling, not to mention she is covered scantily so she isn't nude.

She is wearing sports equipment as clothes; isn't that funny? How hard is that to say.

[u/T_Stebbins → u/cman1098]

nudity in isolation is, sure. But just blatant nudity in the services of making people gawk at your sports gambling ad is to me, disgusting. It's not tasteful, or artistic or human at all, it's just the most caveman way of getting people to look at the tv. And I think that's part of the revulsion to the ad. If you want people to pay attention to your ad, try a little bit and make it funny or interesting instead of just haha look at these big tits

[u/K20BB5 → u/cman1098]

Learn to read bozo 

[u/cman1098 → u/K20BB5]

Learn to parent scrub lord.

[u/pickleparty16 → u/Microwave1213]

The gambling one is much more problematic than tits.

[u/Microwave1213 → u/pickleparty16]

Okay, you’re allowed to think that. It doesn’t really change anything that I said though. 

[u/pickleparty16 → u/Microwave1213]

I think nudity is easier to explain than gambling. You can think its much harder, and that's your opinion.

[u/Reevoo12 → u/pickleparty16]

For me it's not nudity in general that's hard to explain. It's the sexualization being used to promote something...which also happens to be gambling in this case so I guess we don't even have to choose!

[u/kemmack → u/Microwave1213]

You’re insane if you think gambling isn’t more of a problem with young men right now

[u/Microwave1213 → u/kemmack]

Okay let’s agree that you’re right. 

We can also agree that a naked Sydney Sweeney is a lot more attention grabbing than a standard gambling ad, yes?

So then we should all be able to agree that hyper sexualized ads that steer young men toward gambling is even worse than a standard gambling ad, no?

[u/fatcowxlivee → u/Microwave1213]

Nah don’t do that. The statement about the gambling ad featuring a half naked woman is called out for having a half naked woman.

Aka it’s signaling “hey my kids are okay seeing gambling, but I draw the line at boobs!”

So if Novak or whatever their name is pulls Sydney Sweeney from the ad and shows a normal gambling ad then Call won’t have a problem.

That’s where the problem is.

I’m not even mad at Call I’m moreso mad that barely any athlete, especially those with kids, have called out the degenerate gambling ads by Draftkings and the likes for most of this decade.

[u/Wombizzle → u/Hour_Health_4593]

I mean, if my only options are a gambling ad with a fully naked chick vs a gambling ad with a fully clothed chick, I'm probably going with the latter. And this is coming from someone who thinks sydney is one of the physically hottest women alive

[u/Drew602 → u/Hour_Health_4593]

Why are you guys so disingenuous when it comes to gambling?

[u/ObiJuanKinobo → u/Drew602]

How is nudity more harmful to the general public than gambling promotion? Especially to young impressionable kids who see LeBron talking about it and think “wow gambling is so cool”

[u/K20BB5 → u/ObiJuanKinobo]

Who made that claim? 

[u/ObiJuanKinobo → u/K20BB5]

That guy insinuated it is disingenuous to call gambling worse than nudity

[u/randyrectem → u/Hour_Health_4593]

I mean I'd assume gambling isn't exactly favored by a lot of people critical of the ad but let's be real we know these leagues are not going to distance themselves from gambling for the foreseeable future. I don't find it unreasonable to say if we're forced to have this predatory gambling advertisement 10 times a game can it at least not feature soft core pornography?

[u/maxweb1 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

i don't know if i agree or disagree but commercials for "war dot guv" with a billion machine guns in the latest 1984-Is-Real push for peace through war nobody seems <pardon the pun> up in arms about, smh.

TL;DR: I don't trust anyone that would rather see a gun than a body part.

[u/Hereforthehotdogs → u/AerieElectrical3546]

theres no reason to have GAMBLING in family friendly sports events but the MLB gargles that one all day

[u/Miguelpaco → u/Hereforthehotdogs]

For real, there's no reason why my 8 year old should be asking me, unprompted, if I do draft kings, because "it looks cool"

[u/mrdannyg21 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

You’re not wrong, though it seems incomplete for him to complain about sexualized adds, scary movies, ED pills but leave off gambling.

[u/the_urban_juror → u/mrdannyg21]

You and I probably agree overall on gambling advertisements (ban them), but the difference is the imagery. The young kid who'd have nightmares because of a horror movie commercial is not the same kid that you need to talk to about a gambling commercial. The impact is different, even if one causes more actual societal harm.

[u/AerieElectrical3546 → u/mrdannyg21]

gambling is bad, but, imo, you shouldn’t have to provide an exhaustive list of reasons to not like something (especially when it’s blatantly harmful)

[u/KirbyBucketts → u/AerieElectrical3546]

When you're a professional athlete, yes, you should. It's tone deaf and doesn't address the actual problem with these ads. It just diverts the conversation away from the actual disease that's being promoted by the league and its athletes.

[u/Hereforthehotdogs → u/AerieElectrical3546]

you should have a fucking brain to understand which ones is the worst.

[u/lasercupcakes → u/mrdannyg21]

I mean really he should have gone even further and complained about why we're even being served ads in the first place. In fact he should have also commented on the injustice of many fans not being able to afford to go to playoff games and having to watch on TV instead. In fact he should have gone even further and talked about how badly inflation is affecting the everyday man.

/s

[u/EggplantAlpinism → u/lasercupcakes]

The real Bolshevik revolution was the dodgers we hated along the way

[u/Delicious-Item6376 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

Yes because the real danger we should protect our children from is naked women and not predatory gambling companies who want to make your kids lifelong addicts.

[u/SadNYSportsFan-11209 → u/Delicious-Item6376]

Both are bad and gambling ads should be completely banned

[u/AerieElectrical3546 → u/SadNYSportsFan-11209]

agree 100%.

[u/Beautiful-Jello-37 → u/SadNYSportsFan-11209]

Naked women are bad?

[u/SadNYSportsFan-11209 → u/Beautiful-Jello-37]

Jesus Christ. Redditors gonna goon

[u/AerieElectrical3546 → u/Delicious-Item6376]

both things are bad! “naked” is different from “deliberately provocative” though.

maybe i’m a bit of a prude, but i don’t see why such sexualized content is acceptable to show to children.

[u/AideDisastrous8432 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

I'm not a prude by any means but the ad in question is just straight up softcore porn

[u/ThirdPoliceman → u/AerieElectrical3546]

A large number of redditors like the idea that sex and nudity is okay, but other things should be censored.

The idea that parents might not want their children seeing naked women on an advertisement is lost on them.

[u/PvtSherlockObvious → u/ThirdPoliceman]

I don't mind sex and nudity so much, it's the blatant and shameless use of it as the selling point that bothers me. Maybe it's naive of me to think we'd gotten better as a society than to use such utterly pointless "sex sells," but it feels so flagrantly exploitative that it's just shameful. It's less "I don't want my kids to see tits" and more "I don't want my daughter to see how we regard women as a culture."

[u/ThirdPoliceman → u/PvtSherlockObvious]

Exactly. I almost feel worse having my daughter see it than my son.

[u/Scientific_Methods → u/PvtSherlockObvious]

Exactly. Bodies are nothing to be ashamed of. But exploiting sexualization to sell something completely unrelated is not what I want my kids to see.

[u/pencil-pencil-pencil → u/PvtSherlockObvious]

That last sentence is such a fucking banger, well said

[u/Heathcliff_Slocumb → u/ThirdPoliceman]

Don't most children see tits daily?

[u/ThirdPoliceman → u/Heathcliff_Slocumb]

Ones with parents that don’t care about them.

Also, there’s a big difference between a six-year-old and a 16-year-old.

[u/Heathcliff_Slocumb → u/ThirdPoliceman]

You seem like an absolute moron.

[u/ThirdPoliceman → u/Heathcliff_Slocumb]

Coming from someone who thinks kids “look at tits everyday”, I’m not too worried about your opinion lmao

[u/Heathcliff_Slocumb → u/ThirdPoliceman]

Kids suck on tits everyday. You are from Texas and likely a backwards ass person so I'm glad you don't worry about my opinion.

[u/spicyorangedragon → u/AerieElectrical3546]

I mean, there are a lot of parents that enjoy taking their young sons to Hooters and watching their eyes pop when the waitresses walk by. I have always found that to be an inappropriate sexualization of children.

[u/PostMatureBaby → u/AerieElectrical3546]

because we can't find any magazines in the woods anymore

[u/K20BB5 → u/Delicious-Item6376]

naked =/= sexualized. Using porn addictions to sell gambling ads is bad and that should not have to be clarified 

[u/MassholeSST → u/K20BB5]

naked =/= sexualized.

Look at the Avatar movies. A bunch of the characters in those movies wear next to nothing, but it doesn't feel gratuitous or overly sexualized.

[u/spicyorangedragon → u/Delicious-Item6376]

Honestly, both. Children should not be exposed to obscene nudity. It's developmentally inappropriate and disturbing.

[u/Three_Froggy_Problem → u/AerieElectrical3546]

Complaining that a gambling ad is not “family friendly” because there’s a scantily clad woman in it is kind of funny. It’s like if you saw a woman in a bikini stuffing anthrax into a mailbox and your immediate thought was, “That woman needs to put some clothes on! There are children around!”

[u/AerieElectrical3546 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

i agree of course, both the message behind and the sexuality of the ad are concerning.

[u/wegandi → u/AerieElectrical3546]

Horseshoe theory from progressive to puritan. Kind of on point with the team flair.

[u/NoBear2 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

I don’t think you understand the point of an analogy. You literally just changed one aspect of the situation and made it worse. A scantily clad woman advertising gambling is apparently the same as a scantily clad woman attempting murder.

I hate how normalized gambling is too, but these scenarios are wildly different.

[u/Ladybug_Fuckfest → u/NoBear2]

Analogies are often hyperbolic to drive home a point or simply to make people laugh. I don't think the commenter was actually implying that gambling is the equivalent of terrorism.

[u/NoBear2 → u/Ladybug_Fuckfest]

But it’s not driving home a point. The whole point revolves around the hyperbole. I’m sure he doesn’t think that gambling is the equivalent of terrorism, but his argument relies on that being the case

[u/K20BB5 → u/Ladybug_Fuckfest]

that's not how analogies work, that's just how children argue online. 

[u/IntenseCedar → u/NoBear2]

Someone here definitely doesn't understand the point of an analogy, I'll give you that.

[u/K20BB5 → u/IntenseCedar]

the Internet has fucked your understanding of reality and literacy 

[u/zoobrix → u/NoBear2]

Do you understand the point of hyperbole to make an argument clearer? Gambling ads are bad in of themsleves and a scantily clad woman is not the main problem, just like their example of the anthrax where who cares what the person whose doing it is wearing cause that's not the issue.

Promoting gambling in the first place is way more problematic than how they went about it with a scantily clad spokesperson.

[u/NoBear2 → u/zoobrix]

But gambling is not bad enough to not allow advertising it (at least not in society’s eyes). The analogy doesn’t make things clearer. It’s just a strawman.

It’s like saying I should be mad at an advertisement for prescription medicine because I would be mad at an ad for killing children.

[u/zoobrix → u/NoBear2]

But gambling is not bad enough to not allow advertising it (at least not in society’s eyes).

Lots of people disagree with that however, I think all vice ads should be banned. People know alcohol and gambling exist, we don't need to glorify them and promote them even if they are legal. For instance so many countries have banned tobacco advertising, fast forward a decade or two and advertising gambling might be illegal as well.

And it wasn't too long ago sports gambling was illegal in many places. You can decide to legalize to take that money out of the hands of gangs and bookies, that doesn't mean you have to permit it being advertised. And just because it's allowed doesn't mean much in terms of what society thinks as acceptable. There are lots of things that all kinds of people think should be legal but aren't, and vice versa where many people think something should be illegal but isn't.

I'm sure lots of people don't care about gambling ads but you can't say just because it's legal it's got some stamp of approval from the majority of people, governments are out of step with what a society wants all the time, and of course not all people will ever agree on something.

[u/K20BB5 → u/zoobrix]

Do you understand that's how children and morons argue? It's insane how bad basic literacy has gotten 

[u/K20BB5 → u/NoBear2]

the replies to your comment say a whole lot about how poor literacy has gotten, this is what happens when people have more interaction online than in real life. 

[u/KirbyBucketts → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

Yeah, sometimes I see these highly upvoted comments and wonder if I'm in bizarro world. Kids seeing a sexy woman for 30 seconds isn't a pimple on the ass compared to the cancer of professional sports profiting from gambling.

[u/Ratbelly76 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

Both can not be ideal.

[u/xlxcx → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

As a female sports fan, the gambling ads are ridiculous. But a naked woman on tv using balls to cover her breasts while clearly trying to be seductive during a family friendly event is a completely separate issue and in this current climate should be called out. Just because it could be worse doesn't mean we should have to tolerate it

[u/AerieElectrical3546 → u/xlxcx]

exactly 👏

[u/thingsorfreedom → u/AerieElectrical3546]

This is America- Massive violence in movies and TV? fine. Gambling ads everywhere? Fine. Show a nipple for 0.5 seconds on national TV? Massive controversy.

[u/ZealousWolf1994 → u/thingsorfreedom]

Beer commercials during these "family friendly" sporting events too.

[u/pickleparty16 → u/ZealousWolf1994]

Dick pills too

[u/K20BB5 → u/thingsorfreedom]

you have a porn addition if you think that ad was normal or reasonable 

[u/thingsorfreedom → u/K20BB5]

You have a torture porn addiction if you think all the horror movie ads are normal or reasonable to show during football games kids are watching.

[u/K20BB5 → u/thingsorfreedom]

Good thing I didn't say anything about horror movie ads. 

There's online resources available for porn addictions 

[u/thingsorfreedom → u/K20BB5]

There's no online resources for torture porn addiction.

So, lets ban the one ad that has you up in arms from anything but late night TV and also ban the hundreds of horror movie ads that scare the hell out of little kids trying to watch TV during the day.

[u/K20BB5 → u/thingsorfreedom]

you're like a crazy homeless person having a conversation with themself. Get help

[u/thingsorfreedom → u/K20BB5]

I proposed banning both from daytime tv. You have nothing but personal insults for me. That's just weak. Defending your position is novel concept but try it sometime.

[u/Educational_Skill736 → u/thingsorfreedom]

The difference is I know beforehand if a specific show will be violent, and I can prevent my kids from watching it. That's different from getting ambushed by commercials I don't want them watching during a baseball game.

[u/thingsorfreedom → u/Educational_Skill736]

Horror movie commercials. Same thing.

[u/Heathcliff_Slocumb → u/thingsorfreedom]

Yea this thread is outrageous with the pearl clutching.

[u/Hovie1 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

Oh there's a perfectly good reason - she's making them a shit load of money. That's going to trump any argument against the ads, unfortunately.

[u/xTomato72 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

Gambling is better for kids than boobs, everyone is saying this /s

[u/egospiers → u/AerieElectrical3546]

They used to run cigarette, beer and booze ads nonstop… what is this weird nostalgia for a time that didn’t exist?

[u/grubas → u/AerieElectrical3546]

I'm not a prude, I just legit hate the braindead pandering.  

Like the Megan Fox ad isn't great, but it's not just some topless chick saying Sports in an attempt to appeal to the lowest common moron.

[u/MakeItTrizzle → u/AerieElectrical3546]

"Oh no, titties!" is such a profoundly stupid and American take

[u/DegenerateWaves → u/MakeItTrizzle]

It's so dumb American brained. OTOH if you wanted to be more nuanced, I'd say it definitely objectifies women. Like Sydney Sweeney isn't "reclaiming" her body in that ad; she's using it to shill a shitty gambling app to a predominantly male audience.

[u/MakeItTrizzle → u/DegenerateWaves]

She can do whatever she wants with her body, shilling gambling apps is absolutely shitty though.

More kids will be harmed by gambling than by tits over the course of their lives and it's not even close.

[u/K20BB5 → u/MakeItTrizzle]

Fentanyl kills more people than Gambling and it's not even close. 

[u/MakeItTrizzle → u/K20BB5]

Oh shit I missed the part where I said gambling was worse than drug overdoses.

Can you point me to the part where I wrote that? Thanks.

[u/Shock_city → u/MakeItTrizzle]

pretending the saturation of media with sexualized content hasn't impacted society or kids is such a profoundly stupid take.

[u/MakeItTrizzle → u/Shock_city]

Sex in media is probably the least damaging thing for kids in media in 2026 unless you're a puritanical weirdo

[u/cman1098 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

It's as family friendly as gambling.

[u/This_Elk_1460 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

Grow up, I'm far more worried about kids getting hooked on gambling than seeing some titties.

[u/NoSkillZone31 → u/This_Elk_1460]

The problem is using titties to hook kids on gambling.

[u/K20BB5 → u/NoSkillZone31]

absolutely insane how many people can't understand such a simple point 

[u/This_Elk_1460 → u/NoSkillZone31]

Yeah but he's more offended by tits, that's my point.

[u/K20BB5 → u/This_Elk_1460]

and that offends you? 

[u/AerieElectrical3546 → u/This_Elk_1460]

i’m offended at what the ad is advertising (gambling), AND the way it’s presented (hypersexualized nonsense)

[u/pyramidswrong → u/This_Elk_1460]

À la Kate Upton

[u/octopusbarber → u/This_Elk_1460]

Found the guy with no kids

[u/Traditional_Half842 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

They're nationally televising an execution. It's not even overly sexual, it's more just some skin/nudity (unless you think all forms of nudity are inherently sexual). I also don't see how sex is a bigger problem than gambling/drinking.

[u/AerieElectrical3546 → u/Traditional_Half842]

it’s absolutely created to be provocative lol.

i have no plans to watch the execution, televising it is such a strange decision. definitely does not feel right.

[u/Unclesam1313 → u/Traditional_Half842]

You live in a different reality if you think that commercial isn’t overtly sexual. There are absolutely non-sexual forms of nudity, but that ain’t it

[u/Traditional_Half842 → u/Unclesam1313]

Is ESPN The Body Issue sexual? How is this ad at all different?

[u/Unclesam1313 → u/Traditional_Half842]

For one, it’s being broadcast 80 times in the middle of a baseball game rather than being contained to a dedicated medium which one can simply not give their children access to.

But also like… it’s obviously and specifically advertising their product using the sex appeal of the famously sexy woman who is known for and has built her career largely on sexy nudity in media that is explicitly depicting sex. Like come the fuck on, there’s no way you’re actually so obtuse as to not see the difference between that and tasteful photography of athletes.

[u/shookMD → u/Traditional_Half842]

Of course it is. Do you think people buy it because they just appreciate human bodies on an aesthetic level? Folks are horny.

[u/Cameldiarrhea420 → u/Traditional_Half842]

It is overly sexual though. Taking away the skin she is showing, the way she is posing, talking, walking, absolutely every single thing about her in the commercial is pure sexual objectification. That's the entire ad.

[u/Traditional_Half842 → u/Cameldiarrhea420]

So if a person is attractive then their nudity is always sexual? Or is any nudity for any person always sexual?

[u/Cameldiarrhea420 → u/Traditional_Half842]

No... Have you watched the ad? What are you even trying to say? If they are not using her sexuality to sell whatever it is they are selling then what exactly are they doing, because I'm confused what point you even think you are trying to make l.

[u/Shock_city → u/Traditional_Half842]

Ask yourself why Sydney Sweeney was cast in this role and why they had her take off her clothes for it. Then see if you can come up with any answer that doesn't involve sex.

[u/PostMatureBaby → u/Traditional_Half842]

I think America and Canada don't really have much of a leg to stand on debating this, we're too fucked up with the puritanical nonsense around nudity.

Let Scandinavia or someone else from a nation that isnt as screwed up w nudity weigh in here.

[u/redditlvlanalysis → u/Traditional_Half842]

The ad in question is absolutely sexual lol that said all of that crap is an issue

[u/Clipgang1629 → u/Traditional_Half842]

It’s not lol our society is puritan as fuck.

Much more comfortable with violence than it is even modest nudity. Gambling and alcohol ads are much more damaging

[u/PostMatureBaby → u/Clipgang1629]

because oppressing/objectifying women makes these men feel powerful. It was never about the actual boobies

[u/JustLoSd → u/Traditional_Half842]

The executions going to be broadcast on one of the network channels? Source?

[u/mdlt97 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

It’s not at all a problem unless you’re a puritanical nut

[u/t001_t1m3 → u/mdlt97]

We are all puritanical nuts for not wanting boner pills advertised to 9-year-olds I guess

[u/Hacym → u/mdlt97]

I dunno man, maybe we’ve gone too far when a woman is holding footballs to cover up her crotch and nude breasts saying “you can bet on these sports” suggesting something about her body. 

I don’t think you have to be a “puritanical nut” to not want that shoved down the throats of your children every commercial break when you’re just trying to enjoy a baseball game. 

[u/ElephantCares → u/Hacym]

Not to mention how it teaches them to objectify women. This kind of objectification is not only a horrid example of how to teach children to think of women's worth in society, it is also grossly, abhorrently offensive to female fans, of which there are plenty.

All of these men defending this ad, do they give a shit about how their wives, mothers, sisters feel about it? Or how their wives feel about how she wants to raise her sons to respect women, and her daughters to respect themselves?

[u/Hacym → u/ElephantCares]

Apparently is ok to objectify women if you’re making tons of money off sports betting. 

[u/lilacsmakemesneeze → u/Hacym]

Agreed. These games are on at 5p pst here. Kids are up and want to watch them.

[u/lekniz → u/mdlt97]

It's a problem when I want to watch the playoffs during a slow night at work and have to worry about someone seeing an ad and calling HR on me

[u/mdlt97 → u/lekniz]

That’s your problem, not a problem

[u/thenatural134 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

I remember being a kid seeing Janet Jackson's boob live during the Super Bowl. Stuff like that has always been an issue and I have zero confidence anything will ever be done about it.

[u/SirBiggusDikkus → u/AerieElectrical3546]

You would have died of vapors watching beer commercials of the 80’s and 90’s.

[u/Heathcliff_Slocumb → u/AerieElectrical3546]

This is probably the lamest take I've ever heard. No wonder your puritan ass is spouting it.

[u/Traditional_Half842 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

How is this ad different from ESPN The Body Issue? Or is that sexual as well?

[u/Friendly_Curmudgeon → u/Traditional_Half842]

"ESPN the body issue" is something that you intentionally purchase. These ads are just something you're automatically subjected to as a condition of watching a baseball game. Or in my case, something I have to decide whether to expose my young children to while watching a baseball game.

That, and there's a difference between the human form as a celebration of athleticism and the human form as a tool for selling boner pills/gambling.

[u/SoftballGuy → u/Traditional_Half842]

OF COURSE IT IS.

Showing off hot naked athletic bodies is sexy, and nobody pretends otherwise.

[u/Traditional_Half842 → u/SoftballGuy]

Okay then why is this ad bad but not cheerleaders, Go Daddy/Carl's Jr ads, etc.? This isn't the first ad to use sex or a half naked woman (on a big broadcast) to promote a product. This stuff has been regular since the 80s.

[u/SoftballGuy → u/Traditional_Half842]

Can you not tell the difference in degrees? Not all bare skin is the same, and it's silly to pretend otherwise. The Sweeney is far more suggestive than anything else on television, and that's really saying something these days.

And for what it's worth, cheerleaders have been sexualized since forever, and nobody pretends otherwise. Go Daddy and Carl's Jr. ads were criticized for being overtly sexual. This ad is far more explicit than any of those.

[u/UniqueEditor8372 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

Nothing makes me feel more American than baseball and clutching my pearls at nudity 

[u/torper10 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

Change the channel during ads or actually parent your kids during them. Hide n seek, peek a boo. Millions of options. Problem solved.

Oh yeah, also stop trying to censor absolutely everything.

[u/Shock_city → u/torper10]

there's like 20 commercial breaks a game. The notion parents should be hovering over the remote every five minutes so naked women can crawl around on their hands and knees during daytime family friendly programming is absurd. Parenting isn't the issue here, society sexualizing every aspect of life in front of kids because it's profitable seems like the problem.

[u/Key_Environment8179 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

Exactly

> Alex Call doesn't like watching what he called 'soft porn ads' with his young son.

[u/ZealousidealBug729 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

I feel like thats a reasonable complaint as well lol

[u/Three_Froggy_Problem → u/ZealousidealBug729]

It’s just not anything new in advertising; “sex sells” has been the philosophy forever. I also don’t think that seeing a woman’s body is going to be damaging to the average child—certainly not as much as being introduced to gambling at a young age.

[u/jooooooooooooose → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

The gambling part is very abstracted in that ad, if u dont know its gambling I dont think youre meaningfully learning that from the ad alone. Especially as a 10 year old

I am pro nuking all gambling ads BTW. Just dont think that one is nearly as bad as the football one with Lebron, Eli Manning, and all those other famous guys

[u/jdbolick → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

It’s just not anything new in advertising; “sex sells” has been the philosophy forever.

This is deeply disingenuous given that this ad showing that much skin would have never been allowed twenty years ago. Yes, sexuality has been used in advertising forever, but what we're seeing now is far more overt.

I also don’t think that seeing a woman’s body is going to be damaging to the average child—certainly not as much as being introduced to gambling at a young age.

Young girls are viewing OnlyFans as a reasonable life choice. That's a terrible thing for our society.

[u/Wise-Peanut9552 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

No one is being introduced to gambling through the ads though.  Watch a manning tackle a guy through a wall or watch weird people hold a sandwich.  Even the "woo! my parley hit" commercials show nothing about what gambling actually is. On the other hand a nearly naked women is a lot closer to showing what sex is.

[u/mstrbwl → u/Wise-Peanut9552]

People are absolutely being introduced to gambling through the ads. "Use this code to get $100 in free bets when you sign up!"

[u/Wise-Peanut9552 → u/mstrbwl]

Really? I've never had my kid ask me what a prediction market is after watching a Kalashi commercial. Or how a parley works. You might be incentivsed to download their app to earn money but nothing they show even gives a hint on what a bet is.

[u/mstrbwl → u/Wise-Peanut9552]

Yeah I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that these sports books aren't paying for these ads just for the sake of it, but to introduce as many people as possible to their product.

[u/oooriole09 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

I know folks try to separate that commercial’s issue into one bucket or the other but we’re kinda missing the point that it’s simultaneously both.

[u/AegisPlays314 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

The false equivalence between female empowerment to express themselves and misogynistic objectification of women to sell things to people has to stop

[u/ted_cruzs_micr0pen15 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

Call can’t say he doesn’t approve of gambling, it’s a league sponsor and he’d get a fine.

[u/PaintDrinkingPete → u/ted_cruzs_micr0pen15]

He can't say he doesn't approve of gambling, but also is prohibited from gambling (on baseball at the very least) or he'd get a lifetime ban.

[u/CommodoreSixty4 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

Tits are way less detrimental to this generation of young men than gambling is.

[u/PuckNutty → u/CommodoreSixty4]

Tits are being weaponized to get young men to gamble.

[u/K20BB5 → u/CommodoreSixty4]

Fentanyl is worse than gambling, should we stop talking about gambling?

[u/a_large_plant → u/K20BB5]

Easy solution, replace all gambling ads with fent ads

[u/grickygrimez → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

Call sucks and is homophobic. Even us Dodger fans aren't too keen on him.

[u/Bearded_Pip → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

Very Shane Gillis of him.

[u/jlrc2 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

TBH, in some cases the fact that an ad is for a gambling company is not even that obvious especially if you assume the audience isn't paying much attention. Nude woman is harder to miss. But yes in both cases I wouldn't love having a young kid being totally inundated with either/both.

[u/Vulpes_Artifex → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

I don't care if she was naked, the betting part is far more offensive.

[u/Bjd1207 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

Correct, iirc he has sat out pride uniform days before. His opinion here is from the same pearl-clutching

[u/SandmanTX131 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

This is such a reddit take.

Little kids can't really process the content of a gambling ad. Is it appropriate for them? Probably not, but it's also not super harmful. All they see is Kevin Hart talking on screen about getting your picks in or something, or Jon Hamm talking about setting up a parlay. I don't like it but it's not like you have to change the channel.

Meanwhile, the ads for horror movies and with sexual content CAN and ARE processed by kids. If you're trying to shield your children from soft-core porn, the Sydney Sweeney ad is a no go REGARDLESS of what she is advertising. And likewise, little kids who see the horror movie ads don't understand anything other than that it is scary and it upsets them, because that's literally what it's supposed to do.

Can't we stop with this "the other side thinks its bad for a reason I don't agree with and I hate them" crap and just agree that it's bad?

[u/Three_Froggy_Problem → u/SandmanTX131]

I absolutely do not believe that a child will be forever damaged in some way by seeing a naked or semi-naked woman, unless that child’s parents go out of their way to draw a connection between nudity and shame.

If there’s someone in these comments whose life was ruined by seeing a pair of boobs too young, I’ll gladly hear them out.

[u/tyler-86 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

I don't mind my kids seeing a naked woman, but I think the idea that they're seeing it because somebody backed the money truck up to a famous woman to get her to take her clothes off to sell something isn't great.

[u/TormentedThoughtsToo → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

Kinda funny how many people have a problem with a woman’s body being sexual but all summer they celebrated “Tarps Off” and no one had a problem with grown men taking their shirts off in front of and around kids.

It’s a problem that men by default see the woman’s body as sexualized.

[u/pathway_18 → u/TormentedThoughtsToo]

I didn’t see Michael B. Jordan naked in the tarps off section with just some baseballs covering his junk

[u/TormentedThoughtsToo → u/pathway_18]

No, you just saw groups of men take off their shirts in public places because rules don’t apply to them and society has decided topless men isn’t sexual in the way women are. 

[u/pathway_18 → u/TormentedThoughtsToo]

Yeah fair enough. I agree with your point that women’s bodies are generally oversexualized against their will and that’s fucked up. I just don’t think the Sweeney ad is really an example of that issue.

[u/eken11 → u/TormentedThoughtsToo]

What are you talking about? Have you seen the ad?

[u/Mundane_Camera953 → u/Three_Froggy_Problem]

Horseshoe theory is right on everything